>> MODERATOR: Start presenting the summary way the people are in front of us. On my right the first one is the Director for the Foundation for Press Freedom in Colombia and will be presenting that we have in Colombia. To my right is the freedom of expression of the American states who will tell us the human rights framework that is quite unique but is applying to the South American space and can shed some light to the right to be forgotten.
Here to my left is Gisela Perez de Acha, and she's from Mexico and she will be explaining some of the cases that had presented in Mexico. Marian from the academy from the UK will bring us back to the conclusions on the morning panel on right to be forgotten. To my right is Kelly -- Kim, sorry, who's replacing our professor from Korea. She will talk to us about what's evolving in Korea. Once we have these panelists and a discussion, we would like to have a more active methodology but we can change the dynamics of the discussion. We will start first with the specific and more meaningful discussion so that we can start drawing from there, thank you, Carolina and for accepting this invitation and welcome.
>> CAROLINA BOTERO: Yes, thank you very much. We had a thorough discussion this morning that did not just include people in the room, it included a group of students at Syracuse University. And we had active interventions on Twitter from Julia Pauls who was going to be with us but can't be here. And I got some input on Gabriela. I'm just going to provide you with a report that we've put together from this morning to refresh our memory. We had a wide range of participants along
The call from the ITS in Rio De Janeiro, freedom law center, and Anna from the U.N. High Commission of Human Rights. Okay, so basically what we came up with is that first of all, Pedro Andrade who was speaking on behalf of the Google Corporation gave background for the Mario case, the act involved and the data. He's given specifics of the requests that Google has received, a year about around 228,000 requests and how they had to be evaluated and of course there had to be 824,000 more than that. So very time consuming and costly and many experts involved.
So his point was of course that it creates a lot of work. And since returning to the Brazilian perspective, he pointed out the Brazilian context is very vague, very bad laws and he provided guidance to why they were bad, poorly executed. Very problematic with regard to the scope of what we're calling deindexing. What's the right balance with the need to keep public archives public and to keep historical memory alive and the public interest and issues around free speech, freedom of expression. As humanity on the whole has the right to learn and to teach. So here's the right to be forgotten and the duty to forget and poses across jurisdictional issues that is going to be and is being dealt with in various regimes that we're talking about more today.
And we talked about the importance of the rulings for Korea. The local content had already been taken down under the guise of it to be forgotten imperative. Vague concepts being diluted to other agendas and talked about the issue of public interests. Publicly talked about the right to memory and flow of ideas, all of which are to a democracy. So we could be talking about a ruling that could start from collective amnesia. And the U.N. perspective was we had different rulings and different descriptions but there will be different disparities. There's the right to know the truth. A distinct right in parts of the rights law and the information that's impacted all of our rights and fundamental freedoms and all of the panelists noticed the need for due process.
Now if you don't mind, Julia Pauls came in by remote saying it's disingenuous for Google to say is a big burden without disclosing the information that Google uses to assess the threats they get. She mentioned the vast majority, 95% are on the basis of leaked information she has is mundane to address someone's medical history or address. We have the distinction between a private person and a public personality. The Syracuse pointed out that the case-by-case bah analysis would be what we need to explore.
The last point we decided to get rid of the term "the right to be forgotten." We're going to say the right to be delinked or de-indexed by intermediaries. The right to be D-linked, dot, dot, dot, but the hash tag is this #R2BF. You'll find all of the tweets to be able to connect to the other tweets. You can check up on that. I'm sorry to take so much time. But I felt that link to today's session. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Maria. So to follow on this, I think the next approach that will be big is the one from Kim, Kelly Kim. She will present on what's happening on the travel in Korea.
>> KELLY KIM: Yes, I'm Kelly Kim, substituting the professor's part. He's the expert. I'm sorry to miss him here. So this is the discussion on right to be forgotten or the right to be de-indexed is important for Korea as Korean government and the Korean communication commission is the U.S. FCC of Korea is talking about the right to be forgotten law. Since the Google case came out. However, it hasn't been particularly successful yet because right to be forgotten in a broad sense is very widely recognized in Korea already.
So firstly we already have a law on the reach on the draw can compel intermediaries to take down information that is allegedly documentary or infringing on privacy. Yes. And what makes this law similar to the right to be forgotten, just that information is required to be taken down simply upon the litigation, based on approval infringement. So every year, more than 200,000 postings are being taken down by the intermediaries, simply for a reason that that subject do not like the postings about them.
So Carolina mentioned the test from Google last year like 228,000 requests were received so you can tell how bad it is in Korea. And that means we have that many cases that year. Secondly, we also have the agency called the Korea communication standard commission. It's a regression on licenseship. Korea is empowered by the law to make -- take down on every -- even on the other content. So whatever it is necessary for sound communication ethics, any lawful -- the lawful contents can be taken down by the Korea communications commission. So this is a standard very vague and used by the Google's main case, so excessive, also the developments.
So you're looking at the sound communication ethics, it's as bad as the Google sender. Finally we have criminal defamation law that punishes even non-privacy infringing, which allows the subject not only to take it down but also to criminally punish others for saying bald -- bad but true statements about him or her.
And fourthly and finally, you also have data protection law that may or may not give a data subject a blanket authority key to demand data about him or her. Well, apparently there aren't many such requests made, so we don't have a court case yet. So I -- I just want to underline that if we limit right to be forgotten only to do the search, okay, we don't have any case yet. We don't need a right in Korea because there are many legal tools that I just illustrated that I explained on the information that you don't like. So we want to protect the privacy data protection law. We should not let them wipe out unfavorable or embarrassing information about themselves. Think about a word where only favor or like delightful information about the person lasts. I don't want to live in that world. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. And so to follow up on this, we will give the word to Edison?
>> AUDIENCE: No.
>> MODERATOR: No. You changed, okay. Gisela to talk about the Mexican case.
>> GISELA PEREZ de ACHA: Thank you very much. A lot has been said this discussion about the right to be forgotten and I would like to repeat myself or repeat the arguments that have been made in the moment. I'm here to poll a little bit. There's no solution, I just want to put different rights under consideration of this very badly called right to be forgotten. Just a disclaimer, we're not personally no it in favor of the right to be forgotten, but there are rights to privacy and dignity that have to be taken into account when talking about this issue.
So first a lot of the discussion has been centered around the right to be forgotten taking on censorship. And I think the other part we'll talk more about this. I'm here to hear about that, the link of the Latin America between the right to be forgotten memory and our own democracy. Their argument being, if I'm not mistaken, our democracy given the authoritarian posit that we have -- yeah, democracy is linked to memory. So in this regard, in this regard, I would just like to mention that in July the guardian published that less than 5% of the nearly 220,000 individual requests made to Google to selectively remove links to align information, concerning criminal politicians and high profile public figures.
The rest are just common private citizens. And to make my case and publicize a little at the end, I'll talk about two Mexican cases. It's important to discuss this in concrete terms because abstract discussions can sometimes make us a little bit lost. So the first one is very linked to the memory and democracy in Latin America and it's a concern -- the concerned persons named Carlos, not going to say his last name -- a person named Carlos that solicited the application to three links that regarded frauds and corruption scandals that were being linked to the ex-Presidential couple. So it is clearly a case where it could be a public figure. It is information of public interest. He argued in a way that his rights to honor were violated, although the right to be forgotten originally doesn't serve to protect the right and the protection authority doesn't have anything to do with honor. It has to do with other things, like privacy. So there's the protection the authority gave him the right to be forgotten. And now a whole court litigation process is going on about Google's responsibility in the process.
The second one which I think is very interesting and will take us out of the box a little bit, it's a very recent case of a girl who had a what's up group with 20 of her best and oldest friends from high school. And they had sort of an ice bucket challenge thing going on. But instead of ice bucket challenge, they were quote/quote in the context of the drug war in Mexico which is really bad. They were playing a thing doing the ice bucket challenge but with cocaine. So she had an expectation of privacy. They uploaded all of their videos. They tell three or more of the friends that were in the 20-people what's up group. And it was all very funny a year ago until her video got linked. The Mexican press took it as a very big scandal that she's blond and she was very well-dressed in the video because she was attending a wedding. And they said it was a new fashion between rich girls in Mexico and it became viral. So she is a kindergarten teacher. She lost her job. She has a PhD. Major in pedagogy, she lost her job. After 15 years of professional career, you Google her name, there are 15 Google results. The first 15 Google results regarding her cocaine scandal. So she basically cannot get a job as a kindergarten teacher anymore?
Why am I putting this concrete example? I don't have a solution, I don't pretend to. As part of the society, I don't think it's my job to do it anyway. So first regarding the mechanism that Google has been implemented lately, it's been compared to right to be forgotten because it's basically the index sayings, but let's just stop using right to be forgotten, I agree, it's just confusing. In cyberfeminism, we don't like the word revenge porn. Porn is consensual sex. We prefer the term the dissemination of nonconsensual images. Consensus is the center of the discussion here and a Google representative said in a gender panel that was carried on a few hours ago.
The second point -- okay, regarding the revenge porn, if we open the discussion of the Dissimulation of nonconsensual images, one, a lot of burden on Google on what is consensus and what is not. There's the litigation of private powers to censor and to decide what to censor and what not. And the second one is what's in line consent which opens a degree of discussion. Secondly, there are many principles of intermediary liability require a judicial order to restrict content.
That opens another problem. The problem of access to justice in places like Mexico where justice is really slow and we have a lot of problems with justice. And then in Latin America, there's a general weakened institution regarding every level of government.
So how are we going to say that a judicial order has to be taken in where marginalized societies and people don't always have access to all of these remedies. And thirdly, let's talk about the algorithm. Yes, we don't have the right to erase embarrassing photos, why isn't anyone talking about the algorithm is made. Why isn't Google making apparent how that algorithm works. But this is a whole other discussion because if the algorithm is made, the links that get the most clicks I read as the most relevant, then the majority and enterprises are basically ordering all of these things. And even if it's a private enterprise, Google nowadays a system of public reputation. Our jobs are on the line because -- thanks to Google. And even though a lot of you could say you ear tech savvy, a lot of algorithm manipulation you can do to counter all of these things and measures, but not all of us are tech savvy. We have -- there's a problem of education here that has to be addressed. The education and permanency of facing Google. And so that's just my point in polling the consequences and the possible impact that it could have on human rights in the on-line environment, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Gisela.
>> EDISON ANTONIO LANZA ROBATTO: Thank you, Carolina. Hola? Yeah. Thank you, Carolina. I think that the freedom of the press perspective of -- on the debate of the right to be forgotten or the link, I don't know this list, is perhaps one of the most interesting discussions that involved freedom of expression. When there is a desire of something to be forgotten, it is because someone has been upset by the information that has been published. And this means that the content is available to the public and includes negative information about or related to an individual or group of individuals.
The wish to disappear is not -- not a new wish. I mean, those debates has been solved and those sanctions have been alive since we had press. The issue is that on the internet, certainly those are intensified. So, getting in the Colombian case where we're talking about a citizen identified by the court as Gloria, that's not her real name, she asked it to a newspaper, the biggest newspaper in Colombia to remove from search engines specifically Google an article from 2000 year about arrest of several people for human trafficking, including her. Gloria was not convicted and the case was solved. There is something common in our countries like length of prosecution takes too long and you don't know if the person is guilty or not, the process just finished with that doubt in favor of the -- of the person that is facing that judicial proceeding. Gloria stated that the news article -- this is true.
I agree with the Mexican case that we cannot be solving or suggesting solutions for this problem without knowing that there are -- that probably are facing people that they're facing situations that is too heavy for keeping the daily life. And so in this case, Gloria because of that news, when she typed her name, she couldn't find employment, credit, bank, all of -- her life was not in balance with everyone and she finished her doubts with justice even though we don't know if she's guilty or not. I would like to say that when the constitutional court of Colombia took the case, we have to recognize the desire of understanding what technology is, how it works, which are like -- which is the agenda of neutrality and terms of liability.
And I think even if it's not so accurate, it's very important to recognize the importance for understanding it. And that's why the court found that the news article affected her right to honor. And for this reason, the court decided that when there's a outcome for an individual involved in a legal proceeding, it's necessary to update information and make searches more difficult. But do not delete the information. According to the constitutional court of Colombia, the media outlet must respond to the request and if it's necessary, de-link the content so that the information is updated and remains on-line but cannot be accessed through search engines. This rule, says the court, does not apply to people with a high public profile or public servants or in cases of crimes against humanity or human rights violation.
The issue that's controversial is that her case is about human trafficking that is considered a human right violation. So that exception was not taken into account in the same decision when that when we're talking about human right issues, it shouldn't be forgotten. We have also some concerns about the rule -- the court rule. The first one is that we believe that we've got obligations for the media. And I think it's also controversial this point. The court found that media outlets have an official obligation to update news articles about legal proceedings. So if you take into account that I know other countries, media environment, but, for example, in Colombia, most of the news are related to judicial notes.
So if you -- if you put the obligation of updating that information in each legal proceeding, it could become a publication for media and journalism. To think about small media community media, and obligations, I mean, they do not have one person in each judicial office for knowing how it's going -- they are not lawyers. And the court thinks that journalists have to be like in the desk of the judge every day to know if they have to update because it's an ex-official obligation. This is a differentiation that clearly applies to the traditional press and compare it to on-line media. So strictly for freedom of expression. Because when you are promoting a freedom of the internet agenda, I mean it's not -- I mean you have to move forward in the agenda digital rights, but also we have to keep the goals reached on freedom of expression.
The thing is that case went back in some issues that we won before. The duty to constantly update articles without any request is disproportionate especially on one considers a small media. Just finished, I would like to say that if I would have to point lesson learned of the Colombian case, I would say that we need authorities that are encouraged to learn, which is the digital environment in which they are taking decisions. I mean, if they do not know how internet works, probably they're going to take wrong decisions or they're going to take decisions more closer to what they think and impartiality could be weak on those cases. So I really recognize the report of constitutional courts, Colombian court in understanding what was happening on internet. But I would like to target that we moved steps behind on issues about freedom of expression that shouldn't -- I mean, we have to move forward.
>> MODERATOR: So, thank you, last but not least, Pedro.
>> PEDRO VACA: Thank you. A pleasure to be here. First of all, I would just say that in the framework of the American human rights system, there's no definition about, you know, the right to be forgotten. I think that's amazing that all of the -- of the world, it is thinking about that it insists this right. But there is not any declaration, any law document or decision of the particular human rights system that define this right. And the first thing that I think is a sexy name. But it's not, you know, a right, in fact. In fact, we talked recently that even the right of truth that we were yes, of course, a right that implies the right of memory, the reconstitution of the history, but even this right there's not also a definition about that. I think that we need to find a case in the American court that's, you know, a definition about the regards of the right to truth. And of course that the article 11 of the American convention protects the privacy and the right of the people to have problems about a fairness of privacy. But the convention in the 19 -- in the '89 article say that in any case, the -- the right, you know I, must be sublime.
The enjoyment of those rights, that's under this interpretation. We need to find a solution for this problem. And I think that the case and the other case that we are recommending in this is really a, you know, a form, a way to delay information, to give information, and even if you -- if you replace the case, the formation that the you know in order to defeat a concept, it's true information. It's not that false information or information -- it's true information and it's important, you know, it's a part of the public interest to publish some things about private life, but in this case, it's regarded, you know, the relationship between the people and the state. Because the people who, you know, against -- go against these -- this information really have it with the state.
And then I think that if of course it's perhaps very interest public thing, but I think that we must be -- because in the common life, we have many acts that have a want for the public to know all of the -- what is the -- the way in conducting the life. And then I think in some sense Europe exports censorship because this idea, you know, take about this -- other achievements like in this -- and then if you read the case from Mexico, you know after the decision, a press release that says historical. We join the idea to right for forgotten. It's amazing.
Find a case to put this concept in circulation in definition. And -- and then what? The case imply a -- you know a idea the intermediary responsibility about all of the information about the platforms, and this is another problem with the principles of the for example, the America human rights system that we have a -- you know, many reports and declaration that they'll be looking for the content. Another problem is that it's like obviously Google is the most famous and powerful, you know, and big company. But this is or this type of company, after that, its little platforms or media or another intermediary that I think is a problem that we have. I think for finally, I know that we have a problem because the last case that comment of Mexico is basically a new challenge of internet. But I think that we can apply, you know, the -- the convention that says any restriction of freedom of information or -- or flow of information must be a test free step. By definition, by law.
And second, the option of the restriction must be, you know, a -- a interest that -- the convention. And it's in relation with the necessary for the democratic society and, you know, it must be proportionally in this section. And I think in the case of Colombia, it's a good first step because the case find a different way to approximate to the case. And the problem. And I think that perhaps in this way we have the solution. For example, in this case, it's information or have a right to -- to respond and then the people we have all information, you know, probably to make up an opinion. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. So I think just like this morning but probably with other points, we've been talking about how the name has -- it's a major -- a big problem on the right to be forgotten or the so-called right to be forgotten. And we have heard some of the problems with the issue with information and freedom of expression and privacy are. There are jurisdiction and human rights issues. There is the memory and truth as a way of trying to balance the issues.
And both Gisela and Pedro also mentioned the points on the problems of safety or the right literacy that the authorities will have. I think that we don't have enough time to break down to groups. So why don't we just open for discussion and hear some other points that many of you on the floor are also people who know about these and so I would say that we just start the conversation here, make questions or comments. Because this is something that the people in logistics ask that you please stand up and come to the microphone and speak. So I'm sorry if this is an inconvenience. But please consider doing this. So shall we start? Is there anybody who would like to start with the comments? Or questions?
>>AUDIENCE: Hi. Good afternoon. Your presentations were interesting and --
>> MODERATOR: Can you say your name?
>> Luis Garcia, the human rights network in Mexico. I wanted to ask a little bit of information about the Mexico case. A disclaimer, my organization is challenging the decision on behalf of one of the websites. At least the people who are here we shouldn't believe that it's decided but most people agree this concept is problematic. And I think not necessary as well. I think there are many ways in which we deal with freedom of expression. There's many legal avenues with the rectification, the lawsuits for -- I don't know the English, for moral harm. There's the protection interpretation. And probably that the case that leans left with the discussion is double up on the interpretation unless by many -- on many issues. Because of liability repercussions. I wanted to say on the Mexico case, I do want to say the name of the person. His name is Carlos Sanchez De la Pena. You have the right to search for his name and see the news articles that relate to himself and the company that runs for President. You can say his name, Carlos Sanchez De la Pena, in Google you can search for him.
In the case of Mexico, the decision was made by the protection authority. And basically was saying that you, Google, you intermediary, you should have given him what he wanted. First it was a private decision, then it was a body that made a decision. And in none of these decisions, another actor was present. So it's problematic. That's the plaintiff I'm representing which is the website whose link is being deindexed. It was a magazine that has a website that the magazine puts the news articles that they publish in their magazine and I want to stress, for example, this could be recognizing both human rights law and European rights law. But the double dimension of freedom of expression that is based and the activity is not only the right to express but the right to receive and search for information.
In this case, delinking says Google is a monopoly search engine service, it really reduces the amount of traffic that these websites get. So it has to harm also. I mean this is not only about Carlos the De la Pena and Google. Google is telling you but we're also telling you the decision that the website is suffering harm because the link would be -- we have a state. It's still there, you can search for it. But there's another part that is not in the part of the proceedings either on the position of Google that will have taken place, or the position of the correctional authority. They're challenging the decision at the courts and they're still up for grabs if the court will recognize that we have a legal standing to challenge the position, I believe we do because there's an obvious link about the right of the magazines to express and to make its permission the most available possible and the easiest decision that affects them. And they would need to pass a test, no. You wanted to have some comments from you about that, about how the prosecutorial aspect needs to be taken into account when adjudications of rights are being done, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: We have them. Otherwise, it will continue. Does anybody want to comment or ask any questions? So let's go.
>> I think if we remember the case, they condemn after that the special group of the European union that makes the rules of the data protection, make lines to interpret the -- you know, the decision. Because the decision -- I don't care if the problem of the public interest. If you remember you received the decision and many, you know, chapter, paragraph, how about elaboration about what is the -- what is the bother between private information about the person and the public interest? And I think that the authorities of the Europe is so far this, these go so far and then, you know, build this guideline that, you know, an attempt to have a restraint on this conscious. Because I think it's a -- it's an amazing decision.
And then, you know, with another instrument, they intend to, you know, encapsulate this problem. And then another problem is like we know that now is building the industry to, you know, delete the principle about a person that you know has a dark history and he, you know, want to -- you know, apply to a public church or a political career. And I know many, many lawyers tell that they can now litigate this type of case. And I think that's in the next addition. It's interesting to have here a friend to have a discussion, a great discussion. But I think that really it's a problematic concept to flow the information and access information by the people. And then it's problematic case if this history because I think that the court of Colombia have the problem that put the responsibility to this list. In Google, in the media, in -- you know, in -- it's a -- it's a big company. And I think that not disillusioned because it takes the responsibility of the work, and over the media. It's also a problem.
>> AUDIENCE: Regarding the recent comments. Well, firstly, I agree that if Google were not as monopolistic as it is, this conversation would be very different and the discussion of the so-called right to be forgotten is deterring this other discussion about Google's predominance in the search engine markets. We must put this on the table. And I would like to insist on this. Secondly, of course there can be censorship, of course there is censorship. But recently in anonymity and dissent, the U.N. said any tool for expression on the internet can be abused. So if we take hypothetically, the right to be forgotten as a tool, it can only be used as another too.
My question is, and again I'm only here to put questions on the table and not be pro or against anything specifically. But why are we only talking about this 5% of statistics that violate the right to access of information and talk about public figures and criminals? We're completely in disregard of the other 95% that are real human beings that are having problems because of this. Another point that has been argued, I don't know if it was said here or in the morning that anyone can be a potential public figure in the future. I think this is so hypothetical, it the us not constitute a harm in itself and freedom of expression although it's a threat. So I just like to take these things into consideration.
And lastly, the case about Tosteca was something very important that I think again the term of right to be forgotten is deterring, that talking about relevance. The case is a 16-year-old ad on a paper regarding an eviction that he was going to go through. But 16 years past, so the other question that has to be put on the table is the right that we have to change. And if it could be consistent with the right to anonymity, is the right -- why is Google and algorithms deciding who a person is for an indeterminate time, like, for a really long time, like why is that decisive? Don't we have the right to change opinions, personalities? Don't we have the right to disguise ourselves to change our gender up and all of these sorts of things? All of the questions are on the table. I would love to if the public has anything more to say about this, I think it's a very rich debate, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Do we have any other?
>>AUDIENCE: Hello, everybody. And I just want to comment on -- I heard that Europe is supporting censorship all over the world. So I -- on this point, I disagree because I think we should look back at the procedural on the Supreme Court that has a highest protection talking about the right of informational explanation. So what's happening with the Google is the application that the broad principle, the principle that you have the right to determine what's going to happen with your information. And then if we look at what happened in the last year, first of all, the decision for justice, where the balancing there to be then applied by national courts. You have to remember that justice is not deciding on a specific implementation. Necessarily balance the rights.
And this case -- now there's been a long series of decisions coming from the court and the authorities and as it was mentioned by article 29 which is the European story precisely how to balance the right and precise with the protected the freedom to be protected. To give you a great and striking example of the fact that this balancing has already happened, you might have heard that the -- that the privacy authority says that you don't have right to be forgotten because now he's a public figure. Because he's become a public figure, he doesn't have the right to be forgotten. But initially, the implication of the right itself, the mission was very right. Because it was -- he wasn't a known figure who had the right or had -- who had a right to self-determine which information should be on-line. But as soon as he has become a public figure, that right has been gone.
So this just to support the work and the privacy authorities and just to be clear that it was his intention from -- it was the intention to support censorship. But it was to apply these rights and I think it has been done well, particularly in the year after. But in the question -- I would like to turn the discussion to initiative not raised but very important and also mentioned by the guidelines, the application to the right to be forgotten. Because this is the issue. You might know that the article 29 mentioned that the right to be forgotten cannot only be applied to national domains or European domains, but must be applied to dot-com. So world-wide. And for the French privacy authority for the first time applied that decision to Google, Google never wanted to apply a world-wide right to be forgotten, NIL applied where one first time and imposed the position for the first time, Google refused. There was an appeal against it or the Google to apply the right to be forgotten on the dot-.com. We don't know what's going to happen.
It's not just the right to be forgotten. We've seen in the last year the attempts using Canada also deleting text, court asking for a world-wide application, the application of the deleting orders to dot-com -- to the dot-com Google website. I'm curious to know what's happening in South America. And South America and Spain and there are decisions, what is this? I know the Mexican case, the authority decided a note to apply the -- not wrong the discussion to dot-com and the Mexican domain. But I like to understand where we should go and if there's discussion about the application.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. We'll take also the question over there. Is there another one? You? So the three and then --
>>AUDIENCE: My name is Harold Feld. I'm also from civil society public interest organization called Public Knowledge. I also for last 10 years have been writing a blog on United States telecommunications policy. I don't like the term citizen journalist, but I will say among other things my blog has done things like trigger an independent investigation over at the FCC over the 700 member caution. So it has some value and contributes to what we're trying to do.
So my concern is two-fold, one is, everywhere where we have had take-down notices or delisting type notices, we have seen abuses of this in order to prevent democratic discourse and in order to disrupt very timely debate. And the problem here is to take some examples. So I write some things about five years ago that people are paid to do reports on industry on network neutrality.
Now the debate goes over to Europe. There is debate right now going on in the in Europe, or there was a month ago. The company that wants the measures to submit and list to say that, you know, this was something that would have been forgotten. To handle these things, take place in automatic fashion. I have no idea. People who might be looking for information which was relevant about the U.S. fight that related to particular people and what they did had no idea that they're not getting the information indexed. So even if I just challenged the process, the fact is the debate is over now.
So if it happened, you know, two months ago, and I discovered it now and I put it back up, well, the vote is over so to the extent that it might have done any good, it can't do any good. And so these are not impractical things. I'm not going to prep tend my blog would make a difference in the European debate on net neutrality. But the point is we've seen this with the EMCA. We've seen this with the ICANN process to pull down websites, we've seen it constantly the companies will use these processes to disrupt conversation.
My other problem is for people who are trying to do -- for people who are doing citizen journalism, it doesn't disappear. But Google search engines make it easier for me to find, oh, this person three years ago work for AT&T, he's a fellow at Brookings Institute or whatever and pretending to be independent but I'm going to show they had really past employment and make the analysis suspect. So this person when hep decides to leave the company, whenever he starts saying the list about our employer, now I might find it embarrassing. I will not be able to find this information easily. A diligent reporter would be able to find it.
My concern is now are we privileging, again, mainstream media and traditional mainstream reporters over citizen journalists by allowing for people who are deliberately trying to move from one situation to another where they have past connections with industry would be relevant to the public debate. Or are we now making it much harder for interested advocates to be able to discover the connections and bring them to life?
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. Is this on. I am also work at the Data Protection Authority in Buenos Aires which is the Human Rights. So I would like to highlight two issues. The first is my personal view. I do agree that we have had to get rid of the term right to be forgotten. We have had to have the same on-line. So I don't think we would have to come up with a new name with the private policy and the intent for privacy and the right to be forgotten and also the determination, we can -- we can try a little bit harder. I also -- I don't believe that the name "right to be forgotten" is a very powerful meaning. We are calling now in operation forget so that's why I think that sometimes we have to change the name of the thing to another organization.
The second thing I would like to highlight is based on my work with the authority in the city of Buenos Aires is the authority. We have a special law on protection of privacy. Before you were saying about the importance of access to -- so the protection on authority would believe -- to address these issues, not only because we have received a lot of cases where people don't have access to justice and we have to give a solution too. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. We have now recognized contribution to talk about. I don't know why -- I don't know if you would all like to take two minutes to carve out some of the comments when we're done. But I would remind you that we're talking about the specialties when the main issue by one of our comment Taters. That's an English word. And public knowledge also talk about the abuses that these processes can show from a point of view of the gap between the main and the -- the main media and the citizen journalism. And finally the main issue of the name and adaption authority point of view. Would you like to start, Kelly?
>> KELLY KIM: I cannot give comments on all of those points. This is my own comment. 10 we're talking about right -- which information should you mind about myself, then why don't we recognize a right to -- for my publication to be searched on-line. So talking about the right to be deindexed or delinked. This right applies on information that is not illegal but became irrelevant and obsolete to the index. So while that's all very vague. So in Mexican cases.
So when we went -- Korea had specific law that criminalized dissemination of revenge porn because by definition revenge porn infringes on privacy. So you don't need a right to stop that. Or the cocaine bucket challenge in your case could be absorbed on the public-privacy paradigm just like revenge porn because the fringes of the media would believing that the girl shared the video believing that -- request would get out and their expectations were disappointed. So you don't need the -- this theory that you should be able to control data for yourself.
So the problem with RDL is you don't violate common sense of privacy. There was the distinction between public figures and private figures. So those are constantly changed through the data subject of life. For example, Korea became independent about 36 years of Japanese colonization in 1948 and many people corroborated with the administration and exploited fellow Koreans. And imagine if right to be forgotten was existed in the Japanese Colonel period in the dictator who reigned in the '50s and '60s was one that participated in killed in the colonial area. Imagine the right to be forgotten for right to deindex and shared shameful data about him. Now 30 years ago, he became President. Now he's the public figure. Now they're all now gone and delinked so the truthful data of him cannot be found. And the the private figure that became public figure is possible.
So we shouldn't talk about the data and able to control the data. We should bring you know classic theory of privacy here. So if the information is infringing on privacy, okay. Is other data subject or the injured person may have right to get the information deleted, but like if -- it's about him like public and open data, you know, right to be delinked, or de-indexed should not be recognized. 50.
>> I was just thinking that what we're dealing with is a huge issue in which everyday life, business, politics, research, advertising, is now being collate and collected and linked and indexed by digital tools. And I think what was happening was this disconnect to court rulings in one place and the implications they may have in other places is that our legal systems are only just starting to come to terms with the technicalities of the occurrences that happen. You think link and that in itself is knowledge. We had a situation perhaps to my colleague to the citizen bloggers and journalists, there's a paradox here.
The very difficulty in finding information is sometimes a good thing. You need to learn how to search. Maybe it's just become a little bit too easy and I know that may sound a little bit trite, but it has, in fact, become automated and easy to link things in ways that we did not expect them to be linked. So I think all of the terms we've been playing around with today are all relevant depending time, place, and issue. So I'd like to see completely layperson's perspective that the issue is lay clear and there the judicial issues that follow clarified because most people are coming to terms with their private life becoming public life and it no longer being fun anymore. It used to be fun.
>> MODERATOR: Okay, just the final remarks. Thank you for your intervention. I personally believe that jurisdiction and the application of this right to be forgotten thing are two of most complicated things in the debate nowadays, speaking technically and in terms of international law and national law in general. Still, a discussion that we must have. Google has used jurisdiction to shelter themselves. That's what happen in the Mexican revolution, to shelter themselves saying we are just marketing company of Mexico and the one that does all of the index sayings is in silicon valley so go make your claims over there, which is complicated, again, in terms of justice for the users world-wide.
Secondly, I definitely do not want a French court deciding what Google should be or should erase in Mexico or any other country for that matter. And third problem is that that could also constitute an open doors for farm shopping, which has its own intrinsic problems. Secondly, just to close a little bit, there's also another approach regarding the detractors of the so-called right to be forgotten is self-censorship in two aspects.
First, we know everything that might be on-line forever we might stop doing things as Professor Marian said, internet is part of our lives and more so each and every day. If I know something is on-line forever, I won't do it. We know it will be on-line forever, but that could deter future generations from doing and not doing stuff and amounting to self-censorship. And also another approach is regarding revenge porn or the girl snorting cocaine in a video. Why are you doing that? Why are you filming yourself? Stop walking in a mini skirt on the street if you know you can get raped. I think definitely this should not be the approach.
There should be a balance regarding the topics censorship or self-censorship, balance between protection and free speech. And privacy and censorship. But it's not the discussion that should be set aside just because of a -- of the absolute censorship approach to a topic and let me be very specific on this, not only the right to be forgotten as a censorship thing without discounting the 95% of human beings in these cases and everything that surrounds these topics, thank you very much.
>> Good point. First, I agree that we have a big problem with the coordination of this case. Because first of all the problem with the -- they can be oblige Google to this on the web. And the other -- I think that what happened if China, for example comes to going to -- like France with a few days ago. And imposed these values and these concept of freedom of expression and privacy all over the world. I think that this -- this -- these cases are the architect of the internet and we must be thinking in a different solution because the national connotation is not completely to take a solution for this -- this type of case. And really I agree that the sensitive data of the person we need to protect. But in most of the cases, our actions in society can be public too. I think that a person, again, who has condemned for a gender bias. We agreed that five years after that they have the self-determination to delete these histories. So this is a question to put on the floor. And then work. I think that other things is that the system -- the American systems have different approach of about perhaps the -- you know, the content of the freedom of expression for different reason that, you know. Thank you.
>> Just off your comments. Just to be straight, the case in Colombia was part of the debate. It was in the heart of the decision. And also the -- a lot of people from freedom of expression and organizations said that we do not believe it's a precedent or a rule that should be taken into decision was part -- I mean there were other civil society members as the data protection one who desire the case for as a way of solving it. I mean, it's not -- it's not that the court did not study it.
But I think there were two main reasons that explains why the court decided not to follow those. The first one is that we have a private -- or who is in charge of this or taking the decision of this link future claims or requests for a this link. And I think we have learned -- or I guess the court understood that, that when you have your rights is as important the data protection is as important as freedom of expression in Colombia. The freedom of expression, the fundamental right that has some relevant characteristics, but those situations must be solved in our tradition by a state of quality, for being clear.
So if you put that in charge of the private company, they'll have the obligation but they do -- they have another interest that are not linked with the protection of rights is in the state. And I think -- I'm not expert on that. But even the -- is something in charge. And then the second issue that I think was very relevant is that before the decision was taken in Colombia, the special reporter for the freedom of expression published a report about freedom of expression and and a report in terms of net neutrality was part of the promotion of it. And the Primary Commission Of Human Rights says it's -- I mean it's very important oh -- yes, it's a reference very important.
So just for -- to close what I think about this topic is that I was listening to all of you. And I think we need to move to our comfort space. When you talk about this issue with data protection issues, with children's rights people, with data protection with justice, with prosecutors, everyone is trying to hold, to push, and to win the debate. So I -- I can say that my case I will do my best for these people. So also we put that to consider the ability to be convinced. It is not a bad debate. We have to move to uncomfortable spaces. Why if you are in the idea, why we do not have jobs here or a court here? I mean, because if we -- if we just start this conversation from civil society and that's why -- I'm going to say I recognize the part to understand how internet workings because I think, you know, the cases was predated with what the court thinks before it indicates so it -- impartiality is really important. Yes.
>> MODERATOR: We have the issues. There's a real tension and desire for the education. The only thing I would have asked what's being discussed in the morning and now is that I do believe that we also have to blame ourselves. There's also a need for a society education. When a society is only taking decisions for jobs, for -- to judge people, to talk about the people based on the Google results and the Facebook history without forgetting that you also were the people, there are nice things, there are other things, there's a problem. And with the society as well. And this is something that we stress all the time with regarding to the right to be forgotten and there's a problem -- I mean, we need to talk about the jobs.
We need to talk about just as we pointed out. But we should also start by saying that internet has good before us in front of us probably and a strong tool and the way we use that information is only being shaped right now and either blaming employees and everybody else or we're going to be moving forward. Now the small thing aside. But I think we're at our time. So thank you very much for all of you for being here. And I just hope that this will move forward. Thank you. Right, 48 seconds. Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]