W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: search engines: right to be forgotten, sitemap.xml proposed solution

From: Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:02:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e787e684-72b6-4b10-8007-75f3f12b20b4@default>
To: Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, rob@blaeu.com, public-privacy@w3.org


The majority of Perm Reps and about half of the MEPs I've been in contact with are dubious about the workability of the provision beyond what the controller controls directly or through captive agents/subs. Some of the highest level commentators have indicated that it was a "deliberate overstatement" that will likely not stand as is.  As I pointed out in the previous post, having conversations of pure technical feasibility without considering legal context may be an interesting exercise in theoretical application but has little to do with a real world discussion of whether the ENISA proposal would be considered as practically or politically viable. I have yet to hear a good analysis of the proposal in such context.  Many of the conversations I have had have predated the ENISA proposal.  I think for some that I have spoken to after the proposal, the top line take away is not a possible fix in the search engine space, but rather a top-line conclusion that ENISA found problems with the workability of the right to be forgotten beyond the controller's website.. 






From: Daniel Weitzner [mailto:djweitzner@csail.mit.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:29 AM
To: Joseph Alhadeff
Cc: Karl Dubost; Shane Wiley; Thomas Roessler; rob@blaeu.com; public-privacy@w3.org
Subject: Re: search engines: right to be forgotten, sitemap.xml proposed solution


Joe, based on your understanding of the Commission and Parliament's deliberation, do you think they are likely to take up the suggestion from the ENISA report:


"- A possible pragmatic approach to assist with the enforcement of the right to be forgotten is to require search engine operators and sharing services within the EU to filter references to forgotten information stored inside and outside the EU region."




Daniel Weitzner <HYPERLINK "mailto:djweitzner@csail.mit.edu"djweitzner@csail.mit.edu>

Director, MIT Decentralized Information Group

MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab

32 Vassar St, 32-G516

Cambridge, MA 02139



On Dec 12, 2012, at 2:04 AM, Joseph Alhadeff <HYPERLINK "mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com"joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

Please note that the right to be forgotten is not an unlimited right even if it is established and will be based on context. Information publicly reported in press accounts may require court action, for example, to be suppressed. Public information that is searchable may create innovative new services that create growth and jobs.  We are looking to allow individuals to fairly and easily exercise their rights, how this is applied is still context dependent. I am not seeing that aspect of the issue in this conversation.  Further I agree with a previous comment that discussion is premature in light of the fact that we don't know what the final obligations related to the right to be forgotten will be.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 11, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Karl Dubost <HYPERLINK "mailto:karld@opera.com"karld@opera.com> wrote:


Le 12 déc. 2012 à 00:36, Shane Wiley a écrit :

Lastly, as search engines drive considerable site traffic, what would be the motivation for a site to voluntarily have its content age out from a search engine's index (no legal pressure here yet)?

I can explain at least my personal motivation.
My Web site is a blog with a mix of everything, really everything. I had a very good google karma, because of my previous W3C staff position. People were easily finding my site through search engines with any keywords [1]. And then they were emailing me outside of context. That was difficult to manage. If you want a metaphor, it would be someone in the streets commenting or arguing with you about why you didn't shave this morning.

So I thought, in my social relationships in the physical world, I make contacts through people I know or precise places I show up. There is a certain opacity into that which is interesting. It slows down the social connectivity and reduces the social horizon. 

How do I recreate that on my Web site?

By getting out of the search engines. Basically you do not forbid people to talk about it or access it. The information is still there, exactly like you walking in the street, but you greatly reduce the horizon and immediacy. People might find you more through another link on another blog or someone sharing with his/her community, etc.

It solves the issue I had. Note that this exists in different circumstances, college friends who want to share into their communities without closing in secret everything but not necessary making it easy to be found.

It's why I always talk about Opacity, as a dampening mechanism in between total transparency  and total secret. Porosity is ok. Having a bit of control on it is better. Tumblr for example is a social network allowing people to not be indexed.

Directory: Allow search engines to index your tumblelog. If checked, your tumblelog will appear in search results on sites such as Google and Yahoo.

[1]: Search engines basically destruct text, and make a soup of keywords with loosely connected semantics.
[2]: http://www.w3.org/2010/api-privacy-ws/papers/privacy-ws-3

Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software


Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 20:05:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:55 UTC