"right to be forgotten" laws, giving users - instead of services such as Facebook -. Controlling personal data will save billions of euros and thickets of bureaucracy so why Britain resist
Britain trying to choose a European initiative allowing anyone to cancel their personal data from online service providers - a power known as the "right to be forgotten"
The confrontation between Brussels and the Ministry of Justice has erupted in the final stages of negotiations on the protection of data of the General Regulations of the EU, which aims to rebalance the relationship between the individual and the Internet.
The debate reflects growing tensions between freedom of expression and privacy as an increasing number of people are complaining that your online reputation is being eroded by outdated information, or malicious harm which may not be remove. In France, the number of complaints relating to the right to oblivion rose 42% last year. Project Guardian discovered hundreds of cases of people alarmed by the mismanagement of their data or personal information.British
main objection to the disposal of the EU is that unrealistic expectations are created by extending the right track because the proposed controls will be relatively modest in its impact on the margins data or traded either websites.
The right to oblivion, Article 17 of the Regulation on data protection has been developed by the Office of the Commissioner of Justice of the EU, particularly in response to complaints how social media such as Facebook, conserve and manage information. Although the terms of the regulations have not yet been finalized in its current form provides for punitive fines - up to 2% of global turnover - for companies that refuse to comply with requests to remove data Customers
Viviane Reding, the Justice said: "Today, a citizen may request deletion only if [the data] is incomplete or incorrect We want to extend this right to make it stronger in the E-world .. The burden of proof is on the companies. have to demonstrate that the data are needed.
"This law is one of the largest market opener in recent years. Removes conflicting rules 27 [one representative from each EU country] ... and replace mechanism to all continent. This means savings of 2.3 billion (EUR 1.9 billion) per year.
"[But] the British government has asked us not to do it and [more] Acts. One for UK and one for another, that is, there would be separate layers of complication I exchanged letters with. [UK Justice Secretary] Chris Grayling in what is something like Kafka Britain intends to oppose the bureaucracy by Britain wants an extra layer of bureaucracy is crazy The UK is 27 rules - one for each country ... "
Grayling In a letter dated March 8 Reding wrote: "You raise the possibility of specific rules for [small and medium enterprises] SMEs operating nationally and border
"I would be surprised to learn that the UK intends to introduce a new layer of complexity, cost and risk of failure by having a number of obligations to use other domestic and cross-border transactions. "
The UK is pushing for changes to be part of a directive, which would give the government more flexibility on how to adopt, instead of being enclosed in a market regulation innermost normative.
Reding, who is from Luxembourg and also Vice-President of the European Commission, said that the new right to be forgotten "is not absolute" and to be evaluated by comparison to ' other rights, such as freedom of expression, preservation of medical records or data for tax purposes. It would, for example, allow students who show embarrassing pictures of themselves on social media sites to remove at a later date. If these images has spread to a third party, however, the right of withdrawal would be diluted considerably site undergoes first contact should be with other sites that are linked informing them that the request had been made for clear information.
"[There will be] no power to remove the other, but if a company has given to the other [company] without asking if you can sell, then individual rights will be strengthened . "
The law does not apply to newspaper archives, comment on articles or posts of bloggers, to be exempted on the basis of freedom of expression. Documents published by other people - friends or antagonists - are also affected: no exception to the rules of data protection to the matter of "personal or domestic" nature
Information Office of the Commissioner in the UK, agrees that the new regulation will change the balance between consumers and "data controllers." But he warns: "Our concern is how difficult (or impossible), this can be achieved in practice and how it might lead people to falsely believe that they can achieve the complete elimination of information about them