“News, just like in the US. They cannot report the names, photographs of ordinary people without their consent, there has to be a specific reason for doing that.”

That’s not the law in the US.

Maybe I wasn’t expressing myself clearly, I was referring to what the newspapers reported on.

That’s what’s so nonsensical about this whole thing.

In the context of “letting sleeping dogs lie” it actually makes sense. In so far that you can still find the information if you do a thorough search, just like you could in the days before the internet. All the ruling does, is help ensure that information – relateted to ordinary citizens – which must be considered outdated is more difficult to find. Google, and similar search engines, has rocked that boat. Consequently the court has tried to return matters to a more natural state.

This is not true. There is strong privacy protection for certain types of data.

I beg to differ, on two grounds, only one of which is relevant to this discussion:

1 [the relevant one])
The equivalent to the US bill of rights grants privacy in the EU, there is no part of the US constitution that protects privacy. Hence my example with the EUCJ having to balance article 8 and 11. Whereas in the US, privacy will always loose to the 1st amendment.

2) [the irrelevant one])
The US privacy laws are inadequate, in fact so inadequate that EU companies and government organizations are forbidden to ship personal data to the US, except under certain specific circumstances.

E.g. In the US, there is no requirement for a court order, in order to gain acceess to any email which has been stored on a mail server for more than six months.

In the US companies may freely trades and distribute any data you have given them. E.g. Facebook. In the EU this data remains my property. I can at anytime request the Facebook deletes my data, and Facebook is not allowed to sell my data to anybody.

Let me try to explain it this way.

Under article 11, the newspaper has a right to make information available which is a matter of public record, even if that information constitutes private information. (If it is on public record, then it isn’t private)

If somebody compiles information – and makes that information publicly available – on a private citizen, then that person has an obligation to make sure that the information is relevant and pertinent.

In Europe there is a long standing tradition of forgetting past transgressions once they must be considered “water under the bridge”. This could be a criminal record, or anything of that nature.

E.g. if I’m convicted of a crime, I will be informed when that information will be stricken from my record. Once that period of time has expired, I am within my rights to expect that information to be stricken from my record.

The ruling simply states that Google must adhere to that tradition when operating in the EU. When in Rome do as the Romans.

In the specific case of the ruling, a man – many years ago – experienced a foreclosure on his home. He expected that this record would be stricken from public scrutiny after some period of time, as is the tradition in Europe.

Google refused to accept that European culture and law was different to the American culture and law, and that said European traditions and law was pertinent to its operations within the EU.

So how does that make it right to punish unrelated third parties?

They aren’t punished. No fine had been levied. They have simply been informed what the law of the land says.

Of course, if they insist on not following the law, then fines may be levied.

It is not the EU’s responsibility to make Google’s business model work. Especially not when that business model depends on violating my rights to privacy.