<table><tr><th>From:</th><th>Joi Ito &lt;ji@media.mit.edu&gt;</th></tr><tr><td>Sent:</td><td>Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:47 AM</td></tr><tr><td>To:</td><td>Jeffrey Epstein</td></tr><tr><td>Subject:</td><td>Google/EU</td></tr><tr><td>Attachments:</td><td>signature.asc</td></tr></table>

I'm sure you saw the news about Google in the EU, but if you haven't, an =xcerpt.

» Today the EU's highest court interpreted the EU's 1995 Data

» =rotection Directive to mean that individuals should have a shot at

» insisting =hat Google and other search engines remove certain search

» results found =pon a search for their names, not because they are

» false, or infringe =opyright, but because they violate a "respect for

» private life" or a "right=to protection of personal data." What does

» that mean specifically? =ot easy to say. Neither the opinion nor the Court's press release is clear =n that.

» Among the many cases pending about it, the one that the Court heard

» =nvolved a Spanish citizen who did not like that people could find

» the public =ecords of a foreclosure sale of one of his properties.

» So that's not =ersonal, secret information that was somehow

» uncovered; it's a public record =r fact made more searchable. And

» it's not in the narrow category of things =ike social security

» numbers that might be in public documents, but for =hich Google and

» other search engines have taken some steps to make them =ot work as

» search terms. (Same with credit card numbers.)