The law is the right to be forgotten. The right to be forgotten on the Internet. How the new law works

The State Duma adopted a controversial bill in the first reading

We are talking about the right of any Russian to demand that a search engine remove links to certain types of information about himself. The authors of the bill, deputies from all Duma factions, assure that “the bill being presented is consistent with the pan-European practice of resolving similar issues.” But the content of the bill is not very consistent with “general European practice”...

Search engines in the Russian Federation will be required to remove links, firstly, to “unreliable” information about the applicant. Secondly - on information “disseminated in violation of the law” (for example, “On personal data”). And, finally, to reliable information about events that took place more than three years ago, with the exception of references to information about crimes if the criminal record has not been expunged, or information “containing information about criminal offenses” if the statute of limitations for them has not expired.

Profile Committee on Information Policy, information technology and connections recognized the “relevance” of the issues raised by Alexey Kazakov (“SR”), Vadim Dengin (LDPR), Olga Kazakova (“ER”) and Leonid Kalashnikov (CPRF) and promised to “harmonize with the norms” by the second reading current legislation RF" certain provisions of the bill and carry out its "legal, technical and linguistic adjustment".

The “common European practice” that deputies recall is, first of all, the decision of the European Court (the highest court of the European Union) a year ago in favor of the Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez, who demanded that Google remove links to newspaper article from 1998 with a story about his financial difficulties. Since then, the largest search engine in the world in the EU countries has been accepting applications from EU citizens with a request to remove links to this or that information about them.

Based on documents posted on the official websites of the EU and materials from European media, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Like “there,” the search engine operator will make decisions about removing links or refusing to remove them.

Like “there”, a reasoned refusal by a search engine can be appealed in court.

In the EU there is no specific “oblivion period” - not three, not 10, not 20 years. Because everything is relative: some information turns into “garbage” almost the next day, while others remain relevant even after 30 years. The European Court emphasized that the decision in each specific case must be made depending on the specific circumstances, taking into account “the balance between public interests and individual human rights.” Moreover, when making a decision, the “role played by the person requesting the removal of links in public life” should be taken into account. According to statistics, 26% of Google refusals to remove links are due to the fact that this information concerns professional activity applicant, another common reason for refusal is the public significance of the information.

In the Russian version of the “right to be forgotten,” there is NO difference between a politician’s statement asking to remove references to a story about an event three years ago, in which he took part, but which he no longer wants to focus public attention on, and a statement from the plumber Uncle Vasya, who asks to remove the link to the article about the circumstances of the theft of his TV 10 years ago...

“Who controls the past controls the future.” A still from the film "1984" based on the novel by George Orwell, in which the government tracks the contents of historical documents in order to control the population.

The period within which a citizen’s application must be verified is not defined in the EU.

According to statistics, Google initially spent an average of about 56 days processing each application, but now the average procedure takes 16 days. What do our deputies propose? From the moment of receipt of the application, the search engine may send a notification to the applicant within three days with a request to clarify the request. And within THREE DAYS after receiving the updated link, he must remove the links or give a reasoned refusal.

By the way, in the conclusion of the legal department of the State Duma, the ability of a search engine to qualitatively check whether events contain or do not contain “signs of criminal acts” is questioned, or to clarify whether a citizen’s criminal record has expired: this “falls within the competence of the court or law enforcement, and not the search engine operator,” lawyers say.

The State Duma intends to adopt the bill in three readings before the end of the spring session. And in the fall he will take up a bill that would introduce huge fines for violating the Russian version of the “right to be forgotten”...

"How will the right to be forgotten work?"

Only the Internet community has recovered from the entry into force of the second “anti-piracy” law ( the federal law dated November 24, 2014 No. 364-FZ ""), how the IT sector is already concerned about a new act, this time designed to “curb” search engines to protect the privacy and personal data of citizens. It's about on amendments to the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 149-FZ "" (hereinafter referred to as the law on information), and which received the unofficial name "law on oblivion".

With the development of the IT sphere, the idea of protecting personal data from its free distribution on the Internet has become increasingly relevant. The starting point for the international recognition of the right to be forgotten was the precedent case of Mario Costeja Gonzalez vs Google (May 2014). In this case, the European Court made a decision by which it ordered the search engine Google system remove links from search results with the name of the victim.

Already in March 2014, the European Parliament approved the Personal Data Protection Act, which establishes the right of a citizen to demand that a search engine remove reliable information about him. It is assumed that this document was taken as the basis for the development of the Russian “law on oblivion.”

It is obvious that the “law on oblivion” is intended to consolidate a compromise between the right to privacy, protection of personal data and the right to freedom of speech, as well as access to information.

Based on the results of the analysis of the content of the law, a clear conclusion follows that preference was still given to the protection of personal data over the need for access to information by an unlimited number of persons.

The "law on oblivion" contains two articles that have key value to understand the new mechanism.

Article 1 reveals the very idea of the right to be forgotten by defining the circle of persons to whom it applies. new order, the mechanism of interaction between the applicant and the search engine operator.

Article 2 contains a description of the procedural order of interaction between the applicant and the search engine operator through determining the jurisdiction of such disputes.

So, now let’s take a closer look at the content of each of the articles.

On search engines (Article 1 of the Law on Oblivion, Clause 20 of Article 2 of the Law on Information)

By search engines, the legislator understands Information Systems, which, at the user's request, search the Internet for information of certain content and provide the user with information about the site page index for access to the requested information located on the Internet owned by other persons, with the exception of information systems used to carry out state and municipal functions, provide government and municipal services etc.

The definition of a search engine in the original version of the “law of oblivion” allowed for a broad interpretation, according to which regular Internet sites with page-by-page search functions, both the site itself and external Internet resources, also fell under the search engine. This contradicts the European approach with the involvement of classical search engines in the implementation of the right to be forgotten.

Also, in the version of the law for the first reading, in addition to the definition of a search engine, it was proposed to consolidate such definitions as “link” and “search engine operator”.

As a result, preference was given to a single, detailed definition, which contains, among other things, the definition of “link” - “information about the index of a site page on the Internet.”

On the procedure for extrajudicial interaction between the search system operator (hereinafter referred to as the OPS) and the applicant (Article 1 of the Law on Oblivion, Part 1 of Article 10 3 of the Law on Information)

Article 1 of the “law on oblivion” contains a mechanism that reveals the peculiarities of interaction between a search engine operator and a citizen declaring the need to remove links to information about him.

Thus, the obligation of a search engine operator to remove links is defined as follows: “A search engine operator distributing advertising on the Internet that is aimed at attracting the attention of consumers located in the territory of the Russian Federation, at the request of a citizen ( individual) (hereinafter in this article - the applicant) is obliged to stop issuing information about the site page index on the Internet (hereinafter also referred to as the link), allowing access to information about the applicant, distributed in violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation, which is unreliable and also irrelevant, has lost significance for the applicant due to subsequent events or actions of the applicant, with the exception of information about events containing signs of criminal offenses for which the terms for criminal prosecution have not expired, and information about the commission by a citizen of a crime for which a criminal record has not been expunged or expunged." .

The following key conclusions can be drawn from the definition of the search engine operator's responsibilities:

The “Law on Oblivion” provides for a declarative procedure for removing links from search results.

The applicant is a citizen of the Russian Federation.

The cited article precisely enshrines the main idea of the right to be forgotten - the right to demand the removal of unreliable, outdated information directly related to the applicant.

About information subject to deletion (Article 1 of the Law on Oblivion, Part 1 of Article 10 3 of the Law on Information)

It is interesting that the wording of the article proposed for the first reading provided for the division of information subject to deletion by the OPS into three types: unreliable, reliable about events that took place and ended more than three years ago (except for information about crimes, outstanding criminal records), and disseminated with violation of the law.

If the first and last types of information to be deleted migrated to the new version of the law unchanged, then the wording “reliable information about events that took place and ended more than three years ago” was decided to be adjusted.

In fact, there was a refusal to legislate specific deadlines for the obsolescence of information in respect of which the applicant can apply for its removal.

Thus, an expansive approach was chosen in determining reliable information to be deleted, highlighting two of its characteristics: irrelevance and loss of significance for the applicant due to subsequent events or actions of the applicant.

The legislator’s idea is clear: I want to create a flexible legal mechanism that will not constrain the applicant to a certain time frame.

Situations with the placement of links, for example, to information about the applicant’s previous place of work, do not really fit into the concept with a three-year period. Similar situations are more relevant to the concept of the irrelevance of such information for the applicant. There is information that the applicant does not want to disclose a priori, regardless of when such events took place.

Meanwhile, the inclusion in the text of the “law on oblivion” of such vague and subjective categories as “irrelevance”, “lost meaning for the applicant” creates risks for reducing the efficiency of the mechanism and abuse on the part of applicants. Not to mention the additional burden that will fall on the OPS to verify the validity of such statements.

On an application to remove links (Article 1 of the Law on Oblivion, Part 2 of Article 10 3 of the Law on Information)

The article of the “law on oblivion” provides an exhaustive list of details that the applicant must leave about himself when contacting the OPS:

Full name, passport details, Contact Information(telephone and (or) fax numbers, address Email, mailing address);
information about the applicant, the issuance of links to which is subject to termination;
a link to a website page containing false information;
the basis for stopping the issuance of links by the search engine (it is necessary to characterize the disseminated information as unreliable, disseminated in violation of the law, irrelevant, or lost meaning);
the applicant’s consent to the processing of his personal data.

Analysis of the list shows that the application must be justified. In order to simplify the identification of disputed links by the OPC, the legislator nevertheless obliged the applicant to independently indicate a link that provides access to the disputed information. In the previous edition of the list, the applicant could limit himself to indicating only the domain name, network address site.

In other words, the entire burden of proving the dissemination of controversial information falls on the shoulders of the applicant. In this sense, the principle implemented in the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, on protection against the spread of counterfeit content, on libel, etc.

Considering the potential burden of the OPS in processing such applications, I consider it absolutely correct to establish the applicant’s obligation to disclose full information about himself, including providing a link to the controversial source.

On the timing of processing applications from the OPS (Article 1 of the Law on Oblivion, Part 3 of Article 10 3 of the Law on Information)

Like the second “anti-piracy” law in relation to information intermediaries (), the “law of oblivion” determines the right of the OPS to recover from the applicant additional information and documents in order to verify the validity of the application.

Thus, the OPS is given only 10 working days to process the application and send a notification to provide additional materials to the applicant. Considering the possible number of applications, as well as their minimum volume, a period of 10 working days is the minimum reasonable. The original version of the law included a period for processing an application equal to three calendar days, which for obvious reasons did not suit the IT lobby.

Let me remind you that in accordance with the second “anti-piracy” law, the site owner is given only day to remove the counterfeit from the site or send an additional request to the applicant (). So, a period of 10 working days for processing OPS applications is more adequate.

On requesting additional documents from the applicant (Article 1 of the Law on Oblivion, Part 3 of Article 10 3 of the Law on Information)

In addition to documents confirming the unreliable nature of the information or its irrelevance or loss of significance, the OPS may request a passport from the applicant. The law does not disclose in what form the applicant must provide the OPS with an identification document. In this case, a notarized copy of the passport should definitely satisfy the OPS.

It should be noted that the establishment of the right to demand a passport from the applicant is another innovation that was not in the original version of the law. Whether organized public organizations will use this right in practice is a question. It is unlikely that they are interested in complicating and increasing document flow.

On the timing of the applicant’s response (Article 1 of the Law on Oblivion, Part 4 of Article 10 3 of the Law on Information)

The applicant is given 10 working days to correct errors and inaccuracies in his application and provide additional documents. IN in this case the indication of a ten-day period was most likely due to the need to ensure equal treatment between the applicant and the OPS.

On going to court and disclosing information (Article 1, Article 2 of the Law on Oblivion, Part 7, Part 8 of Article 10 3 of the Law on Information, Art. 29, Art. 402Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation)

The law contains an obligation for the OPS not to disclose information about the applicant’s application. I believe that this is a logical consequence of protecting the privacy and personal data of the applicant, especially taking into account the requirements for filling out the relevant application.

Upon receipt of a refusal from the OPS, the applicant can exercise a judicial form of protection of his own rights. There is also an analogy with “anti-piracy” laws. If the second “anti-piracy” law specifies the Moscow City Court as the court of first instance, then under the “law of oblivion” the applicant can go to court general jurisdiction at your place of residence.

Here, the IT lobby was unable to influence the legislator in order to establish the jurisdiction of such disputes at the location of the public security organization.

From the point of view of optimizing the costs of the legal entity associated with litigation based on user requests, the option of having jurisdiction at the location of the plaintiff-user is not very successful. When legal proceedings are initiated by users from different cities, legal entities will be forced to bear significant legal costs, ensuring representation of their own interests in different cities of Russia.

Nevertheless, the legislator accommodated the applicant as an economically weaker entity in relations with the OPS.

In conclusion, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the “law on oblivion” will come into force on January 1, 2016. Search engines have very little time left to determine how they will interact with applicants in practice. I think that preference will still be given to the development of optimization schemes involving online forms for citizens’ requests, allowing for their automatic and manual processing.

When the “right to be forgotten” law was passed in early 2016, PR and reputation management specialists rejoiced: finally, it was possible to minimum budget and hide unwanted materials from search results in a short period of time. At the same time, from the first day of discussion of the bill, there were heated debates about the harm that it could cause to freedom of speech, accessibility of information and simply the well-being of the RuNet. But about possible harm For the people who decided to use this law, no one spoke.

Theoretically, thanks to the right to be forgotten, any personal, unreliable and outdated data can be hidden from search results, having sufficient grounds for this. For example, it became possible removal information if, by a court decision, it is found to be unreliable.

Naturally, many experts, knowing the process of implementing the law only in theory, began to sell the right to be forgotten as a service. In the field of digital communications, this approach is not uncommon. Not only because of the gap in the competencies of sellers and performers, but also because of the dynamism of the industry itself. Technologies and work methods appear and disappear so quickly that specialists often have to “run” in order to simply stand still professionally and learn to use new tools in the process of work.

Unfortunately, in this case this approach played a cruel joke. And we can only sympathize with those who were among the first to exercise the right to oblivion, and here’s why:

This ugly sign appears over everyone who dares to use the law. No person wants to see a “stamp of shame” over the issuance of information about themselves. Frankly speaking, such an approach to the implementation of the law looks like sabotage on the part of Yandex.

With this sign, the search engine hinted to everyone that it thinks about confidentiality in the process of implementing the law, and actually neutralized the only effective tool for working with a certain type of site.

We are talking about sites that purposefully post defamatory articles for the sake of making money; people call them “compromising sites.” The goal of such sites is to force you to pay to remove defamatory materials. The price of the issue is several thousand dollars. In fact, no one is protected from such an information racket, and public people are at risk.

There are no opportunities to influence such sites. Even if you prove in court that what is written is a lie, and in accordance with a court decision, demand that the site be deleted false information, most likely, no one will delete anything. The only way to combat such sites could be a “right to be forgotten” law.

It is curious that sites involved in the information “racket” are consistently in the TOP 10 of Yandex for the majority of queries related to officials, businessmen and government officials. In light of what is happening, the theory that Yandex deliberately inserts negative materials into search results no longer looks so crazy.

By turning to Yandex to exercise your right to be forgotten, you also run a high risk of running into journalists looking for hard facts. And they don’t care at all that a person defended his right to clean search results in court. At the same time, it is unknown how journalists are looking for the next “victim of the law.” Do Yandex employees “leak” information to them, or do they simply spend all day checking the issue of every businessman-politician for the presence of such a blank?

Moreover, if you decide to sue Yandex and defend your right to oblivion through the court, be prepared for wide publicity of the trial. It’s not for nothing that Yandex refuses to block materials in more than 70% of cases. This is another one effective way“reason” with you and force you to give up.

The situation at Google is also difficult. All requests to remove information received by the search engine are publicly published on www.lumendatabase.org . The site says: « Lumen Database collects and analyzes legal complaints and takedown requests to help Internet users know their rights and understand the law. This data allows us to study the prevalence of legal threats, and allows Internet users to see the source of deleted content.”

Users requesting removal of information from Google receive an email with the following information:

“Please note that a copy of each legal notice received by us is sent for subsequent publication by a third party. Your letter indicating your name will be sent to Lumen ( www.lumendatabase.org ). You can see an example of such a publication at http://www.lumendatabase.org/international/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1860 . Instead of deleted information in the output line Google search a link to publish your letter will be displayed.”

There are also two types of dies on Google:

Die No. 1. Displayed by default and does not always mean removing results from the search page.

Die No. 2. Such a box appears to appear when a request to remove search results is satisfied. If you analyze all of the above, it becomes clear that using the “right to be forgotten” is more likely to do harm than good. And search engines in the context of all of the above look, to put it mildly, unscrupulously. Yandex management, for example, philosophically explains the refusal to exercise user rights as freedom of speech, but in reality it is rather freedom of slander and false information.

How to act without the right to be forgotten?

Fortunately, no one has repealed Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “On the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation”. Just like human communication.

Analyze the sites where unwanted materials are posted, weigh all the risks and make a decision on how you will act. Each site requires its own approach. For some, a request will be enough to remove it. Some will have to submit a claim three times, and others will have to pay.

You need to be able to distinguish an ideological fighter for justice from a businessman and be able to protect your interests and the interests of the client. Don't rush to implement KPIs if your actions can cause even indirect harm. Any letter you send “requesting that something be removed” could be the starting point for another scandal, so take all possible precautions.

Many marketers may say that it is not necessary to remove negativity; you can always push it back 2- 3 pages of search engines using SERM, adding positive and neutral information to the search results. But unfortunately, practice shows that SERM is not a panacea. You cannot cover an infected wound with a band-aid and assume that you have solved the problem. A good reputation should be clean, not just tidied up. The displaced negativity will definitely return to the TOP 10, it’s only a matter of time.

One way or another, first you will have to explain to the client that there are easy ways to similar work no, and most likely there won't be. You are always dealing with a third party who is not interested in your information well-being. Give the client the opportunity to understand all the risks and consequences. In turn, remember that hopeless situations can not be. What a whole agency has been unable to handle for years can be handled by one specialist, if only there is a desire.

About the author:

Victoria Shulzhenok,

Reputation manager in Garin Studio

On Hotline Every day on the Runet, citizens receive requests asking how to exercise their right to remove false information from search results.

ROCIT will talk about how the new law on the “right to be forgotten” works, who can use it and how. Who to contact to protect your online reputation, what documents to submit and how they will be considered. What to do if the search engine refuses to delete information - read our material.

About the problem

In 2016, it appeared on RuNet new practice- removal of links to false information about users from search engines. This became possible thanks to the entry into force of the “right to be forgotten” law on January 1, 2016. It is designed to help every person control the search for information about themselves on the Internet. Now, if you've been slandered online or had personal information shared that you didn't want to share, you can fix it. Search engines will help you with this. But the law provides for a number of restrictions; there are some conditions for its application.

Examples of requests

Example Slider counter

"Good afternoon!
The fact is that I have already contacted Google with a request to remove irrelevant and inaccurate information about me.
For one request, the search engine agreed to remove links from the results.
But for the second, no - arguing that this information is of public interest, and therefore cannot be deleted. I also recommended contacting the site’s webmaster.
I want to resolve the dispute pre-trial, since going to court will cost me certain time and material costs.
Please tell me:
1) how can I argue with the search engine for my request to remove information from search results?
2) how legitimate is the search engine’s refusal to delete, even if in the request for deletion I indicated that the information was out of date?
Thanks in advance for your answer!”

Artem, student
“We submitted a request to Google through a form to remove a link to a 3-year-old material published on...ne..... It was about our leader. He was accused of starting a fight.
We chose the following basis for deletion - the information is unreliable and has lost its relevance for the applicant. The answer came: “...the information on the above pages contains information about your business that may be of interest to users, for example, to your future or current clients and partners. In addition, your customers may be interested in information about your current or past activities, so including this data in search results is reasonable. You have the right to raise this issue with the data protection authority in your country if Google solution
You are not satisfied..”
We answered them to this as well, but there was no backlash.

Refusals come without any motivation. Maybe we are referring to the wrong thing or building communication with them incorrectly? I would like to ask you for advice.”
Galina, head of commerce department
"Hello!

I would like to exercise the right to be forgotten, according to the law that came into force on January 1, 2016. I figured out how to write a request to Yandex, but a problem arose with Google, because according to the form that can be filled out, I need to contact the original source so that it removes the material and only then can I contact Google itself to remove the information from the results. My question is: is this requirement legal? or I found the wrong way to go to Google, maybe you can tell me the right one.”

Christina, manager Next news On January 1, the law on the “right to be forgotten” came into force in Russia, which already exists in most European countries. Now every Russian can contact a search engine pre-trial and ask to be removed from

According to the new law, irrelevant information must be removed regardless of whether it harms a person's dignity or honor. According to the head of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications Nikolai Nikiforov, new document will be an additional operational burden on search engines, but they must cope with it, especially since the authorities have reduced the amount of fines for legal entities that do not comply with the law.

Who determines the unreliability of information?

At the first stage, search engines are required to determine the unreliability and irrelevance of information; the verification is carried out on the basis of the data provided by the applicant.

“The search engine may, within 10 days, send the applicant a request to provide certain additional information, if it considers the information provided by the applicant incomplete. Thus, the entire burden of proving the dissemination of controversial information falls only on the shoulders of the applicant,” Tatyana Golubovskaya, director of development and strategic communications of the Regional Public Center for Internet Technologies (ROCIT), said in an interview with the 360 TV channel.

How the new law works

To remove from search query links with information about yourself must be sent to the operator. The search engine must stop issuing links with controversial information within 10 days and notify the applicant about this. The company may also request clarifying information and documents that confirm the citizen’s identity.

“The applicant, within 10 days of receiving such a request, provides clarifying information, and then the operator, within 10 days of receiving a full response from the applicant, stops issuing links with disputed information and notifies the applicant about this,” Golubovskaya explained.

Who is covered by the “right to be forgotten” law?

You can remove links from Russian companies and foreign search engines that have entity in the Russian Federation. For example, you can contact Google company, as it has an office in the country. But it will no longer be possible to remove links from Yahoo. According to Golubovskaya, if links are removed from Russian Yandex, then most likely they will continue to be issued on Yandex. com, since it is not registered in Russia. In addition, the new law does not apply to national information systems.

Why is this law needed?

Links to false information will be removed only from the search distribution: the data on the site will be preserved. To remove them, you must file a lawsuit to protect your honor, dignity and business reputation.

“If the court decides the case in favor of the applicant, the owners of a private Internet resource may be required to delete this text or publish a refutation. The law “on the right to be forgotten” does not allow information to be deleted. But it makes it difficult to find it without any trial,” the interlocutor said. 360".

Thus, unwanted data cannot be reached random user, however, it can be found if you know the direct link. The data will also continue to be stored in government databases.

“But since these databases are interconnected, there is no need to be afraid. Information that is truly not relevant will be changed automatically. The law also does not apply to the activities of law enforcement agencies, state, municipal, and information systems in terms of storing information,” Golubovskaya said.

What is the right to be forgotten

The right to be forgotten allows a person to request removal from public access personal data to which links lead in search engines. It concerns irrelevant, incomplete, outdated, inaccurate or erroneous data, as well as information for which the legal basis for storing has no longer existed. For example, in Europe, a criminal released on parole may, after some time, demand that links to materials related to the violation be removed.

The right to be forgotten allows you to protect a person from the pervasiveness of the Internet: with the development World Wide Web published once personal information stays there forever. And thanks to blogs, social networks And search engines it becomes available to users around the world.

The world has developed an ambiguous attitude towards the law on the “right to be forgotten”: opinions have been expressed that it contradicts other fundamental human rights, in particular, freedom of access to information and freedom of speech.

Pogorelova Nina

Alexander Kudryavtsev