Natalia Denegri and the “right to be forgotten” against Google: the Supreme Court deals with the case in public hearing
BREAKING NEWS Deborah 16th March 2022
Feb 12, 2022
El histórico reclamo de Natalia Denegri contra Google llegó a la Corte Suprema de Justicia que tratará el “derecho al olvido” el próximo 17 de marzo, en una audiencia pública.
Natalia Denegri wants Google stop linking it to videos of coppola case known as “the cause of the vase”, in the 90s. The current businesswoman, driver and activist requests what is commonly called “right to be forgotten” something sanctioned in Europe, for example, but not in Argentina. Therefore asks for the deindexation of content links from more than 20 years ago yes Justice agreed with him and the ruling was confirmed in August 2020. Now, the Supreme Court must give its verdict for a new appeal from the technology giant Google. I read too. Justice ruled against Google: it applied the “right to be forgotten” in a lawsuit by Natalia Denegri
In other words, on March 17 the Supreme Court will have to ratify the so-called right to oblivion the privacy of a person on a judged subject and to which he prefers not to be linked, o prioritize the right to information and freedom of expression the basis of Google and other entities that believe that this content should not be stopped when performing an Internet search. Rulings in favour and support for Natalia Denegri In 2020, a court ruling recognized the damage that Denegri caused his “media” past in the 90s. An important factor: it was recognized that the businesswoman was the victim of a criminal maneuver in which they put false evidence on her and deprived her of her freedom. Judges Claudio Kiper, Liliana Abreut and José Benito Fajre of Chamber H of the Chamber confirmed the first instance sentence of the National Court of First Instance of the City of Buenos Aires in August 2020.
Now, prior to the public hearing of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Ombudsman’s Offices of the province of Buenos Aires and the porteña presented themselves as amicus curiae -“friend of the court”, a Latin expression used to refer to presentations made by third parties unrelated to a litigation, who voluntarily offer their opinion, demand or binding legal warrant- in the court case brought by Natalia Denegri against Google.
In two separate writings it is pointed out that the normative framework to solve the issue under debate is in the field of habeas data and that therefore de-indexing or de-listing of personal information is appropriate.
Jan 30, 2015
The Supreme Court’s ruling will set a standard for whether people can ask search engines to stop exposing past news that they find harmful. “We have the right to privacy protection recognizing the dignity of people and the prohibition of arbitrary or abusive interference with private life”, they highlighted before a consultation of TN Techno from the Buenos Aires Ombudsman. From that body they state that the rights in terms of personal data must also be guaranteed by the digital environment so that people can control what actions third parties carry out with their information.
The Buenos Aires Ombudsman, Guido Lorenzino, argued that “the Court has a case in its hands that will set the dynamics of human rights performance in the present and future” and suggested that “the social significance of this decision be considered.” ”. For her part, the Buenos Aires Ombudsman, María Rosa Muiños, indicated that “in these times when technology invades our lives, the ‘right to be forgotten’ becomes essential to protect the right to honour and privacy of people”.
In addition, he considered that “the revolution of new technologies is a reality with which we live daily and forces us to rethink legal regulations so that we can freely develop our life plan without external interference.” In the 2020 ruling, the judges considered that references to Denegri are not newsworthy and that also affected the victim’s right to honour. “I read with surprise that a few ‘ill-intentioned’ They falsely claim that I want to attack freedom of expression censoring news, which shows a total ignorance of the sentence where the news and journalistic information have been expressly excluded and are not part of any debate in the case, only the extracts with violent content between women, including a minor protected by the laws and conventions to eradicate violence against women. Denegri told TN Tecno.
Google’s argument: “Limits the right to information”
“We value the opportunity the Supreme Court provides to publicly discuss a ruling that limits the right to information and freedom of expression. The sentence restricts access to journalistic, artistic or humorous content of a legal nature that involves a person who was and is public by her own will and is related to a court case of public interest. The material is part of the cultural heritage beyond the subjective assessment made about its quality”, they reported from Google Argentina.
They also clarified in a statement sent to TN Techno that “it is essential to analyze in depth the scope of this type of judicial decision, by which millions of users could see their possibilities of searching for and obtaining lawful information through the Internet limited.”
Google’s argument also has the support of the Centre for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) and the Centre for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE).
CELS, which defines itself as an organization that seeks “the strengthening and development of freedom of expression and access to information”, presented a brief with various questions related to the subject:
The scope of the right to freedom of expression on the internet. The standards of the Inter-American Human Rights System and the jurisprudence of Your Excellency
The characteristics of public figure and matter of public interest of the plaintiff as a criterion for weighting the interests at stake
The lack of consideration of specific damages generated by the indexing of his name with matters of public interest.
On the temporary limitations to the information contained in public registries destined to provide reports. Its comparison with the right here claimed by the plaintiff.
The selection of information and the construction of a version of public figures. The difficulties of the case to build a rule.
Citing the Supreme Court of Spain, they mention a decision of October 15, 2015. “The so-called ‘right to be forgotten digitally’, which is a concretion in this field of the rights derived from the quality requirements of the processing of personal data, does not support that each one builds a past to suit you forcing web page editors or search engine managers to eliminate the processing of their personal data when they are associated with facts that are not considered positive”
He continues: “Nor does it justify that those who expose themselves publicly can demand that build a curriculum to their liking, controlling the discourse about themselves, eliminating negative information from the Internet, ‘positioning’ the results of Internet searches at will, so that the most favourable ones occupy the first positions. If this thesis is admitted, the information mechanisms necessary for citizens to adopt their decisions in the democratic life of a country would be seriously disturbed.”
From CELE they also highlight the “conviction that freedom of expression is fundamental in a democratic society” and for that reason urges the Supreme Court to reverse the second instance decision. Among other points, they highlight the difference between Denegri’s request, linked to the Coppola case, and lawsuits against search engines brought by famous not to be indexed on pages with pornographic content or linked to prostitution. One of the most emblematic cases was that of María Belén Rodríguez against Google and Yahoo!
In addition, CELE spoke of the “right to be forgotten”, to highlight that in Europe, due to the European Directive on the Protection of Personal Data, excludes some activities from the regime, such as historians, researchers, journalists and the media. They also affirm that Denegri is a public figure, not a private one, unlike one of the most recognized cases in Europe, that of Mario Costeja González in Spain. background in the world
Denegri’s case is one of the few to be recognized as a media personality by Justice in Latin America. In 2010 the Brazilian singer and actress Xuxa initiated a lawsuit against Google by claiming this same right by requesting the removal of a video with scenes of an intimate nature, but after almost eight years of litigation Brazilian justice ruled against him.
In Mexico, businessman Carlos Sánchez de la Peña obtained a favourable ruling in the first instance to de-index a link to Fortuna magazine from Google in which he was linked to acts of corruption. Although when arriving at the second instance The justice of that country established that deindexing the note violated freedom of expression and ruled against it.
In Europe, the “right to be forgotten” was endorsed in 2014, by the request of Mario Costeja Gonzáles to Google so that stop indexing content linked to a debt already paid. The man claimed that this content affected his life and his job performance.
Of course, what search engines do is stop “offering” it in your search results but news stories on the sites are still available, though not through Google.
Jul 31, 2018
A government-appointed panel on the data protection law has pointed to the need to have a balanced approach on right to be forgotten. The appropriateness of a right to be forgotten in specific circumstances would require that the right to privacy be balanced with the freedom of speech, the Justice BN Srikrishna Committee said.
It called right to confirmation, access and correction to be included in the data protection law. So what is the right to be forgotten? Well, it refers to the ability of individuals to limit, de-link, delete, or correct the disclosure of personal information on the internet that is misleading, embarrassing, irrelevant, or outdated.
Such disclosure, may or may not be a consequence of unlawful processing by the data fiduciary. In today’s age of cloud computing is it truly possible to implement the Right to be forgotten clause in the Srikrishna committee's draft data protection bill? That’s what we discuss on this edition of ‘The Big Picture’. Joining me on the program today are:
Anchor: Frank Rausan Pereira
Guests:
Sohini Chatterjee, Research Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Arunima Bhattacharya, Researcher, Livelaw.in
Jiten Jain, Cyber Security Expert
Vinay Kesari, Independent Technology Lawyer
sources:
article
TED Talk Video
In recent months, the right to be forgotten on the internet has become a topic of great global debate. Michael Douglas explores whether the right to privacy or the right to freedom of information is more important and whether law could be properly enforced to govern the right to be forgotten. Not the actor. This Michael Douglas is a young academic and serial high achiever. Michael combines legal chops, a background in ethics and a tenuous sense of humour to be an engaging teacher and researcher in law.