Anonymous Applicant v. Google Mexico
Decision Date: July 26, 2015
The Mexican Federal Institute of Access to Information and Protection of Data (FIAIPD) ordered Google Mexico to de-index certain URLs from the Google Mexico search engine and delete personal data relating to an individual from its databases. It also ordered the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of sanctions against Google Mexico. The order was based on a request from an individual who claimed that a search of his name on a Google Mexico search engine provided links to URLs that disclosed his name, the name of his (deceased) father, the names of his brothers, and information pertaining to his business activities. Citing the European Court of Justice's decision Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez ,the FIAIPD concluded that enabling the public to find someone’s private information through an online search engine was a form of data processing, and that Google Mexico was responsible for the processing of the applicant’s personal data in these circumstances, despite Google Mexico’s contention that the search engine was run by Google Inc. in the United States.
Anonymous Applicant v. Federal Board of Conciliation and Arbitration
Decision Date: March 16, 2011
The Mexican Federal Institute of Access to Information and Data Protection (FIAIDP) ruled that personal information relating to an individual involved in labor disputes that was published in official news bulletins constituted an historical record and therefore should not be deleted. The applicant was involved in a labor dispute before the Federal Board of Conciliation and Arbitration (Board), which had served legal documents concerning the case to the applicant through its official bulletin that was published and archived online. The applicant requested the Board remove his private data from the online bulletin because it exposed him to social and employment discrimination. The Board refused, explaining that it could only revise and not delete information. The FIAIDP upheld this refusal affirming the Board’s legal obligation to publish the bulletins as a public record of its activities and therefore the deletion of the applicant’s personal data from the bulletins and the Board’s archives would not be appropriate. However, the FIAIDP ruled that the Board should take steps to de-index the information concerning the applicant from search engine results since that would be in line with the “right to be forgotten,” which every person has in relation to his or her personal data.
Empresa Folha da Manhã S/A v. The President of the House of Representatives
Decision Date: August 19, 2009
The Supreme Court of Brazil held that the House of Representatives has a duty to disclose information about the work-related expenses of its members to the media. The Court reasoned that Article 5 of the 1988 Constitution established the right to request and receive information from public bodies and, because those who hold public posts need to be accountable to the public, the media has the “right and duty” to inform the general public under Article 37 of the Constitution. The Court also found that, given the passage of a 2009 rule requiring representatives to provide information online about work-related expenses, “[i]t is inconceivable to deny access to documents that provide proof of public expenses which, in reality, should be voluntarily published through the Internet.”
In re Constitutionality of Law No. 20.088
Decision Date: December 6, 2005
The Constitutional Court of Chile held that constitutional amendments providing unrestricted public access to asset declarations of public officials were constitutional and did not conflict with the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. The Court found that all holders of public office must demonstrate integrity in their actions and therefore transparency of their personal assets is in the public interest. However, government agencies administering the disclosures must take great care that the information is not abused. The Court reasoned that the amendments did not disrupt the harmony between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to access the declarations because personal property is “an attribute external to one’s personality,” and relates to an economic sphere which is distinct from the intimate personal sphere of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.