Slashdot Mirror

Also: https://linc.cnil.fr/fr/unders...

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The censorship practice that is commonly called "right to be forgotten" is not mandated by data protection laws. Otherwise there wouldn't need to be a special law about it,

Uhm.. laws are laws, some are not more "special" than others, and this most definitely is a data protection law.

and also the original web pages would have to be censored, not just the search results.

Not at all, because this is not the purpose of the law. It is not to remove the information from being available in original sources or for people who for some reason actively want to investigate deeply. It is to avoid that casual searches on your name, that people do all the time, constantly resurfaces old stories that can ruin your life. When applying for a job as a 30-year old your pot possession conviction from when you were 19 shouldn't matter anymore. It is over and done with, but with the extreme information gateway role Google plays in today's society, it won't die.

You can agree or disagree and think it is stupid (as you are free to discuss any law), but that is the purpose of this law, so what you say do not at all follow

TFA contradicts you in that it speaks of information that is "inadequate or irrelevant", not of personal data that would fall under data protection.

If you agree with the EU's cynical interpretation of "Libertés", what about other jurisdictions? Shouldn't Iran's and China's rules about what is deemed inadequate or irrelevant also be respected worldwide? If not why not?

France and EU are not requiring that their law is implemented globally, that is just hyperbole reporting and Google PR spin (both of which we used to dislike on this site). They are requiring that the Google.com domain follow the law within the EU law domain. This is clear if you are going to the sources, and they use this specific example in their complaint to Google: Users in France searching on Google.com instead of Google.fr get a search result today where right to be forgotten in EU is not implemented.

Google is trying to call .com a global only search result, but that is disingenuous and appealing to tech illiterate users -- both they and all others already do geo-fencing and geo-tailoring on what is served through a "global" .com domain.

How Hidden From Google started.

List of BBC web pages which have been removed from Google's search results

"Google .. has not proceeded with delisting on other geographical extensions or on google.com, which any internet user may alternatively visit .. this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the CNIL to apply French law extraterritorially. It simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe." ref

They were ordered in June to comply with the French Data Protection Act within three months. Specifically, to:

* Define specified and explicit purposes to allow users to understand practically the processing of their personal data;
* Inform users by application of the provisions of Article 32 of the French Data Protection Act, in particular with regard to the purposes pursued by the controller of the processing implemented;
* Define retention periods for the personal data processed that do not exceed the period necessary for the purposes for which they are collected;
* Not proceed, without legal basis, with the potentially unlimited combination of users’ data;
* Fairly collect and process passive users’ data, in particular with regard to data collected using the “Doubleclick” and “Analytics” cookies, “+1” buttons or any other Google service available on the visited page;
* Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal.

Source

Ah it looks like you're right, at least in terms of any serious sanctions. They do have the authority to impose fines, but the fine amounts look so small I assume Google just doesn't care. In fact, from what I can find, Google currently holds the record for a CNIL fine: in 2011 they were fined 100,000 Euros over wifi data that was recorded by Google Street View cars. They didn't bother to send any response to the inquiry that time, either.

What is so *hostile* for social networks?

I don't know about social networks, but here's why it would really suck for forums. Say you're a prolific poster on a programming forum. You answer, or participate in, a dozen threads a day. Your words are widely quoted throughout threads. These threads are of general benefit to the programming world at large. This forum is indexed by Google, and comes up near the top of the search results for some very common programming terms.

Somebody on the forum thinks you are cool, and uses a quote of something witty you said as their signature line.

Now, one day you wake up with a burr up your ass. You request that the forum destroy all your information. In order to do this, all your posts must be purged. All posts which quote your posts must be purged. All those valuable threads, which went far beyond just you, and developed into valuable information sources for thousands of people, must be purged. All the posts that guy made who had your quote in his signature line must be purged. It's not just YOUR words that have to go, hundreds of other people's posts are affected as well. The usefulness of the forum is at an all time low. People start wondering why the entire forum got deleted. People stop coming to the site. Google ceases indexing it. The forum is dead.

Your post gave me a good laugh.. You obviously aren't from Europe or you have no clue about the laws that already protect your privacy. (But you are good at making funny horror stories)

Here in Europe you can already ask any company for a copy of all data they may have on you and force them to correct it if you find any errors. What companies can do with your data is also severely restricted.

Just so you have some idea about how strict the law for European companies already is, the French CNIL considers a "IP address" to be "personal information".

This "new upcoming EU law" is merely applying current law to companies like Facebook that don't respect even the minimum rules of handling personal data.

Don't worry, the world won't come to an end when the new law comes into effect, we are all civil and reasonable over here.

Well, in theory you can access to the content of your data (if any) stored in the "fichier des RG" : you request to the CNIL (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés -- National commission for digital data and freedoms) and you get the info... ... provided of course the "Ministre de l'Intérieur" (homeland security) agrees the released info does not threaten the security of the state...

See additional info in french about the CNIL and the RG files here : http://www.cnil.fr/index.php?id=1995 (Google [mis?]translation here: http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnil.fr%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D1995&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en)

Then again you could just be paranoid and don't want your IP address all over the world.
I don't think the CNIL would allow such a change in France.
Can't speak for the rest of the world though...

The social security number is not important in France as it is in USA.
Here, it is only used for health care related services. There is no universal number used by all government or private databases because our rights are protected by the CNIL (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés: Computer and Freedom National Commission) that exists since the 70's.

I don't know about Britain but France has a government agency that enforces strict laws when it comes to their citizens' right to electronic privacy, anonymity, removal from databases, etc.
Interesting to note that the main law (1978) was passed under Giscard D'Estaing - a moderate republican, by U.S. standards.

I don't know about Britain but France has a government agency that enforces strict laws when it comes to their citizens' right to electronic privacy, anonymity, removal from databases, etc.
Interesting to note that the main law (1978) was passed under Giscard D'Estaing - a moderate republican, by U.S. standards.

I don't know about Britain but France has a government agency that enforces strict laws when it comes to their citizens' right to electronic privacy, anonymity, removal from databases, etc.
Interesting to note that the main law (1978) was passed under Giscard D'Estaing - a moderate republican, by U.S. standards.

As you can see from the fact that many of the products and services advertised this way are offered "to customers in the U.S. only" (p0rn, piracy and p.... enlargements seem to target a rather international audience though), the contents for most of it do originate there indeed, although of course servers all over the world are (ab)used to spread the spam.

Even though it will be a while before spam is outlawed universally, national and regional legislation setting a standard in some countries is an achievement that tends to influence at least the views held in courts and the associations of legitimate businesses.

In Europe, the proposal to outlaw spam was met with initial hesitation either, and thorough studies as well as public outcry against anything less than opt-in were required to finally convince politicians (unsurprisingly bombarded with misleading rhetoric from spam lobbyists) of what every netizen could have told them from the start:

The minimum requirements of any meaningful law against spam are that advertisers be required:

• never to trade their address lists
• not to disguise
• to honor opt-out requests immediately

If the companies you do business with are trying to make extra money on your data, lawmakers will have to make sure this happens only on terms that protect your privacy.

Domestically, there is no reason to settle for anything less either, as the courts have repeatedly ruled that banning spam is perfectly compatible with both the Interstate Commerce Clause and the First Amendment.

So, do look abroad indeed, not for sources of spam but for models of workable anti-spam laws, which can be well-balanced solutions like the European Directive 2002/58/EC (excerpt below), still permitting legitimate eMail (without redefining the technical standards), even within a narrowly defined business relationship, but outlawing all of the abusive practices that operate at the recipients' expense.
It's European, it's long, it's legalese, but probably it is just the inspiration American lawmakers need nonetheless:

(40) Safeguards should be provided for subscribers against intrusion of their privacy by unsolicited communications for direct marketing purposes in particular by means of automated calling machines, telefaxes, and

e-mails, including SMS messages. These forms of unsolicited commercial communications may on the one hand be relatively easy and cheap to send and on the other may impose a burden and/or cost on the recipient. Moreover, in some cases their volume may also cause difficulties for electronic communications networks and terminal equipment. For such forms of unsolicited communications for direct marketing, it is justified to require that prior explicit consent of the recipients is obtained before such communications are addressed to them. The single market requires a harmonised approach to ensure simple, Community-wide rules for businesses and users.
(41) Within the context of an existing customer relationship, it is reasonable to allow the use of electronic contact details for the offering of similar products or services, but only by the same company that has obtained the electronic contact details in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC [i.e. the General Data Protection Directive]. When electronic contact details are obtained, the customer should be informed about their further use for direct marketing in a clear and distinct manner, a

Let me introduce myself : my name is Godefroy Beauvallet and I am advisor for IT to Michel Sapin, who is the minister in charge of public service and eGovernment in France. More about him and the ministry here.

The BBC article is based on Governmental decisions taken on November, 15th here in France. I actually am one of the guys who briefed the BBC journalist on that one.

Branded "eGovernment : Second Stage", these decisions aim at generalising online services in the public sector before 2005.

To know more about the second stage, you can go here. To know more about the first stage, there is a page in English here.

It's of course difficult (and is it really interesting, anyway) to try and find out which government is the most advanced as far as eGov is concerned : what we all know (and we discuss that at EU level and with US, Canada and many others) is we all are still at the begining of the journey.

A few French highlights : the equivalent of FistGov is Service-public.fr. We believe it is a good informative portal, with about 100 online services, 1100 online static forms, access (index and search engine) to 6500 public websites, a "user manual" of 2500 pages and 1600 Q&A on about anything you want to do with the government (both local and national). Another site publishes everyday (and someone who said the opposite on the list is wrong) all laws and decrees taken by the Governement. Among services provided online are tax filings and payments (individual and firms), scholarships to students, access to public service jobs (through competitive examps) and many others.

We also try and do a lot of things to enhance interoperability among our information systems. We believe this is crucial, as we do not want to be mono-supplier of IT (for legal as well as strategic reasons). That lead us to rising interest in open-source software, and the Government Agency in charge of IT publish a lot of information on them here. Michel SAPIN also publicly endorsed the open-source movement in several occasions.

And to end this rather long post, I want to stress out that French citizens are very hot on privacy and personal data handling. Since 1978, there is an independant public body in charge of these questions here : the CNIL. Any database a ministry creates needs to be approved by the CNIL before it is put online, and there are many an example where a project was stopped by the CNIL on privacy concerns. We want to think carefully about these issues before we go on with a technical widget or another : the PM decided on November, 15th that three "wise guys" are to think about it : the former president of the Cour de Cassation (more or less the equivalent to the Supreme court), a high-ranking civil servant and a well-known sociologist. First report due on January 2002.

I could not explain a whole policy in this post. I would be pleased to try and answer more specific questions in the thread of by email.

Best regards !

Simple answer: Because we're an order of magnitude bigger.

About 4.5 times bigger, more precisely (60 million inhbts).

BTW, isn't this a reason why you kept the federal model instead of becoming a big nation-state ?

What I mean is this: this e-government stuff should really happen at the state level. France is famous for being an embodiment of the good old nation-state, but the federal nature of the United States of America seems to lend itself pretty well to e-government, state by state.

Think about it: of all the bureaucratic stuff you must deal with as an American, how much has to do with local institutions (state, county or city), and how much is related to the federal government ?

Actually this would make it much more manageable in the US than in France. The population of South Dakota is two full orders of magnitude lower than that of France, isn't it ? (It is; I checked)

Thomas Miconi,
French.

PS: BTW, this has nothing to do with a gigantic web-database. The French are extremely sensitive when it comes to data privacy. The idea is more about replacing the counter than the data storage itself.

We do have spam even though it's illegal in France. I do nail every Franch spammer I find with complaints to the "freedom and computing" agency (CNIL) which is in charge of this kind of thing.

Unfortunately most of the spam I (and most people in France I suppose) get is from the US. Makes it hard to retaliate against the senders.