The Rights Of The Google Spain And Google Case

In my opinion, I believe such law should be diminished. If this continues, a criminal, a doctor, a pharmacist, an engineer or a politician can remove their earlier misdeeds from the search engines. People would not be able to access their background and might take some wrong decisions. Individuals can get away from their earlier malicious deeds just due to this law of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ that hides such individual’s information from the common people. This goes against the right to get access to information or freedom of information for common people. For example, if a doctor has some negative record about a surgery that went wrong leading to a patient’s death and he removes such information from the search engine, people cannot take the right decision whether to choose the doctor. Again, people might end up voting a politician who has corruption cases against him. If there is review about a restaurant serving unhealthy food,

Information Commissioner’s Office (2012) Introduction to The Data Protection Act 1998. [Online] Available from: http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/ico_presentation_EVOC_20120528.ashx [Accessed: 11th October 2013]

The Data Protection Act protects the privacy and integrity of data held on individuals by businesses and other organizations. The act ensures that individuals (customers and employees) have access to their data and can correct it, if necessary. It is enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which has responsibility for overseeing the Freedom of Information Act and the regulation of interception of communications under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

A new privacy right, announced by Viviane Reding, represents a great threat to the Internet's free speech. Facebook and Google, for example, could lose up to two percent of their income for failing to remove the pictures that people don't want to be posted anymore. Since the right is not precisely defined, the great conflict between European and American understandings of the new privacy right could occur, leading to a less open Internet. But Viviane Reding, announcing a new privacy right, downplayed it's effects on free speech; she said that "the right to be forgotten is not the right of the total erasure of history", but it's erasure of only "personal data [people] have given out themselves." But regulations proposed three days later turned up regarded not only personal data that people "have given out themselves", but also erasure of any other information that related to a personal data. The chief privacy counsel of Google, Peter Fleischer, notices that there are three categories in the right to be forgotten which are threatening a free speech. The first category reads: "If I post something online, do I have the right to delete it again?" The second category reads: "If I post something, and someone else copies it

These privacy laws deal with different legal concepts, which are made to protect and preserve the rights of mankind. As a matter of fact they regulate as well the type of information that can be collected, whether it can be used or not and the means and procedures for its storage.

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews privacy legislation in the EU and U.S., Section 3 presents the comparative analysis between EU and U.S. privacy laws and Section 4 draws some conclusions and provides recommendations to managers and website designers.

According to the Senate Committee set up in 1979, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act of 1982 was an important law for several functions. It was aimed at enabling individuals to access their personal information held by the government and confirm the accuracy of such information. Individuals also have the opportunity to correct information held about them. Therefore, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 empowers individuals to control to a certain extent the personal information held about them by government agencies.

Lord Justice Glidewell said,” It is well known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a person's privacy. The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision can be made to protect the privacy of individuals’’ . This shows the English Common Law has no tort of privacy; the reason being is it has limited protection in the doctrine of breach of confidence.

Common law makes provision for a confidential relationship and the duty of confidence. The Data Act 1998 and Human Rights Act 1998 have introduced enforceable rights for service users about how the information they provide is used. The Data Protection Act has restrictions on storing personal data in all formats, written and electronic. The Human Rights Act 1998 emphasises respect for privacy life and strengthens the hand of those advocating increased privacy for the individual. Due to these Acts and the duty of confidentiality there is a potential conflict between protecting the privacy and confidentiality of individuals and protecting the public, and a duty of care to the service

The initial consequences of international legal disparities between the U.S. and the EU in privacy protection took place when the EU enacted and enforced the 1995 EU

Google's monopoly does not come from coercion or anti-competitive practices. Instead, it is derived from offering a superior product. On the Internet, there is little barrier to entry so anyone can set up competition at little cost. Through Google's history, many well-capitalized companies have attempted to wrest market share away from it. The most aggressive and recent competitor was Microsoft's (MSFT) Bing. Even Google at one time was an upstart company that beat out billion dollar companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo (YHOO), which were dominant in Internet searches.

In light of these facts, the Abbott government’s plan to enforce mandatory data retention does not seem viable as its demerits outweigh its merits. Online privacy is a right which allows individuals to withhold their identity and information. With the advent of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, the extent of personal information being shared on the internet has increased to a great extent. This has made privacy an even greater

Governments have for centuries attempted to restrict the privacy of their citizens. For some time now this has also included efforts to regulate citizens’ communications data by means of collecting and storing information gathered by providers of communication services. These efforts are referred to as data retention measures and would grant law enforcement agencies unlimited access to this data (Clarke, 2014).

For example a tour operator which collects names and addresses of customers when they enter a competition cannot keep the data and use it for other promotional activities unless the customer gives permission. The tour operator is not allowed to sell the data to another organisation either. It was passed in order to protect the rights of individuals who have data relating to them stored on computers file by an organisation or the owner of the data. The rapid development in the use of information and communication technology has led to legislation about the collection, storage, processing and distribution of personal data. Under the provision of the act a person can find out the information which is held on him and her by: - referring to the Data Protection Register ( a copy held in all major libraries) which lists all holders of data - writing to the holder

The new GDPR updates and adds to the existing legislation, including in relation to the right to be forgotten. To begin, where Google was limited to the narrow circumstances concerning search engine results, the right under the new legislation ‘will be of significantly wider application, and will apply to all data controllers’ (Jay & Henderson 2016: 7). Moreover, the right has been strengthened in other areas, such as being exercisable on the basis of the withdrawal of consent, unlawfulness of the data processing, or where data is not necessary for the purpose for which it is held; ‘in these circumstances, the [right to be forgotten] is far stronger under the new regime as there is no balancing minimum and the [right] is absolute’ (2016: