This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/11/sajid-javid-terrorists-criminals-right-to-be-forgotten

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Sajid Javid: terrorists and criminals are exploiting ‘right to be forgotten’ Sajid Javid: terrorists and criminals are exploiting ‘right to be forgotten’
(about 3 hours later)
Terrorists and criminals are exploiting the “right to be forgotten” ruling by the European court of justice to airbrush details of their activities and trials from web search engines, the culture secretary, Sajid Javid, has warned.Terrorists and criminals are exploiting the “right to be forgotten” ruling by the European court of justice to airbrush details of their activities and trials from web search engines, the culture secretary, Sajid Javid, has warned.
In Britain’s strongest condemnation of the ruling by the Luxembourg-based court last May, Javid accused the “unelected judges” of having created “censorship by the back door”.In Britain’s strongest condemnation of the ruling by the Luxembourg-based court last May, Javid accused the “unelected judges” of having created “censorship by the back door”.
The culture secretary issued his warning in a speech to the Society of Editors in which he spoke of a “direct assault” on freedom of the press. Javid pledged to crack down on police and other authorities using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), which was drawn up to tackle serious crime, to “hamper and hinder legitimate reporting” by using its powers to access journalists’ telephone records. He issued his warning in a speech at a Society of Editors conference, in which he spoke of a direct assault on freedom of the press. He pledged to crack down on police and other authorities using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) – which was drawn up to tackle serious crime – to “hamper and hinder legitimate reporting” by using its powers to access journalists’ telephone records.
But Javid made clear that Ripa is not the only threat to the work of journalists as he warned of the benefit for terrorists and criminals after the ECJ ruled in May that individuals had the right to ask internet search engines to remove links to information on them. Peter Barron, the director of communications and public affairs for Google in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, told the Society of Editors conference that Google had accepted 42% of requests under the judgment. This has led Google to remove links to more than 200,000 articles. But Javid made clear that Ripa is not the only threat to the work of journalists as he warned of the benefit for terrorists and criminals after the ECJ ruled in May that individuals had the right to ask internet search engines to remove links to information on them. Peter Barron, the director of communications and public affairs for Google in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, told the conference that Google had accepted 42% of requests under the judgment. This has led Google to remove more than 200,000 links to web pages.
Javid told the same conference: “Since Luxembourg’s unelected judges created the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’, Google has been receiving a demand for deletion every 90 seconds. Each day, 1,000 requests pour in from people who, for one reason or another, would prefer their pasts to be kept secret. Criminals are having their convictions airbrushed from history even if they have since committed other, similar crimes. Terrorists have ordered Google to cover up stories about their trials. Javid said: “Since Luxembourg’s unelected judges created the so-called right to be forgotten, Google has been receiving a demand for deletion every 90 seconds. Each day, 1,000 requests pour in from people who, for one reason or another, would prefer their pasts to be kept secret.
“The search engine’s own lawyer has warned of unscrupulous companies abusing the system so that links to their competitors are hidden. The ‘right to be forgotten’ is censorship by the back door. Stories are not being deleted from archives because of the ruling, but if they cannot be found by the search engines they may as well not be there at all.” “Criminals are having their convictions airbrushed from history even if they have since committed other, similar crimes. Terrorists have ordered Google to cover up stories about their trials.
“The search engine’s own lawyer has warned of unscrupulous companies abusing the system so that links to their competitors are hidden. The right to be forgotten is censorship by the back door. Stories are not being deleted from archives because of the ruling, but if they cannot be found by the search engines they may as well not be there at all.”
Javid also said he would be working with the home secretary, Theresa May, to ensure that Ripa could not be used to impede the work of journalists. He said: “The right to keep sources anonymous is the bedrock of investigative journalism. It is a sacrosanct principle and one that the authorities need a damn good reason to interfere with. Ripa was passed to help with the fight against serious criminal wrongdoing. Not to impede fair and legitimate journalism, no matter how awkward that journalism may be for police officers and local councils. The legislation should never be used to spy on reporters and whistleblowers who are going about their lawful, vital, business.Javid also said he would be working with the home secretary, Theresa May, to ensure that Ripa could not be used to impede the work of journalists. He said: “The right to keep sources anonymous is the bedrock of investigative journalism. It is a sacrosanct principle and one that the authorities need a damn good reason to interfere with. Ripa was passed to help with the fight against serious criminal wrongdoing. Not to impede fair and legitimate journalism, no matter how awkward that journalism may be for police officers and local councils. The legislation should never be used to spy on reporters and whistleblowers who are going about their lawful, vital, business.
“As the secretary of state responsible for the media, I’ll be making sure the Home Office knows just how important this issue is for the industry,” he said. “And I’ll be watching closely to ensure the act is not misused in the future.”“As the secretary of state responsible for the media, I’ll be making sure the Home Office knows just how important this issue is for the industry,” he said. “And I’ll be watching closely to ensure the act is not misused in the future.”
The culture secretary said the Tories would provide protections for the free press and journalists in a new British bill of rights that would replace the Human Rights Act. This would reform Britain’s relationship with the European convention on human rights. Its provision on privacy, outlined in article 8, is being exploited by lawyers to protect the “shady past” of their clients, he said. Javid said the Tories would provide protections for the free press and journalists in a new British bill of rights that would replace the Human Rights Act. This would change Britain’s relationship with the European convention on human rights. Its provision on privacy, outlined in article 8, is being exploited by lawyers to protect the “shady past” of their clients, he said.
Javid said of article 8: “In 2014 it is little more than an excuse for well-paid lawyers to hide the shady pasts of wealthy businessmen and the sexual indiscretions of sporting celebrities. That people are being allowed to do so in the name of human rights shows how far from [the British drafter of the ECHR David] Maxwell-Fyfe’s intentions the idea has drifted. That’s why, if we receive a majority at the next election, a Conservative government will scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act and deliver a new British bill of rights and responsibilities.Javid said of article 8: “In 2014 it is little more than an excuse for well-paid lawyers to hide the shady pasts of wealthy businessmen and the sexual indiscretions of sporting celebrities. That people are being allowed to do so in the name of human rights shows how far from [the British drafter of the ECHR David] Maxwell-Fyfe’s intentions the idea has drifted. That’s why, if we receive a majority at the next election, a Conservative government will scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act and deliver a new British bill of rights and responsibilities.
Javid also said regulation of newspapers must remain in the hands of the industry. “This government has absolutely no intention of imposing any form of state-controlled regulation of the press,” he said. “No government ever should. The process must be industry-led, with no opportunity for politicians, present or future, to interfere with legitimate journalistic practice.”Javid also said regulation of newspapers must remain in the hands of the industry. “This government has absolutely no intention of imposing any form of state-controlled regulation of the press,” he said. “No government ever should. The process must be industry-led, with no opportunity for politicians, present or future, to interfere with legitimate journalistic practice.”
Javid also touched on the thorny issue of the BBC’s impact on the local newspaper industry. “As news moves online, local newspapers with five- or even four-figure circulations have found themselves going head-to-head with one of the world’s biggest broadcasters,” he said. “As with so many of the changes brought about by the internet, it raises a lot of questions. Is it healthy for a publicly funded broadcaster to compete with commercial newspapers? Should the BBC share its local public service content under a creative commons licence?”Javid also touched on the thorny issue of the BBC’s impact on the local newspaper industry. “As news moves online, local newspapers with five- or even four-figure circulations have found themselves going head-to-head with one of the world’s biggest broadcasters,” he said. “As with so many of the changes brought about by the internet, it raises a lot of questions. Is it healthy for a publicly funded broadcaster to compete with commercial newspapers? Should the BBC share its local public service content under a creative commons licence?”