Waterworth: 'Today's judgment opens the door to censorship'

DW: A lot of the discussion around this particular landmark case, which involved the Spanish data protection agency and a Spanish man against Google Spain and Google Inc, has centered around the distinction between a data controller and a data processor. But underlying this is what happens on a day-to-day basis for Internet users. Your position is that it centers around media freedoms. How do you feel about that?

James Waterworth: Much of the way people access information today is from the internet, often getting to it though services like the one in the judgment, i.e., through Google. We are really concerned that today's judgment opens the door to censorship, a new form of censorship over the internet, potentially to the whitewashing of history where people who have a grudge against something that is being said online in a link can simply write to the Internet company and have that information taken down. We think this is a dangerous precedent.

In this particular case, we're talking about information that was published around 1998 and was correct at the time. So when you talk about censorship and whitewashing and rewriting history, surely that is a reflection of how much time we are spending online and how much of our lives we are putting online. Sometimes we slip up and make mistakes, don't we?

James Waterworth is concerned the Google ruling may impact freedom of information

I might prefer, and politicians might prefer, for information not to be out in the public, but if it's true, people have a right to know. So it's a very dangerous route if we decide that something that is legally allowed to be published in a Spanish newspaper can't then be shown on the Internet. This is a very dangerous trend.

So how do you feel about the fact that this article was published in a newspaper with a relatively high circulation? There is probably a physical version of this article tucked away in some archive in a library, which is probably still accessible. Yet in this case, we are saying that the Internet version of that article should be removed, or we should all have the right to have that removed.

Exactly, and this raises the potential that we go to all the libraries in Spain and ask to have that article removed from those libraries.

And obviously, picking up on what you are saying, that's not the way to go, is it?

Clearly it is not the way to go. Given the heritage we have, whether the literary heritage or the information about people, it's important that people have access to information. The Internet has provided people with even easier access to information at a lower cost. That sometimes is uncomfortable for people who have done something wrong, but it is also extremely beneficial for society that politicians and other powerful people are held to account.

But the difference between a physical copy of an article on a piece of paper tucked away in an archive and what's online is the interconnectedness of all this information. Through an online search you can build a profile of a person. Isn't that what really makes the internet different in this age - that we can connect details of people's lives in such a way that can be perhaps a disadvantage to them, that people might not really recognize that what happened to a person in 1998 is not really relevant today?

Here is the original post:
Waterworth: 'Today's judgment opens the door to censorship'