EU ECJ Rules on Search Engines as the Visually Impaired MSM Misreports

From de Veer Magazine
Jump to: navigation, search
EU ECJ Rules on Search Engines as the Visually Impaired MSM Misreports.jpg

By Ann-Marie de Veer
Saturday 24 May 2014

On Tuesday 13 May the European Union's (EU) Court of Justice (ECJ) published its ruling on Case C-131/12 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants in a judgement woefully misreported by the MSM.

The judgement, handed down by the ECJ in a case brought by the Spanish Data Protection Agency on behalf of their client Mario Costeja González against the defendants Google Spain SL and Google Inc ordered that:

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(b) and (d), Article 4(1)(a) and (c), Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) and of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Google Spain SL (‘Google Spain’) and Google Inc. and, on the other, the Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (Spanish Data Protection Agency; ‘the AEPD’) and Mr Costeja González concerning a decision by the AEPD upholding the complaint lodged by Mr Costeja González against those two companies and ordering Google Inc. to adopt the measures necessary to withdraw personal data relating to Mr Costeja González from its index and to prevent access to the data in the future.

However, enter the neuropsychological abnormality in the splenium of the corpus callosum, aka. the selective visual perception impairment of the MSM who both misrepresented the judgement in the case and failed to report on its broader meaning. Both the UK's Independent and the US's AP focused on Google, skipped over the broader legal context and failed to disclose important caveats in the adjudication:

The Independent: Google must delete 'irrelevant' links at the request of ordinary individuals, rules top EU court The European Court of Justice struck a major blow against the right of internet companies to hold unlimited information on individuals when it ordered Google to remove links that are deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”. (13 May 2014)
AP: European court: Google must yield on personal info AMSTERDAM (AP) — Europe’s highest court Tuesday gave people the means to scrub their reputations online, issuing a landmark ruling that experts say could force Google and other search engines to delete references to old debts, long-ago arrests and other unflattering episodes. (13 May 2014)

There were others who also took a similar line, including the Guardian at first.

And then the tone of the MSM changed, seeking to fearmonger and intimidate the public by focusing on personal and family safety issues, as if the activities of the miscreants were about to be erased:

The Daily Telegraph: Politician, paedophile and GP claim 'right to be forgotten' An ex-politician seeking re-election, a man convicted of possessing child abuse images, and a GP who received negative reviews from patients have all asked Google to delete their internet histories, after the European Union’s top court ruled that data about individuals held by Google must be removed on request. (15 May 2014)
BBC News: Politician and paedophile ask Google to 'be forgotten' An ex-politician seeking re-election has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has requested links to pages about his conviction to be wiped. And a doctor wants negative reviews from patients removed from the results. (15 May 2014)

Clearly the majority of the MSM, on behalf of their respective regime and corporate masters, have misreported the ECJ judgement in an attempt at re-establishing the status quo with regard to the illegal activities of GCHQ, NSA and other ECHELON and non-ECHELON partners. The only glimmer of hope in the MSM, albeit over a week after the hacks had pronounced on the issue, was an almost diametrically opposed view from academia:

The Guardian: But there is another perspective. A growing number of academics have expressed a more profound and inspiring observation – a recognition that this ruling could eventually lead to the updating of an outmoded legal framework and help make the internet more harmonious than it is today.

If anyone was looking for a clear and concise report on the judgement and it wider implications, they were left wanting.

Thus, with brevity and clarity in mind:

The ECJ judgement found on behalf of the plaintiff and ruled accordingly. More importantly, it clarified the broader legal context of the ruling in its press release by using the terms:

operator of a search engine

meaning all operators of search engines, i.e. BaiDu, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Google, Startpage, Yahoo, Yandex, et. al. who:

collect data within the meaning of the (EU) directive ... and that within the framework of its indexing programmes, 'retrieves’, ‘records’ and ‘organises’ the data in question which it then ‘stores’ on its servers and, as the case may be, ‘discloses’ and ‘makes available’ to its users in the form of lists of results.

and on the issue of important legal caveats to prevent misuse or abuse of the ruling:

However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, the Court holds that a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data. The Court observes in this regard that, whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, this balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.

And there you have it, as imperfect as any ruling or law since time immemorial. Nonetheless, at least it seeks to address the imbalance created by technological advancement, greedy corporatists and the overly zealous behaviour of the intelligence services.

Clearly the MSM, already saddled with Cognitive Dissonance and now a visual impairment, is in its final death throes as an independent arbiter of the truth.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived, and dishonest — but the myth: persistent, persuasive and realistic.
John F. Kennedy