Reaction to ECJ ruling on the right to be forgotten

Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, said: “The principle that you have a right to be forgotten is a laudable one, but it was never intended to be a way for people to rewrite history. Search engines do not host information and trying to get them to censor legal content from their results is the wrong approach. Information should be tackled at source, which in this case is a Spanish newspaper, otherwise we start getting into very dangerous territory.

“The regulators should be doing more to ensure that people have an informed choice over what data is collected about them by companies like Google, but if we start to make intermediaries responsible for the actions of the content of other people, you’re establishing a model that leads to greater surveillance and a risk of censorship.

“A better example of why it is needed would be when someone wants to close a social media account. Companies shouldn’t be able to hold on to our information just in case you want to re-join. It’s important that citizens have better rights when it comes to stopping companies collecting data without proper consent or holding on to information for an unjustifiable length of time, even when people have ceased to use a service.”

Posted by on May 13, 2014 in Press Office | 2 Comments


  1. test
    13th May 2014

    Did you read even the facts of the case?

    Google does host information, namely an index.

    The information in the index consists of personal information that may be incorrectly damaging to some individuals.

  2. Haunted by Your Past? The EU Offers a Data Privacy Solution, but Beware the Streisand Effect
    5th August 2014

    […] EU court was a surprise, and even strong proponents of civil liberties in Europe like the UK’s Big Brother Watch have criticized its far-reaching repercussions as giving people the ability to “rewrite […]


Leave a Reply