[Manila Principles] [Liability] Concerns with GDPR over risk of censorship and conflict with Manila Principles

[kyungsinpark]

We at Open Net are having an internal discussion on the matter that has been prolonged a bit.  One of our directors believes that the Google Spain decision is narrowly based on the fact that Google crawls the Web with various search words beforehand and maintains an index of those search words to the previously retrieved html files, which constitutes a veritable database of the web's contents, and that the decision is not expected to be applied to an intermediary that merely hosts contents without such pre-created index (even if those contents will be subject to search by an internal search engine).  So, he believes that 17a is probably not meant to apply to a content host but only to Google that keeps such index.  What do you make of this?  

I know that the language does not make distinction between web hoster and search engine but I don't know any case where originals are removed upon a data protection basis.  I know of Manni case pending at ECJ that deals with removal of originals but there the data are clearly kept in the form of a data base, so even if it is decided in favor of removal, my colleague's position is left untouched.    


-----Original Message-----
From: liability-bounces at cis-india.org [mailto:liability-bounces at cis-india.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 5:48 AM
To: manilaprinciples <manilaprinciples at eff.org>
Cc: liability at cis-india.org
Subject: [Liability] Concerns with GDPR over risk of censorship and conflict with Manila Principles

Dear Manila Principles supporters,

EFF has just published a blog post expressing our concerns with the incompatibility of the current drafts of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) with the Manila Principles:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/unintended-consequences-european-style-how-new-eu-data-protection-regulation-will

In summary, our view is that the provisions which require restriction and erasure of personal information supplied to Internet platforms by third parties, would place too much responsibility on intermediaries with too little due process, and that they fail to adequately consider the freedom of expression interests of content providers.  This could lead to "DMCA-like" censorship of information, using personal data protection as a pretext.

The above post links to a short paper commenting from EFF and ARTICLE 19 that we are circulating to policymakers.  If you organisation shares our concerns and would also like to endorse that paper, please let either of us know and we will add your name to the paper when it is circulated. 
As time is short, we would ask that you provide your endorsement within
72 hours if possible, or if not, let us know how much time you will need.

Thanks.

--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en