評論
打印
Google and the EU
谷歌向歐盟低頭
On being forgotten
公民可以要求Google將你“被遺忘”
The right to be forgotten sounds attractive. But it creates more problems than it solves.
這個可以申請被谷歌“遺忘”的權利現如今看來十分具有吸引力。但是這卻使得其解決的問題難以覆蓋更多的新問題。
MAX MOSLEY enjoyed sexual practices which many might find odd. But that was his business, so when in 2008 a now-defunct British tabloid wrongly dubbed him a participant in a “sick Nazi orgy”, he sued it for breaching his privacy and won. The allegations, however, remain on the internet. If you type in “Max Mosley”, Google helpfully tries to complete the search: the first four options are “video”, “case”, “pictures” and “scandal”. He—and many others who feel their lives are tainted by the smears and irrelevancies which search engines link to their names—want redress.
馬科斯·莫斯利對性慣行十分陶醉，而這卻會成為人們眼中的怪異舉止和癖好。但是這是他個人私事，因此在2008年，一個現已停止經營的英國小報錯誤授予其“病態納粹狂歡者”的“榮譽”稱號，對此他提出起訴，一紙將該報刊告上法庭，宣稱其侵犯了自己的個人隱私，并最終獲得勝訴。然而，這一事件的指控，在互聯網上依然得以保留。如果你輕觸鼠標，鍵入“馬科斯·莫斯利”，谷歌會有效地彈出所有關于馬科斯的相關搜索：最前的四個搜索結果就是“視頻”、“案件”、“艷照”以及“緋聞”。馬科斯以及和他一樣倍感自己生活被一些將其名字與名譽污點以及無關事宜相捆綁的搜索引擎給抹黑了—他們需要匡正。
Many European politicians are sympathetic to this. Countries such as France and Britain have long allowed the erasure of criminal records once convictions are spent. The European Parliament has backed a “right to be forgotten”, though to become law it would need the approval of all the European Union's 28 member states. Mr Mosley has won the first round of a legal battle in Germany to block the images appearing on Google searches there.
很多歐洲政客對于這一點也深表贊同。諸如法國和英國這些歐洲國家有很長一段歷史時期允許一旦判決罪被定奪，犯罪記錄被刪除。歐洲委員已經開始重新審視“公民‘被遺忘'的權利”，盡管要成為法律文書仍然需要得到所有歐盟28個成員國的共同認可。莫斯利已經在德國的合法戰爭中贏得了第一輪的勝利，屏蔽了出現在谷歌的搜索結果上的相關照片。
Now the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU's highest court, has boosted this cause in a landmark case (see article). A Spanish lawyer, Mario Costeja González, sued Google because its search results linked his name to a newspaper article from 1998 about a now-resolved lawsuit. The court ruled that Google was a “data controller” under the 19-year-old European law on data protection, which gives individuals strong rights over data that others hold on them. It said Google could be required not to display links to information that is “inadequate, irrelevant...or excessive”, given the purpose for which they are processed, and the time elapsed. Individuals will be able to appeal to their national data watchdogs if they are turned down.
現在歐洲法院，即歐洲最高法院已經在努力促成此案例作為劃時代的案例。一個西班牙的律師，馬里奧科特加岡薩雷斯，因谷歌搜索結果將其姓名與一報紙1998年報道的一起現今已經結案的訴訟案件的文章鏈接在一起，而起訴了谷歌。法庭根據歐洲的一項數據保護法律判定谷歌的行為屬于“數據控制”，該法律已實行19年之久，規定個人用戶們享有對于別人持有關于個人數據的極大掌控權利。法院裁決谷歌應該被要求不再將其鏈接信息展示出來，比如那些“不充足、無關緊要或是過度夸大”的信息，只用給用戶們希望獲得的信息即可，并且時間也會使人們淡忘掉這一切。個人用戶將會向他們國家數據監測者提起申訴，以查看是否這些內容已被關掉。
The court's desire to protect victims of misunderstanding and malice is understandable. But a right to be forgotten would be hard to implement. Even if Google is made to censor its search results in Europe, in America the First Amendment's free-speech provision usually trumps privacy concerns. With modest technical know-how, European internet users will be able to make American-style searches. Europe will hardly want to build a Chinese-style firewall to prevent that.
法院期望能夠保護那些被大眾誤解和仇恨的受害者的這一愿望是可以理解的。但被遺忘的權利將很難實現。即使谷歌在歐洲、在美國被審查其搜索結果，憲法第一修正案的自由言論的規定通常勝過隱私問題。僅僅需要使用謙和的技術訣竅，歐洲的互聯網用戶將能成為美式的自由網頁搜索者。歐洲將很難想建立起一個中國式的防火墻，以防止這一問題的產生。
And even if it were practicable to force companies to erase the past, it would do more harm than good. It would hamper everyone interested in finding out inconvenient truths about those who would like their past covered up. The ECJ ruling makes allowance for a public-interest defence, but it will mostly make commercial sense for Google and other search engines to take down material as soon as someone complains, rather than to weigh the merits of each case.
而且，即使迫使企業抹去過往歷史的這一做法是可行的，將會造成弊大于利。它會妨礙每個人去查明他們所熱衷尋求的不易真相，而這一真相是部分人希望掩蓋的關于自己的過往。歐洲法院的裁決考慮到公眾利益的捍衛和保護，但其主要將會使得具有商業意識的谷歌和其他搜索引擎一旦出現有人抱怨的情況，就撤銷相關信息，而不是權衡每種情況下的利弊。
Watch out for silent encroachments
留心無聲的侵犯
The right to be forgotten would also undermine the internet's great strength. The internet is, in effect, a library of unimaginable size—full, as all libraries are, of news, gossip, archive material and other stuff which may to varying degrees be irrelevant, wrong or mad. It has made the best and worst of such information more freely available than ever before. Search engines should be like library catalogues—comprehensive and neutral, and without fear or favour of what the contents may reveal, or how they may be used. It should be up to individuals, not governments, to distinguish what is right or wrong, useful or immaterial. People should be wary of ceding the power to make that judgment, even to a court that thinks hard about it and backs the underdog. As James Madison said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
被遺忘的權利也將破壞互聯網的強大力量?；ヂ摼W，實際上是難以想象的大規模圖書庫，正如圖書館一樣，其中庫含了幾乎所有的內容，包括新聞、八卦、檔案材料，并可能與其他內容在不同程度上是不相干的、錯誤的或者瘋狂。它使這些無論最佳還是最糟糕的信息，比以往任何時候更可自由查看。搜索引擎應該像圖書館目錄一樣——全面、中立，而不用擔心或是偏愛可能會透露的內容，或者是它們該如何被使用。它應該是由個人而不是政府來決定，要分清哪些是對還是錯，有用或是不重要的信息。人們應該警惕割讓作出這樣的判斷的權力，甚至是對于法院都認為很難對此作出判斷或是支持劣勢者。正如詹姆斯·麥迪遜說，“我相信仍存在很多當權者逐步無聲地侵犯民眾自由的例子，這些例子比暴力和突然的強取豪奪更為猖獗”。譯者：肖登怡
譯文屬譯生譯世
