海角大神

Google is not responsible for deleting data from its search index based on an individual鈥檚 or company鈥檚 鈥渟ubjective preference,鈥� according to an opinion released by the European Union Court鈥檚 Advocate General on Tuesday.

鈥淕oogle is not generally considered as a 鈥榗ontroller鈥� of the personal data appearing on web pages it processes,鈥� writes Niilo Jaaskinen, the EU Court鈥檚 Advocate General.

The opinion allows for search engines, like Google, to block access to third-party sites with illegal or libelous content in accordance with local law, but does not stipulate that Internet companies are bound to remove 鈥渓egitimate and legal information鈥� of a third party website, citing the third parties鈥� 鈥渇reedom of expression.鈥� 聽

This means that Google and other foreign Internet providers are still subject to national Internet regulation within the European Union. But since no law currently exists that gives individuals the 鈥渞ight to be forgotten鈥� 鈥� or have their digital records expunged, however unflattering those records might be 鈥撀燝oogle is not obliged to regulate the content that appears in its search results.

Erasing unsavory information on the basis of individual requests is a slippery slope, explains William Echilkson, Google鈥檚 Head of Free Expression for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. 鈥淧eople shouldn鈥檛 be prevented from learning that a politician was convicted of taking a bribe, or that a doctor was convicted of malpractice,鈥� Mr. Echilkson writes on Google鈥檚 Europe blog in a post made on Tuesday.

Google hailed the opinion as 鈥淎 step forward for free expression.鈥�

The opinion was released in regards to a case that dates back nearly 15 years, before "being googled鈥� became a common background check.

In 1998, Mario Costeja鈥檚 name appeared in the print edition of a widely-circulated Spanish newspaper concerning a real-estate auction, which was taking place to help repay Mr. Costeja鈥檚 social security debts. When the 1998 paper was made available online, Costeja鈥檚 real-estate ad was included in the edition, true to the paper鈥檚 original print version.

Costeja originally contacted the publisher in 2009 with a complaint that this old ad appeared when his name was searched on Google, and asked for the ad鈥檚 removal from the paper's online version. His request was rebuffed; the paper鈥檚 publisher said erasing this data was not appropriate. In less than a year, Costeja鈥檚 case had made it to Spain鈥檚 National High Court, which in turn referred the case to the EU鈥檚 Court of Justice.

There are over 180 similar court cases pending in Spain.聽

The Advocate General鈥檚 opinion contradicts the decision issued by Spain鈥檚 National High Court, which called on Google to withdraw the advertisement from its search index, and is seen as a positive sign for Google in Europe, where the Internet giant has recently come under attack for its privacy policies.

The opinion came on the heels of a statement made Friday by Britain鈥檚 data regulator, the Information Commissioner鈥檚 Office, which ordered Google to delete personal data captured on its Street View project. On Thursday, France and Spain鈥檚 main two main watchdog groups increased pressures on Google to change its data privacy policy.聽

The EU Court is just beginning their official deliberations in the Costeja case.聽