I looked for some confirmation, back and forth, between links, between words, between documents /// searching for content lost to the variables of validity and authenticity exposing a reorientation to the permutations of trust, a confidence eroded …  justice in Luxembourg? …  those who search vs those who disappear / past events… right and wrong… / hidden // a ruling, a decision … a right to be forgotten …. where had they gone? privacy? rights to knowledge? democratised content? trust? a search engine? validation? identity? .. the digital present forgets nothing and leaves everything behind ... traditions fade, vulnerable to the fragility of re-industrialisation… to the bending of reality, the corruption of our senses … of being forgotten, wiped away by aggregation / amassed in the clouds, reduced to an expression …


Google’s advisory council held its seven public consultations between 9 September and 4 November 2014, inviting regulators, publishers and academics to discuss the outcome of the recent “right to be forgotten ruling” made by the European Court of Justice.

I have collected here the series of articles that, as one of the members of the Council, I wrote for The Guardian documenting the trip.

  1. Google ethics adviser: The law needs bold ideas to address the digital age The profound challenges of our new ‘onlife’ existence in the digitised world call for bold solutions, argues prof Luciano Floridi, who is now advising Google on the ethics of information
    Luciano Floridi, Wednesday 4 June 2014
  2. Google’s privacy ethics tour of Europe: a complex balancing act Our technologies and their ability to undo may have formed our expectations about how much it is actually reversible in real life 
    Luciano Floridi, Tuesday 16 September 2014
  3. Google ethics tour: should readers be told a link has been removed? Meeting in Paris, the third public consultation of Google’s advisory council discussed search engines should notify users when information is de-linked 
    Luciano Floridi, Monday 29 September 2014
  4. The right to be forgotten – the road ahead If we are serious about enabling individuals to have more and better control of their personal information online, we need to rethink online space in new, conceptual ways 
    Luciano Floridi, Wednesday 8 October 2014
  5. Right to be forgotten: who may exercise power, over which kind of information? Publishers should be the first to be consulted, not search engines, and their evaluation should matter 
    Luciano Floridi, Tuesday 21 October 2014
  6. Right to be forgotten poses more questions than answers Google’s advisory council held its final meeting last week on the European court of justice’s privacy ruling. One of the council members gives his thoughts on the issues raised 

Luciano Floridi, Tuesday 11 November 2014

Retrieved from :

Photograph: Cabalar/EPA

Photograph: Cabalar/EPA



The following is a guest post by Scott D. Goss, Senior Privacy Counsel, Qualcomm Incorporated, addressing the recent “Right to be Forgotten” decision by the European Court of Justice.

There has been quite a bit of discussion surrounding the European Court of Justice’s judgment in Google Spain LS, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja Gonzalez.  In particular, some interesting perspectives have been shared by Daniel SoloveAnn Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf, and Martin Husovec.  The ruling has been so controversial, newly appointed EU Justice Commissioner, Martine Reicherts delivered a speech defending it.  I’d like to add to the discussion.[1]  Rather than focusing on the decision’s policy implications or on the practicalities of implementing the Court’s ruling, I’d like to instead offer thoughts on a few points of data protection law.

To start, I don’t think “right to be forgotten” is an apt description of the decision, and instead distorts the discussion.  Even if Google were to follow the Court’s ruling to the letter, the information doesn’t cease to exist on the Internet.  Rather, the implementation of the Court’s ruling just makes internet content linked to peoples’ names harder to find.  The ruling, therefore, could be thought of as, “the right to hide”.  Alternatively, the decision could be described as, “the right to force search engines to inaccurately generate results.”  I recognize that such a description doesn’t roll off the tongue quite so simply, but I’ll explain why that description is appropriate below.

I believe the Court made a few important legal errors that should be of interest to all businesses that process personal data.  First was the Court’s determination that Google was a “controller” as defined under EU data protection law and second was the application of the information relevance question.    Then, I’ll explain why “the right to force search engines to inaccurately generate results” may be a more appropriate description of the Court’s ruling."

Continue reading here :

Posted by jjerome on September 4, 2014.