• 2025考研復(fù)試伴學(xué)班
• 2025考研復(fù)試標(biāo)準(zhǔn)班
• 2026考研英語(yǔ)全程班
• 26考研全科上岸規(guī)劃營(yíng)「擇校▪規(guī)劃▪備考」
• 2025考研專(zhuān)業(yè)課復(fù)習(xí)資料「真題▪筆記▪講義▪題庫(kù)」

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 itcreates more problems than it solves.

這個(gè)可以申請(qǐng)被谷歌“遺忘”的權(quán)利現(xiàn)如今看來(lái)十分具有吸引力。但是這卻使得其解決的問(wèn)題難以覆蓋更多的新問(wèn)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 Naziorgy”, he sued it for breaching his privacy and won. The allegations, however, remain on theinternet. If you type in “Max Mosley”, Google helpfully tries to complete the search: the first fouroptions are “video”, “case”, “pictures” and “scandal”. He—and many others who feel their livesare tainted by the smears and irrelevancies which search engines link to their names—wantredress.

馬科斯·莫斯利對(duì)性慣行十分陶醉，而這卻會(huì)成為人們眼中的怪異舉止和癖好。但是這是他個(gè)人私事，因此在2008年，一個(gè)現(xiàn)已停止經(jīng)營(yíng)的英國(guó)小報(bào)錯(cuò)誤授予其“病態(tài)納粹狂歡者”的“榮譽(yù)”稱(chēng)號(hào)，對(duì)此他提出起訴，一紙將該報(bào)刊告上法庭，宣稱(chēng)其侵犯了自己的個(gè)人隱私，并最終獲得勝訴。然而，這一事件的指控，在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上依然得以保留。如果你輕觸鼠標(biāo)，鍵入“馬科斯·莫斯利”，谷歌會(huì)有效地彈出所有關(guān)于馬科斯的相關(guān)搜索：最前的四個(gè)搜索結(jié)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(yù)污點(diǎn)以及無(wú)關(guān)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 havelong allowed the erasure of criminal records once convictions are spent. The EuropeanParliament has backed a “right to be forgotten”, though to become law it would need theapproval of all the European Union's 28 member states. Mr Mosley has won the first round of alegal battle in Germany to block the images appearing on Google searches there.

很多歐洲政客對(duì)于這一點(diǎn)也深表贊同。諸如法國(guó)和英國(guó)這些歐洲國(guó)家有很長(zhǎng)一段歷史時(shí)期允許一旦判決罪被定奪，犯罪記錄被刪除。歐洲委員已經(jīng)開(kāi)始重新審視“公民‘被遺忘'的權(quán)利”，盡管要成為法律文書(shū)仍然需要得到所有歐盟28個(gè)成員國(guó)的共同認(rèn)可。莫斯利已經(jīng)在德國(guó)的合法戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中贏得了第一輪的勝利，屏蔽了出現(xiàn)在谷歌的搜索結(jié)果上的相關(guān)照片。

Now the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU's highest court, has boosted this cause in alandmark case (see article). A Spanish lawyer, Mario Costeja González, sued Google becauseits search results linked his name to a newspaper article from 1998 about a now-resolvedlawsuit. The court ruled that Google was a “data controller” under the 19-year-old Europeanlaw on data protection, which gives individuals strong rights over data that others hold onthem. 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 timeelapsed. Individuals will be able to appeal to their national data watchdogs if they are turneddown.

現(xiàn)在歐洲法院，即歐洲最高法院已經(jīng)在努力促成此案例作為劃時(shí)代的案例。一個(gè)西班牙的律師，馬里奧科特加岡薩雷斯，因谷歌搜索結(jié)果將其姓名與一報(bào)紙1998年報(bào)道的一起現(xiàn)今已經(jīng)結(jié)案的訴訟案件的文章鏈接在一起，而起訴了谷歌。法庭根據(jù)歐洲的一項(xiàng)數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù)法律判定谷歌的行為屬于“數(shù)據(jù)控制”，該法律已實(shí)行19年之久，規(guī)定個(gè)人用戶(hù)們享有對(duì)于別人持有關(guān)于個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)的極大掌控權(quán)利。法院裁決谷歌應(yīng)該被要求不再將其鏈接信息展示出來(lái)，比如那些“不充足、無(wú)關(guān)緊要或是過(guò)度夸大”的信息，只用給用戶(hù)們希望獲得的信息即可，并且時(shí)間也會(huì)使人們淡忘掉這一切。個(gè)人用戶(hù)將會(huì)向他們國(guó)家數(shù)據(jù)監(jiān)測(cè)者提起申訴，以查看是否這些內(nèi)容已被關(guān)掉。

The court's desire to protect victims of misunderstanding and malice is understandable. Buta right to be forgotten would be hard to implement. Even if Google is made to censor itssearch results in Europe, in America the First Amendment's free-speech provision usuallytrumps privacy concerns. With modest technical know-how, European internet users will beable to make American-style searches. Europe will hardly want to build a Chinese-style firewall toprevent that.

法院期望能夠保護(hù)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(quán)利將很難實(shí)現(xiàn)。即使谷歌在歐洲、在美國(guó)被審查其搜索結(jié)果，憲法第一修正案的自由言論的規(guī)定通常勝過(guò)隱私問(wèn)題。僅僅需要使用謙和的技術(shù)訣竅，歐洲的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶(hù)將能成為美式的自由網(wǎng)頁(yè)搜索者。歐洲將很難想建立起一個(gè)中國(guó)式的防火墻，以防止這一問(wèn)題的產(chǎn)生。

And even if it were practicable to force companies to erase the past, it would do more harmthan good. It would hamper everyone interested in finding out inconvenient truths aboutthose 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 enginesto take down material as soon as someone complains, rather than to weigh the merits of eachcase.

而且，即使迫使企業(yè)抹去過(guò)往歷史的這一做法是可行的，將會(huì)造成弊大于利。它會(huì)妨礙每個(gè)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(guān)于自己的過(guò)往。歐洲法院的裁決考慮到公眾利益的捍衛(wèi)和保護(hù)，但其主要將會(huì)使得具有商業(yè)意識(shí)的谷歌和其他搜索引擎一旦出現(xiàn)有人抱怨的情況，就撤銷(xiāo)相關(guān)信息，而不是權(quán)衡每種情況下的利弊。

Watch out for silent encroachments

留心無(wú)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, archivematerial and other stuff which may to varying degrees be irrelevant, wrong or mad. It hasmade the best and worst of such information more freely available than ever before. Searchengines should be like library catalogues—comprehensive and neutral, and without fear orfavour of what the contents may reveal, or how they may be used. It should be up toindividuals, 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 thatthinks hard about it and backs the underdog. As James Madison said, “I believe there are moreinstances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachmentsof those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

被遺忘的權(quán)利也將破壞互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的強(qiáng)大力量。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，實(shí)際上是難以想象的大規(guī)模圖書(shū)庫(kù)，正如圖書(shū)館一樣，其中庫(kù)含了幾乎所有的內(nèi)容，包括新聞、八卦、檔案材料，并可能與其他內(nèi)容在不同程度上是不相干的、錯(cuò)誤的或者瘋狂。它使這些無(wú)論最佳還是最糟糕的信息，比以往任何時(shí)候更可自由查看。搜索引擎應(yīng)該像圖書(shū)館目錄一樣——全面、中立，而不用擔(dān)心或是偏愛(ài)可能會(huì)透露的內(nèi)容，或者是它們?cè)撊绾伪皇褂�。它�?yīng)該是由個(gè)人而不是政府來(lái)決定，要分清哪些是對(duì)還是錯(cuò)，有用或是不重要的信息。人們應(yīng)該警惕割讓作出這樣的判斷的權(quán)力，甚至是對(duì)于法院都認(rèn)為很難對(duì)此作出判斷或是支持劣勢(shì)者。正如詹姆斯·麥迪遜說(shuō)，“我相信仍存在很多當(dāng)權(quán)者逐步無(wú)聲地侵犯民眾自由的例子，這些例子比暴力和突然的強(qiáng)取豪奪更為猖獗”。

【重點(diǎn)講解】

1.link to 與…連接，聯(lián)系

例句:The Alumnae Association is my link to theschool's present administration.

女校友協(xié)會(huì)是我和現(xiàn)在學(xué)校行政部門(mén)之間的紐帶。

2.such as 例如;諸如

例句:We dislike people such as him.

我們不喜歡像他這號(hào)人。

3.require to 需要

例句:Fitzpiers did not require to be told twice.

菲茨比爾斯用不著別人對(duì)他講第二遍。

4.watch out 當(dāng)心;小心;注意

例句:Watch out for bargains, but never buy dented cans.

留意便宜貨，但絕不要買(mǎi)表面凹陷的罐頭。