> That passes any reasonable grounds for denying an RTBF request.
That passes your definition of reasonable grounds.
The problem is that there doesn't exist an established "reasonable grounds" in this area, period. There is no legal test as to what is "reasonable." It's left up to the likes of Google to decide what records society keeps on who. And that's absolutely flabberghasting.
Within a month of this "right" being instated, evil people were already using it to cover their tracks, and that's a Fact that cannot be ignored.
>Within a month of this "right" being instated, evil people were already using it to cover their tracks, and that's a Fact that cannot be ignored.
Perhaps it cannot be ignored, but what should we do with that fact?
The problem with the line of reasoning is that, if left unqualified, it can be carried as far as justification for totalitarianism.
So, perhaps until a reasonable standard can be established, I wonder if ignoring that fact is our least bad option. If evil people continue to take advantage, then perhaps that would provide the incentive to quickly get us to court-testing, precedent, and the establishment of a standard. And it may be the only approach that errs on the side of rights preservation in general.
Google does not have to make a final decision but may decide on request. It can also pass that decision on to the court. For individuals with limited resources, a request to a search engine is more reasonable than having to litigate every instance. There is no sanction on the search engine for passing on the decision.
Max Huijgen's description from the links above:
A case-by-case assessment is needed considering the type of information in question, its sensitivity for the individual’s private life and the interest of the public in having access to that information.
Or if you prefer the EU court's own fact sheet:
"On the “Right to be Forgotten” : Individuals have the right - under certain conditions - to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. This applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing (para 93 of the ruling). The court found that in this particular case the interference with a person’s right to data protection could not be justified merely by the economic interest of the search engine. At the same time, the Court explicitly clarified that the right to be forgotten is not absolute but will always need to be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression and of the media (para 85 of the ruling). A case-by-case assessment is needed considering the type of information in question, its sensitivity for the individual’s private life and the interest of the public in having access to that information. The role the person requesting the deletion plays in public life might also be relevant."
Yes, people were attempting to use the ruling beyond its scope. Google's Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond said: "We think it went too far, and didn't consider adequately the impact on free expression, which is absolutely a human right."
"Only two months in our process is still very much a work in progress. It’s why we incorrectly removed links to some articles last week (they’ve since been reinstated). But the good news is that the ongoing, active debate that’s happening will inform the development of our principles, policies and practices – in particular about how to balance one person’s right to privacy with another’s right to know."
That passes your definition of reasonable grounds.
The problem is that there doesn't exist an established "reasonable grounds" in this area, period. There is no legal test as to what is "reasonable." It's left up to the likes of Google to decide what records society keeps on who. And that's absolutely flabberghasting.
Within a month of this "right" being instated, evil people were already using it to cover their tracks, and that's a Fact that cannot be ignored.