Online privacy: EU calls for the 'right to be forgotten' on internet

Scofflaw

The EU Commission has called for social network sites to properly implement deletion of user data, after complaints that Facebook and other sites retained 'deleted' user information:

THE European Commission has proposed a legal "right to be forgotten" allowing internet users to ensure that shameful pictures or other embarrassing online content is deleted from Facebook or other social networking websites.

EU data protection rules are to be updated to take into account the growing popularity of networking sites, where people share photographs or personal details that can come back to haunt them in later life or if they become widely distributed on the internet.

There are growing fears about the negative influence of social networking sites on people's careers, social and private lives after widely available personal information has led to failed job interviews, divorces and public disgrace.

The commission has received complaints about Facebook's privacy policy, after users found that profiles and photographs did not disappear for good when deleted.

Europe's rights commissioner Viviane Reding said the world of data protection had been transformed by popular new technologies in the 15 years since data protection legislation was last amended.

Source

I can't see any reason to oppose such a move at first sight - it seems entirely within the bounds of personal privacy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

28064212

Problem: someone else can copy the publically available information from a Facebook page, and store it somewhere else. Facebook doesn't have control of it anymore, and the copier hasn't done anything wrong. For example, the "Wayback Machine", which essentially archives everything that has ever existed on the internet. You get Facebook to delete the information, you have to go after them too. And Boards, if any poster copied the information and posted it there. And every other site that may have copied it. Once the information is out there, getting it back is virtually impossible.

Really, it's up to users to realise that what they post online is equivalent to publishing it in a newspaper that will be archived forever and is easily accessible.

Essexboy

Now if they would protect our privacy from State snooping . . .
eg THE GARDA made more requests for phone-call traffic data in 2008 than police in Germany, which has 20 times the population of the Republic.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/category/data-retention/

Einhard

Essexboy wrote: »

Now if they would protect our privacy from State snooping . . .
eg THE GARDA made more requests for phone-call traffic data in 2008 than police in Germany, which has 20 times the population of the Republic.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/category/data-retention/

Might have something to do with the fact that dissident Republicans are not as active in Dresden as they are in Dundalk...

RUCKING FETARD

Update on this,

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/us-government-and-internet-giants-battle-eu-over-data-privacy-proposal-a-861773.html

What particularly upsets these lobbyists is the plan to categorically ban all data processing by authorities or companies anywhere in Europe unless the citizens, clients or users in question have granted their explicit approval.

The Commission wants to strengthen the obligation to use so-called opt-ins, by which the user actively grants consent with the click of a mouse. A fine-print note acknowledging the client's right to withhold approval would no longer suffice. Companies fear this would result in a considerable drop in many services' user numbers. It would also make personalized advertising, an area in which many providers expect to see the largest growth in sales, considerably more difficult.

Last week in Brussels, the American delegation and the European Commission failed to make any progress toward reconciling their clashing viewpoints. This week, the debate will shift to Berlin, where Friedrich's Interior Ministry is hosting a conference entitled "Data Protection in the 21st Century." The two-day conference beginning Wednesday appears to be a home game for Reding's critics, as one of the event's hosts is the Berlin-based Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, an organization that Google helped co-found last year.

ArtSmart

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EU Commission has called for social network sites to properly implement deletion of user data, after complaints that Facebook and other sites retained 'deleted' user information:



Source

I can't see any reason to oppose such a move at first sight - it seems entirely within the bounds of personal privacy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

didnt we (Ireland)lead an investigation that particular Ireland based MNC?


reasons? upsetting a huge MNC.

endacl

Actually, this one is quite interesting to me, as I'll be deleting my sillybook account fairly soon. Just waiting to share alternative contact info with some people I've reconnected with online. Sooo....

...how to completely delete every trace of me from Facebook. Funny suggestions welcome. Serious ones appreciated.

freeze4real

Is Facebook not bound under corporate social responsibility to have the welfare of its users the 1st priority over anything else.

Squeaky the Squirrel

EU data law draft uses language—word-for-word—from US, EU corporations

Site set up to compare Lobbyist Proposals and Commitee Member Amendments and look for comparisons, finds word for word amendments.

Limiting Independence of "Data Protection Officers"

The "Data Protection Officer" should be a form of internal control and replaces external (government) control that currently exists in some member states. If the "DPO" can be fired at any time there is little chance that he will enforce the law against the management. It is usual that such functions (e.g. representation of employees) are protected from dismissal. This amendment removed this protection for the "DPO".

Eliminination of "Data Protection Officer"

The "Data Protection Officer" should be a form of internal control and replaces external (government) control that currently exists in some member states. According to this amendment a "DPO" should be optional, not mandatory: "Should" instead of "shall" - just one word that removes a whole control system.

No more "Data Minimization"

The wording is originally from the current law, but what is "excessive"? Is 1 Gigabyte of data for the purpose of targeted advertising "excessive"? ...are 10, 50 or 100 Megabyte "excessive"? The new definition originally proposed by the European Commission "limited to the minimum necessary" makes more sense by essentially saying every "bit" that is not necessary must be deleted.