Talk:Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González

Article name
I think it should be Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González108.94.3.58 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , why the article move w/out prior discussion? In fact, the original name, Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González, is what the case is know under, e.g., . --bender235 (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is standard practice to title Wikipedia articles about court cases by their full official name as it appears in court records. Unless anyone objects, I will change it back again soon, and would ask for no future renaming without a discussion first.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it as a bold move and have no problem with a reversion.... I didn't see the blog cited and assumed that the formal legal name "Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González" (see e.g. the second ref of Bender) would be to long, and that a real common name would not exist; so I named it to the most descriptive name I could figure... But I will go with anything you guys think is best.... L.tak (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These things are not written in stone. L.tak's proposal seems sensible to me. User:ianmacm's less so, as it's not in fact the full title and the omission of "Google Inc." a considerable disservice to the reader. For what's it worth the full title is as I've edited it in the text (with some sources replacing the commas with "and"), the short title is likely to be Google v AEPD and it's already been cited as Costeja. RR 2014 (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to get the facts right: what is the source for the official short name User:Bender235 and user:ianmacm? The one given here is very unsatisfactory and the one given now I could only find in the blog... I have no problem to use it as it is the official one as you state though if one is available and if that is standard practice.... L.tak (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Linking to the original

 * Will google now block the listing of this wikipedia article, which documents a major court case which details the mans real estate history? Streisand effect.108.94.3.58 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Were this article to retain the link to the original newspaper notice - yes. At least for Google users in the EU. Collect (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would we need to remove the link? Have we done anything comparable, ever? For comparison, Streisand effect does include the image that caused the whole trouble. Why shouldn't this article not include a link to the González' legal notice? --bender235 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IOW, we might wish to thumb our nose at EU courts just to show we can.  We can do so, but the issue here is what actual benefit to our readers  is given by linking to the original article more than we give by simply  linking to the court decision. Collect (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim that search engines must not link to anything that links to the original newspaper notice is IMO strictly in the [dubious – discuss] category. I've seen nothing that says the court has ordered a Six degrees of separation game.  The original article is currently linked and this page currently turns up in search results for me.  If you search for the article title and don't find it, then perhaps you'll tell us that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a "benefit for our readers" if we point to the subject-matter. What kind of question is that? --bender235 (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC on linking to the newspaper article here
Is this article, about a court decision regarding Google in Europe and a "right to privacy" regarding a newspaper article, properly used not only to link to the court decision but also to the material which Google is not allowed to link to under European law? 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This Guardian article has a screenshot of the page in question. I can't see anything wrong with including this, as the world and his wife now know that this home was repossessed and auctioned in 1998.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I suggest linking to the court decision in an article specifically about the court decision is reasonable, but linking to material which would not normally be used in a BLP (other than the court decision, the person is not notable whatsoever, and invocation of the Streisand Effect in order to justify Wikipedia linking to it is improper. is not of sufficient value in an article about a court decision.   If the person is not notable other than for the court case being decided, the material which would not be allowed under WP:BLP is still not allowed under WP:BLP, IMO.  Collect (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think a link to the article in La Vanguardia would cause any harm in a properly written article. The problem with Google was that this information was devoid of context, in particular because it didn't clarify that the debt had been since resolved; when Googling for someone, that kind of innacurate or outdated information can indeed create an undeserved bad impression. In that sense, the current version of the article is as bad as the link, as it provides the same information in words ("legal notices dating to 1998 published in the online version of La Vanguardia that detailed his debts and the forced sale of his property."), again without context. (I've since corrected it to reflect the reason why the European Court ruled in favor of Costeja, namely that the debt had already been paid). An accurate description of the article, in the proper context, shouldn't cause such harm, and I think it's adequate for inclusion to ilustrate the nature of the information that prompted the ruling. BTW, the article should center on providing a Neutral Point of View by expanding on the reasons behind the ruling, putting in proper context (or avoiding entirely) the sensationalist articles that appeared in the media about rapists and pedophiles, and providing background on the European laws on protection of personal information. Diego (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Reaction from Jimbo Wales
BBC article  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth adding to "Commentary" (forthcoming)? I'm not disposed to myself, although I think his remarks are substantially correct (concerning the balance of rights), and accurately reflect EU/US divide on the issue. Worth adding, I think, that this ruling is not primarily about the right to be forgotten mooted in the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation, but on the technical issue of whether an internet search engine provider such as Google established in the EU must be considered a data controller in the sense of the Data Protection Directive. RR 2014 (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Case in Oxford
This case reported by the Oxford Mail is one of the first confirmed cases where removal has occurred. This screenshot shows why it may not be such a good idea to try this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are properly places where ways of improving an article are discussed. I can't see that your edit here accomplishes anything of the sort. RR 2014 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was deemed notable by BBC News.. However, it would fail WP:BLPNAME if added to the article. People will now come across this in coverage of the ECJ ruling.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It has no place here. RR 2014 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re this edit: This was not added to soapbox, so please asssume good faith. The BBC is a reliable source and had no problems with this news story; similar coverage has appeared in other sources. It is unclear what "sic faciunt" means in the edit summary. I'm not interested in the case in Oxford, and would have yawned my head off over it had it not been for the attempt to hide it. The same goes for the other cases mentioned in the BBC article. The reason why this link was added is that it refers to the possibility of the Streisand effect occurring. This should be an obvious possibility to anyone who attempts to hide material in this way, as the material itself is never removed. Streisand effect is mentioned as one of the see alsos, and this should not be removed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never tried to remove the "Streisand effect" from See Also. My intervention there, as I recall, was to make it clear that two cases cited were US case law and to remove an irrelevant link to a Italian wiretapping case.


 * I have no idea why a group of editors are obsessing about the Streisand effect. It seems to be entirely irrelevant to the case here. Of course Costeja understands that the effect of his suit is to bring him further into the public eye, but in general applying to Google for a take-down should not do so unless Google persists in notifying the original publishers the details of such take-down notices, and for that matter if Wikipedia editors continues to publish details of these take-downs as you for example appear intent. In regard of the first, the EU Commissioners have made it clear to Google that they frown upon their actions, while Mr. Wales himself has commented that he finds the second POINT-y and cruel.


 * Regarding Google's behavior I think it inevitable that they will face a legal process if they do not desist. It is after all, prima facie, the plainest possible contempt of court: Costeja is predicated on the right of citizens of the European Union (and associated territories) to a private life. Regarding attempts by Wikipedia editors to "name and shame", in the first place this depends on Google persisting in actions on the face of it illegal. I think inevitably naming and shaming in this manner will likewise eventually result in an intervention by the WMF. But I would say it's quite misconceived in any case because, in general, in the nature of the Costeja decision, which is about balancing private and public interests, successful applicants for take-down notices will be private individuals not in the public eys and therefore not notable, or at best merely on the single issue of being a successful applicant (and there are likely to be tens of thousand of successful applicants annually), and thus not usually eligible for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, any such inclusion plainly a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy.


 * I hope you will agree I taken the trouble to explain the situation more fully to you. Something constructive you could perhaps do here would be to change the name of this article to its full form (including "Google Inc.") As mentioned above your original change of name is a disservice to readers. It is not just about Google Spain. RR 2014 (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the things that the article currently lacks is a section looking at how the ruling is being implemented. Baroness Prashar said "We think there is a very strong argument that, in the new regulation, search engines should not be classed as data controllers, and therefore not liable as 'owners' of the information they are linking to. We also do not believe that individuals should have a right to have links to accurate and lawfully available information about them removed, simply because they do not like what is said." Google's policy of saying that some results may have been removed is controversial and may be challenged at a future date. It is, however, consistent with Google's policy on this issue, eg for DMCA complaints or this incident involving a complaint about Encyclopedia Dramatica. It is also important to remember that this applies to all European search engines, not just Google. The media has indirectly fallen into this trap because Google is the best known search engine, with around 90% market share in Europe. It also appears that the other search engines do not necessarily say if they have removed results under this ruling. Another eye-catching news story is here by Tom Cheshire on Sky News. This shows how he succeeded in getting a link removed for a reason that even he admits was without merit under the terms of the ruling. Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation have also been strongly critical of the ruling, but it is best to avoid stressing this here to avoid WP:NPOV issues. I don't see the WMF's 6 August press release as "naming and shaming", particularly when there is no obvious reason why Gerry Hutch has been removed from search engine results and nobody can figure out why; the evidence currently does not suggest that Hutch did this, but somebody wanted the article tipped down a memory hole for reasons that are unclear.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the Significance section refers to Google's take-down form. You're at liberty to fork that into a new section and build on it. Regarding anglophonic response to this ruling, there is the first place a clear divide between the US and the EU on the right to erasure. And then UK response is compounded by its political problems with eurosceptism and the rise of UKIP. It's not so cool in the UK right now to champion EU law. But I think it would be wrong in general to suppose that the ruling is unpopular within the EU. When I was editing here I took special care to include some negative criticism, hitting finally on the material I quoted from Matrix Chambers (associated with ex-prime minister's Tony Blair's barrister wife Cherie Blair and, so I imagine, by extension to Mr. Wales and his circle in respect of his own recent marriage), material I thought especially clear-sighted and cogent. Baroness Prashar's views don't strike me as especially notable, but naturally you are at liberties to note them, my only concern being weight. A reaction from say France or Germany may be more appropriate. Finally there is support for the ruling from some notable MPs in the UK - David Davis for example, a noted eurosceptic, is on public record as supporting it.


 * I don't feel the need to add to the article presently. I hope to expand  Lindqvist significantly over the next few weeks as I can find time. RR 2014 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I added an Implementation section, following the publication of the relevant reports. C1cada (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation style
(and others editing here): I propose to make a significant expansion to the article. Does anyone mind if I change the citation style to Parenthetical referencing at the same time? My model would be the start I made at P v S and Cornwall County Council? Unless I see advice to the contrary, I shall proceed in a few days time. I can undertake to make the necessary adjustments throughout. c1cada (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be a great fan of this if it made the article too long. As a general rule, citations should be explored by the reader by clicking on the appropriate link.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It won't make the article any longer. As for clicking on the appropriate link the whole point of parenthetical referencing is that it enables just that, whereas the ordinary inline citation doesn't unless it happens to include a URL link (which can be provided in the loc parameter of a harv citation in parenthetical referencing). Parenthetical referencing refers to thousands of Wikipedia articles which use this style, giving as examples Actuary and Irish phonology amongst featured articles (and I can add Holocaust which first brought it to my attention). So I can't see your "general rule" has any effect or weight. Finally the article is on the contrary rather short and incomplete, presently only graded a 'C' on the European Union Wikiproject quality scale and merely a 'start' on the Law Wikiproject. It certainly needs to be less Anglocentric (and within that, US-centric), it should be set in the context of European privacy law rather than the outdated "right to be forgotten" context, the discussions of the Advocate General's opinion and the Judgment made less reliant on primary sources, and the Commentary section considerably expanded to take account of the academic literature with less emphasis on the popular press. These are matters I intend to address, and unless I can see weighty reason not to I should like to implement a more scholarly citation style. c1cada (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wouldn't object to this, although my preference is to have the citations next to the text in question.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

whoops, we may have been talking at cross purposes, my fault. What I should have quoted was Harvard style WP:CITESHORT (avoid saying that too fast ...) I didn't actually mean adding the citation as a parenthesis in brackets in the text. What I'll do when I start (assuming I see no objections) is reformat the Advocate General and Judgment sections with all their intrusive page reference templates so editors can get an idea of what is proposed. Sorry if I misled you. Aplogies. c1cada (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What I've done so far is implement the citation style for the Brittany Wolf paper cited in the last sentence of the lede, citation no 7 in the present version. Clicking on that brings up citation with a clickable link to the source as well as a clickable link to the relevant pages on-line. I would appreciate it if concerned editors indicate any misgivings here soon before I spend too much time reformatting the other citations in the article in the same way. c1cada (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Article name
I've created redirects for the official name "Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González" and for "Costeja". The existing article name is terrible as it finesses the view that the ruling has only national applicability. An administrator might like to intervene here. I gather copy-paste efforts at correcting are not an option for reasons to do with recording the edit history. c1cada (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)