The US Vs. Europe: Freedom of Expression Vs. Privacy

First time accepted submitter GoddersUK (1262110) writes "Rory Cellan-Jones writes about the recent European Court judgement on the right to be forgotten in terms of US/EU cultural differences (and perhaps a bit of bitterness on the EU side at U.S. influence online): 'He tells me... ..."In the past if you were in Germany you were never worried that some encyclopedia website based in the United States was going to name you as a murderer after you got out of jail because that was inconceivable. Today that can happen, so the cultural gap that was always there about the regulation of speech is becoming more visible."... Europeans who have been told that the Internet is basically ungovernable — and if it does have guiding principles then they come from the land of the free — are expressing some satisfaction that court has refused to believe that.' And, certainly, it seems, here in the UK, that even MEPs keen on the principle don't really know how this ruling will work in practice or what the wider consequences will be. Video here."

Comments

US vs Europe, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting on Europe to win this time!

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Opportunist]

It's a cultural thing. Even Churchill knew that:

“In England, everything is permitted, except that which is forbidden.
In Germany, everything is forbidden, except that which is permitted.
In France, everything is permitted even that which is forbidden.
In the USSR, everything is forbidden, even that which is permitted.”

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally in the Americas, the line of reasoning is: Whatever is not forbidden is allowed. In Europe whatever is permitted is allowed.

You do realize that this is propaganda taught in American schools to feed patriotism, don't you?

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[rvw]

And in the Netherlands everything is permitted, especially what is forbidden.

In the Netherlands, everything is regulated, especially what cannot be permitted.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Mashiki]

You do realize that this is propaganda taught in American schools to feed patriotism, don't you?

You do realize, that I'm not American. Rather I'm Canadian by birth, and educated in Canada.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[yacc143]

This is basically how "data protection" (I guess US people would call it privacy) works currently in the EU.

The issue is, that while the broad outline is the same everywhere in the EU, the law is implemented slightly differently everywhere. And how strongly the authorities are enforcing it is also a local detail. E.g. that's why many US companies have their local subsidiary in Ireland, it's not only taxes, but also the fact that Irish authorities are kind of friendly in regards to their business models.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[yacc143]

Does not change the fact that in practice many businesses have similar (sometimes less, sometimes more) regulation in the US than in the EU?

And they employ similar tactics, e.g. jurisdiction shopping.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[flyneye]

In the U.S. , if it is forbidden, a little money to the right politician will get you a permit.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that doesn't change the fact that in the US and Canada citizens enjoy greater protections on the ability to say unpopular political things like deny the Holocaust or call for the violent overthrow of the government. In the US, in theory anyway, the constitution protects the people from the government. In most of Europe the government protects citizens from each other, but claims a greater degree of supremacy over the people. Compare German Basic Law and the U.S. Constitution and the first thing that will strike you is that Basic Law says "only the state can" and the Constitution says "the state absolutely cannot".

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Cederic]

Didn't they tell you which continent Canada is on?

If I'm European, you're American.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Triklyn]

don't be facetious,

so egyptians are african, israelis are asian, and you've merged the entirety of the americas. thanks for that.

also, you've basically stranded all those island nations into non-classification.

you pissant.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Opportunist]

But, apparently, we need to remember that "freedom of speech" doesn't come with a freedom of consequences from that speech

Reminds me of the old joke:

Question for Radio Eriwan: Is there freedom of speech in the USSR?
Answer from Radio Eriwan: Yes, in principle. But there may be little freedom after the speech.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Opportunist]

And a little more will even outlaw it for everyone else.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Opportunist]

Sounds like a sensible system.

No, I'm serious. Personally, I think judges should get a bit more leeway to apply common sense to laws. But then again, our judges tend to be more resilient to bribes than the other two pillars of democracy around here, so my point of view may be biased...

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[fustakrakich]

...you've basically stranded all those island nations into non-classification.

Earthlings! We are one!

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Triklyn]

as a milkian, i take exception to your exclusion of all exoplanets.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[flyneye]

Parker Bros. wlll put out a game, based on this thread.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Mashiki]

Didn't they tell you which continent Canada is on?

If I'm European, you're American.

Sure, North America.

However, European countries have done a great job of harmonizing themselves into a single nation state called the EU, in turn "Europe" is proper. Canada, US, and Mexico maintain their own distinctness, there is no "north american union."

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[BalthCat]

Canadians can be prosecuted for hate crimes, which includes the manner in which one denies the Holocaust. ("ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!" better be carefully phrased as "POOR ZIONIST RESEARCH AND TABULATION!")

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[i.kazmi]

I suppose that's why on all the happiness and satisfaction indexes, Netherlands scores so much better than the US or did I miss something?

The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Create a couple of giant hubs in the Atlantic and Pacific, controlled by NOBODY. Let countries that want to hook up to them hook up to them, and then regulate their own internet however they like. But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[TubeSteak]

But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.

Who says this governs what other people in other countries say?

The original court decision was twofold
1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.
Google is welcome to shut down its various European subsidiaries (including the ones in Ireland and the Netherlands that they use to shelter income).
There's a precedent for this, if you can recall when Google China was shut down and redirected to Google's Hong Kong page.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[rmdingler]

The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.

I think it's fair to say all nations would like to enforce their rules on other nations.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Create a couple of giant hubs in the Atlantic and Pacific, controlled by NOBODY. Let countries that want to hook up to them hook up to them, and then regulate their own internet however they like. But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.

How do you administer these neutral giant hubs that you imagine will operate free of influence?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't particularly think they should have been fired in the first place (businesses should not be concerned with the beliefs of individuals)... these people were fired by their organizations/companies, not the government. It was totally legal and legitimate. It is like if you had a really good friend, and then suddenly you were a total dick to him over and over again, is he not justified if he decides to stop talking to you? Businesses can associate with whom they chose, just like people can.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Affording governments the ability to come down hard on "those people" is the terrible idea. In contrast, general, non-aggressive liberty is a pretty splendid notion. I'd rather be surrounded with hateful people that consider gays subhuman than suffer the existence of authoritarians as extreme as you seem to be.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[BitterOak]

The original court decision was twofold 1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story 2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.

There are two problems here. First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers? Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine? Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then? Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content? Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles? The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[sphealey]

Great! When the pirates show up [1] and the "island in nowhere" owners call for help from the US Navy, Royal Navy, Spanish Navy... I'm sure there will be prompt response.

In any case, how are you going to get qualified people to live in the middle of the ocean? Oh, they're going to live in Brooklyn and telecommute? I see a tiny flaw in your "stateless Internet" plan...

sPh

[1] I had a site in a reasonably advanced developing nation where all EDP equipment was twice cleaned out at gunpoint by marauders, along with the copper wire to the phone company stolen. Why they didn't just take the electric power transformers while they were at it I don't know. And that was in a functioning nation-state with a not-hopeless police function.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[rudy_wayne]

While I don't particularly think they should have been fired in the first place (businesses should not be concerned with the beliefs of individuals)... these people were fired by their organizations/companies, not the government. It was totally legal and legitimate.

It's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Technically, the first Amendment only prevents the government from restricting free speech. That restriction should apply to every one.

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[dnavid]

The original court decision was twofold 1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story 2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU. Google is welcome to shut down its various European subsidiaries (including the ones in Ireland and the Netherlands that they use to shelter income).

It will be interesting to see how this ruling actually gets implemented by member states of the EU. It appears to be highly problematic for various reasons. First, because the ruling while comporting with EU law appears inconsistent with how the internet actually works. Taken to its logical conclusion it states that it could be legal in the EU for someone to publish information that can theoretically be accessed by the general public, but illegal for anyone else to point out that fact. The ruling also states that its legal interpretation only applies to legal entities that are actually within the EU. That means global entities like Google can be held to the legal standard articulated within their ruling, but entities outside the EU are completely immune. So, a search engine in China, say, that had no subsidiaries within the EU would be free to ignore EU's attempt to implement this "right to be forgotten" principle. But if a large enough search engine anywhere contains that information, its not hard to presume technology that would make it accessible from anywhere. In the extreme, you'd just balkanize search, with different search engines referring to each other to access content an individual search engine was legally not allowed to offer.

More likely you'd simply make it much more inconvenient for countries that attempt to enforce this type of law to access global search. And you'd encourage your own citizens to use search engines outside the regulatory umbrella of your own country to obtain the most complete search results. The unintended consequences of this type of ruling seem to have no end to the list of detrimental collateral damage that they can cause.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[rogoshen1]

my kingdom for a mod point :(

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[rudy_wayne]

The original court decision was twofold
1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.

How are those two things not exactly the same?

A fact is a fact. If a newspaper reports a fact and a Google search returns articles which state that same fact, how is there a difference? Why can Goolge be forced to remove reference to a fact, but not the newspaper.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the beauty of a free speech free market solution. The government didn't need to come down on him, all it took was shareholders raising some eyebrows and customers withdrawing their business.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[beelsebob]

The problem is, what you're saying here is actually "enforcing your rules on other nations". You want the rule to be "I'm free to do whatever I want", which is basically the American ruleset. You are trying to enforce that on Europe, where the rule is "no, actually, that hurts someone else, you can't do it".

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[MaskedSlacker]

The problem with that is that we live in a society of wage slavery and indentured servitude that has been structured to systematically favor those businesses. If the playing field between businesses and workers was fair, I'd agree with you. Because it is not a fair playing field, and so being fired from a single job can RUIN a person, then this attitude amounts to tyranny and the de facto suppression of free speech.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

What if my blog names a convicted murderer and links to the original newspaper story? Are the search engines obliged to remove my blog from their list of possible search results? What if an english wikipedia article includes a link to the original newpaper stories? Where does it end?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, summarizing the philosophy of Voltaire

Also summarized as: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

So what your effectively saying is that a society formed of individuals should not be allowed speech that discourages the speech of another individual, because he may no longer feel free to speak. All I'm hearing is, whaaaa, people don't like what I'm saying with my free speech, and are using their free speech to say something about it, so now I'm afraid to speak because I'm in the social minority and am too afraid to say something and stand it and it's repercussions... Oh whoa is you

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[sphealey]

= = = It's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Technically, the first Amendment only prevents the government from restricting free speech. That restriction should apply to every one. = = =

So... your political theory is "libertarianism for me but not for thee"? Corporations to be free to do whatever they want, unless they violate some unwritten norms of right-wing thought? That doesn't sound very, um, free to me.

sPh

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

How do you administer these neutral giant hubs that you imagine will operate free of influence?

Why would they need "administration"?

If what you meant was upkeep or maintenance, an international consortium should do the trick. They would also have to allow inspection (but not interference) by any participating country at any time.

But other than that, why does it need "administration"? It's not rocket science. It's just a hub. They're dirt simple in principle.

And if other countries want to build hubs other than the "public" hubs, that's their business too.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem is, what you're saying here is actually "enforcing your rules on other nations". You want the rule to be "I'm free to do whatever I want", which is basically the American ruleset. You are trying to enforce that on Europe, where the rule is "no, actually, that hurts someone else, you can't do it".

This is just plain nonsense.

I'm saying: create a hub where Europe and America can connect. America is in control of its branch of the hub. Europe is in charge of its branch of the hub. Neither is controlling the other.

If Europe wants to access anything on the American branch, that's fine, but then they're on American territory and must operate under American rules. Similarly, if an American visits European internet (and is allowed to do so), that American must follow European rules.

What's the big deal with that? People have been doing this for centuries. When you're in Europe, follow European laws. When you're in America, follow American laws. Etc.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[dreamchaser]

No, there were plenty of businesses/corporations in Colonial times. There were not necessarily megacorps like we're starting to see but they existed a plenty.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[TubeSteak]

First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?

You're asking the wrong question.
If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers,
then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.

Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine?

You are not an internet search engine.
The court distinguishes between (1) a newspaper with a searchable index and (2) a website that indexes other websites on the internet.

Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then?

Still not an internet search engine.

Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content?

The decision is dense, but readable.
If you want the highlights, just skip to the conclusion

TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content
Still TLDR: With all kinds of legal parsing to determine who is processing the data and whether they are under European jurisdiction.

Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?

No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.

The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?

The line is not fuzzy and I do not see "the problem."
The only problem I see is that this is horribly inconvenient for Google and every other search engine.
But, according to the court, the inconvenience to Google's business model does not outweigh citizens rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject's name.

However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.

Don't try to make this more complicated than it is.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company. And just like today, the megacorps of the day got special treatment from their respective governments.

That's one of the things we fought a war to get away from.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[iNaya]

You can have as much free speech as you like. Just not in MY house. It's impossible to prevent people preventing free speech. Do I have to let protesters into my house, just so they are allowed to say what they want to me?

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.

There is a difference. The line might be a bit gray, but it's there.

So let's say you were an atheist. (I'm not saying you are, it's just hypothetical.) And because of your atheism, you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property. (Again just hypothetical.)

Lots of people would consider that to be freedom of religion. You might disagree. So in those circumstances, would you say it was socially acceptable to post a massive internet campaign to insult and disparage John Smith, boycott the company he just happens to work for, and demand that he be fired?

I am just curious what your answer to that would be.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[TubeSteak]

Why can Google be forced to remove reference to a fact, but not the newspaper.

From the Court Opinion
Why Google:

As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subjectâ(TM)s name.

Why not the newspaper:

16 By decision of 30 July 2010, the AEPD rejected the complaint in so far as it related to La Vanguardia, taking the view that the publication by it of the information in question was legally justified as it took place upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and was intended to give maximum publicity to the auction in order to secure as many bidders as possible.

The AEPD = Spanish Data Protection Agency
Whether this means that a newspaper can be forced to remove content that is not published "upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs," ... I don't know.
I can't seem to dig up the Audiencia Nacional (Spain's National High Court) decision/referral.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There is a certain stunning irony in someone on the US side of this particular debate complaining about nations wanting to enforce their own laws in other nations.

For one thing, that doesn't appear to be what the ruling actually says.

That aside, someone from the United States is arguing against enforcing local laws abroad? Seriously?!

I say let's go with your idea. It sounds great. You can have your free speech on your part of the wild west Internet, and we can have our privacy protection in our part of the grown up, normal laws do actually apply here Internet. Also, maybe we can go back to having reasonable IP laws. And perhaps we might even keep the tax revenues from sales by Internet companies in our countries. With a bit of luck, we might even develop more home grown tech industry that way, too.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[BitterOak]

First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?

You're asking the wrong question. If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers, then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.

What "special status" granted to newspapers? Is this a European thing? In America, everyone has the same free speech rights that newspapers do. Newspapers aren't special.

TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content .

Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?

No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.

Your last two comments contradict each other. You say it's a search engine if it links to offsite content, but then in the next answer you say newspapers are allowed to link to offsite content without being classed as a search engine.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Darinbob]

I can see each of those decisions individually can make sense in some contexts or viewpoints. However when put together they clash with each other and it doesn't make sense. All that you get with them together is that casual searches on your name won't bring up the embarrassing information, but background searches by your employer or doctor or potential date will find it. You're not being forgotten, merely obfuscated.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[ShanghaiBill]

There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company.

People that complain that corporations are worse than ever are very ignorant of history. For centuries, the East India Company had their own army, waged war in their own name, and occasionally executed people that failed to pay their bills. No modern corporation even comes close.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Darinbob]

It's not only newspapers that get to keep the info, but any non-search web site apparently. So you can't even divide it based on journalism. What is it about "internet search engine" that is special compared to "online legal database", "hall of records", or "almanac of 1972"? It's like censoring only the card catalog in a library.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[bitt3n]

Given that anyone can sign up for a VPN for $35 a year and use the US google (which presumably isn't governed by EU law), I'd say the biggest problem is that this law is completely unenforceable.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

If your speech cannot have consequences, then your speech means nothing. It literally means nothing. Because it *cannot have consequences*.

If you can't be fired for things that you say, it realistically means that people can't speak out against the things that you say.

(Brandon Eich did not lose his ability to earn a living, he just couldn't be the CEO of Mozilla Corp. -- and even deciding that he was fired is an editorial assumption)

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jason Levine]

Your house is not a public location. Since you control who can enter and exit, telling people to leave because they decided to turn your living room into a protest zone is perfectly fine. However, telling people that they can't march on the public sidewalk (not privately owned) with signs would be preventing their free speech. Similarly, I could try protesting in a mall, but they would be well within their rights to kick me out and ban me from re-entering. They couldn't prevent me from protesting on public property in front of the mall, but they could ban me from entering the mall itself.

Also, freedom to speak doesn't mean freedom to be heard. If a protester is handing out pamphlets and you refuse one, you haven't violated his freedom of speech. You're just refusing to listen to his speech (read the pamphlet). Now, if the government came by and told him not to hand out the pamphlets, they might be infringing on his freedom of speech.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[epyT-R]

That would be a good thing, since your freedoms should not be contingent on whether you agree with the (politically) 'correct' party line. The fact there's a disagreement here is the perfect reason why the grandparent post is a good idea. Societies that promote witchhunts and the like should never be encouraged.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[arth1]

seems to me that basic free speech and free thought is that you cannot command me to forget something, nor command me not to share what I know (ignoring confidentiality agreements which are irrelevant here).

And here I think the great cultural divide between Europe and USA rears its head. While you cannot be commanded to forget, in Europe, you are expected to forget. The judicial systems of Europe are based on being able to fully rehabilitate, and the former offender's slate is wiped clean.
In the US, you continue to be punished for past offenses until the day you die. Whether you've been released or not, you don't have a right, legally or culturally to a clean slate.

Personally, I think this difference is due to religious thinking, where the great majority of Americans believe in a "soul", and that a 60 year old man can and should be held responsible for what a 20 year old did. Add that justice is largely revenge based (an eye for an eye), and there must always be someone to punish, even after the world has moved on.

The Northern European view is that people change, and that the 60 year old man is not the same person as the 20 year old. People change, and should not be held responsible for views they no longer hold or crimes for which they've served their sentence. There is no "soul", so when the person has changed, the decent thing to do is to forget and not bring it up again. Give people a chance to start over.

Newspapers are historical documents. But someone in Northern Europe going through old newspapers to dig up old dirt is seen as an arsehole. While not illegal, it's against all cultural decency.. in the US, it would be seen as due diligence.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jason Levine]

When the recording industry went after sites that pointed to (but didn't themselves host) pirated material, we shook our heads in amazement. How could pointing to something be illegal? Wouldn't the thing itself be illegal but saying "illegal thing is over here" just be informative?

Now the EU is actually going one worse. Apparently, having the article online is fine. No problem. Perfectly legal. However, a search engine saying "there's that legal thing over there" is illegal - in some vague circumstances.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jason Levine]

First of all, how do you power the servers on the hubs? Where is the electricity coming from?

Secondly, where is the data connection to the hub coming from?

Lastly, who is administering the servers? Is it someone living in the US, UK, etc who remotes in? Or someone who lives on the "hub island"? If the latter, how do you get food and other essentials to the hub?

Now assume that some websites this hub is hosting makes the US and some other big countries angry. I'll even grant some leeway and assume that raiding the island and seizing the computers would be troublesome. No problem. Simply cut off the electrical feed, sever the data connection, arrest any off-hub personnel, and/or block any supply shipments for on-hub personnel. You've just brought the hub to its knees.

If an "international consortium" is managing the hub, who is on the consortium? What countries are they from? Would they be vulnerable to "attack" via friends/family members/interests based in those or other countries?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

But you're outside the whole context of this discussion thread. It wasn't about what the ruling said, it was about what OP said.

At least get your context straight, please.

I happen to agree with you that it would be rather a joke for the U.S. government, say, to complain about someone else trying to tell them what to do. (Note, however, I am not my government.)

BUT... that simply isn't what this was about. I was proposing SEPARATE networks so each country can govern as it sees fit. No interference with anyone else. That's not dictatorship, that's freedom for each country to do what it wants.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[epyT-R]

The big deal is that it encourages extradition abuse. Americans would be subject to EU law if they access a host outside of their borders and european citizens would be subject to american extradition. So now both groups of people are subject to laws written by systems they have no say in. Wonderful. It's bad enough that western governments are willing to bilaterally work around laws which limit their actions on their home soil. This would make it worse. 'Cross-site-scripted' tyranny like this is one of the gravest threats to liberty because it's nearly impossible to get justice when states routinely use targeted citizens as pawns on the international chessboard.

Both americans and europeans don't even know their own laws as there are too many on the books creating huge minefields. Now you want them to memorize the combined legal code for the USA and EU countries (and possibly more) in order to use the internet? Expecting the average user to understand this and how to corral his computer into complying with that is insane. Cross site scripting is ubiquitous these days making it nearly impossible to check beforehand where the next dump of javascript will send the browser, and http is how most people use the net.

Maybe it's just time for the boomer generation to catch up to the youth of 'eternal september' (and now their children) who grew up with the internet (or at least had it as teens), by realizing that data packets != reality land, making most of law irrelevant. Legislation cannot fix this, nor can the generous 'donations' from single interest groups backed by technology companies who don't/can't fix their broken systems. Knowledge and wisdom can mitigate it though.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

People that complain that corporations are worse than ever are very ignorant of history.

Yes. But to say that they were worse then is not the same as saying they aren't bad now.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

In your atheist analogy, the atheist isn't really harmed except in the opportunity cost of putting something other than monuments to Jesus on the property, and indirectly from the promotion of Christianity as the state religion implicitly marginalizing atheists among others.

This is patently untrue. The atheist (let's assume he's a militant atheist) feels that religion rots kids mind and is completely horrified by the thought of government support for a particular religion like Christianity. So not only does he see it as personal harm, in his honest opinion it is grossly harmful to society as a whole. (This is, in fact, a situation that is rather close to a devout Christian believing that homosexuality is a crime against God and society. BUT I'm not claiming either side is right.)

And John Smith needs to be the CEO of, say, a law firm, which is itself not religiously oriented and has Christian, atheist, and other employees, and among whose many legal services is the ability to file disputes based on religious discrimination.

I don't give a damn whether he is CEO of Citicorp or a mail clerk in a medium-sized business. Business is business, and personal politics are something else. Too much mixing of business with politics is already one of the biggest problems with this country today. We hardly need more of it.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[kwbauer]

Technically, he would have been fired for having a political belief, which would make it a criminal act in the US.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[jhol13]

Newspapers have editors who can be kept responsible for the content in the newspaper, search engines do not.
Then EU does have "government", "police", "judicial system" and "newspapers" as separate entities unaffectable by others (government cannot directly control police, judicial system or newspapers, neither can police control any of the other entities, and so on).

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[radarskiy]

"If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech."

Why is this argument allowed in the defense of unpopular speech or positions, but not allowed in the defense of popular speech or positions?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Mr. Slippery]

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

Nope. You've confused "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences." When you say hateful and vile things about a group of people,whether you're on or off the clock when you say them, no one in that group can work effectively with you. They know, after all, that your opinions don't change when you come into the office.

To take a recent example, Brendan Eich has the right to say and believe whatever bigoted nonsense he wants. Others have the right to say "fuck you" and choose not to associate with him as a result of that. If those people's free choices mean he can't do a certain job and so he doesn't get the job he wants, cry me a river; I can't get the job I want either. (I keep looking but no one is offering a six-figure salary to be a subject for hedonic engineering studies but no one's hiring.)

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Mr. Slippery]

You are trying to enforce that on Europe, where the rule is "no, actually, that hurts someone else, you can't do it".

Censorship hurts everyone. So if that was actually the rule, this case would not have gone this way.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[phantomfive]

I believe the problem here is that Google wants to have a presence in Europe (including offices for business and tax purposes). Otherwise they would have already ignored the EU.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[s.petry]

Personally, I think this difference is due to religious thinking, where the great majority of Americans believe in a "soul", and that a 60 year old man can and should be held responsible for what a 20 year old did. Add that justice is largely revenge based (an eye for an eye), and there must always be someone to punish, even after the world has moved on.

Absolute nonsense! The US used to believe in rehabilitation, which is actually a Christian belief. We used to believe that double jeopardy was unjust too, but now it's common place for people to be tried for the same crime twice, once in criminal court and again in civil court (verdict in either court does not sway the other court). We used to believe in innocence before guilt, and we thought mens rea was required for a crime.

Like most of Europe and the UK, US courts and laws were based on Christian Law and Philosophy.

If anything we have lost our sense of justice as the US has become anti-Christian, and yes the US has become very anti Christian.

For posterity, I am claiming you are wrong about the reasons we have lost our sense of justice. I am not claiming someone's Religion is right or wrong. Look at the lying scum that sits in a huge number of political offices and it's obvious that they are corrupt and immoral. US Culture lacks morality and faith, media has done a great job of removing both of those things.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[s.petry]

Your point probably should have been the difference between a consumer boycott and a government whim, like the US Government has become so good at. I agree with you but will extrapolate a bit on the difference.

I boycott Microsoft and have for decades, I think they have poor business practices and cheat people out of money in various ways very intentionally. My boycott means that I persuade others not to purchase their products, including businesses. This is the power of the consumer under a Capitalist economy, and it was well defined by Adam Smith as a tool for maintaining balance in the economy.

Governments acting without legal basis is harmful to the economy and is not part of the capitalist economy nor is it within it's Constitutional Rights when it does. (Note the 'legal basis' there) This was done in the US, and today our economy is still in a shamble from the effects. The "Stimulus" to banks is my primary argument there, and the bailout was a reaction to deregulation which should have prevented banks from becoming large enough to have catastrophic impact on our society. The FDIC can not guarantee these mega banks, so has lost much of it's purpose as well. None of these things have been corrected, because our Government is completely out of control currently and acting beyond their lawful abilities as defined by the US Constitution.

In other words, there is no provision in the US Constitution to protect or harm any private business for any reason other than violation of Federal law. If a law does not exist the Government can not (or should not be able to) arbitrarily take action, such as forcing the sale of the LA Clippers or Chik-Fillet.

Be a good consumer and boycott when you believe a corporation/company needs to be sent a message. In fact you are failing to perform a primary duty of consumers in the economy if you don't.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[s.petry]

No modern corporation even comes close.

I beg to differ, as do tens of thousands of South Americans that were slaughtered by Dole goons. That is just one of the few we know about, so there are plenty just as bad and probably worse today.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[moronoxyd]

Freedom of speech does not include the freedom of consequences. Whatever you say can, and often will, have consequences.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[NapalmV]

The question here is the lifespan of he "news", not how you classify their support (paper vs. internet, search vs. non-search etc). Traditionally this lifespan was limited to a few days while the said newspaper was on the stands. After that, access to those news was becoming cumbersome, i.e. like in having to go to the library and manually scroll through miles of archived microfiche. This 2 tiers system (news stands vs. microfiche) was ensuring that, while the information was still retained, you were practically "forgotten" and "out of the news" for the purpose of daily life. Obviously a newspaper could have elected to later regurgitate the same news and publish them again on the front page; however, they couldn't do this forever (you being on the front page for months for exactly the same news may have ended in a harassment lawsuit).

With the advent of internet, there's only one tier of "archiving", i.e. those news are always one search/click away from the public, making them "front page" for ever.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[locofungus]

There are two problems here. First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?

You're asking the wrong question.

First - why should search engines be exempt from the data control regulations that other people who compile databases of personal information are obliged to follow?

The court has ruled that what Google is doing is _legal_. That is huge! Everybody else has to get a licence from the data controller, has to provide all the information they hold on a person in a readily accessible form[1] for a small (capped) fee and has to delete information on request.

[1] When a subject access request is made, the company has to go through and remove all the personal information relating to other people - so Google could not just point to their search engine.

Google (search engines) only have to comply with the last of these. I've not read the judgement, so I'm not sure why search engines were given a free pass on the other items (although I agree with it)

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Sique]

Free speech works in both ways. If you are allowed to say whatever you want, I am allowed to shout you down whenever I want. In Donald Sterling's case, lots of people voiced their opinion (as protected by free speech) that he shouldn't be the boss of a NBA team. And a lot of companies voiced their intention (as protected by the rules of a free market) to cease business with a team owned by Donald Sterling.

If you want to allow Donald Sterling to speak his mind, you have to allow everyone else to speak their mind about Donald Sterling.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

What "special status" granted to newspapers? Is this a European thing? In America, everyone has the same free speech rights that newspapers do. Newspapers aren't special.

OK, you either need to stop thinking of Europe as a single entity or start include Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia when you think of America.
The laws regarding this is too different in different European nations to make a meaningful comparison.

Where I live there are special laws that applies to registered newspapers. One is that it is illegal for the police to ask the newspaper about its sources, there is no such thing as a warrant to acquire that information.
This means that unlike the U.S. we don't have the kind of problem where whistle-blowers are hunted down by the government and this leads to way less corruption.

You see, theoretical freedom of speech is nice and all, but there are practical examples that shows that if you use it to report when the government commits crimes you will have to flee to another nation. The speech you protect is essentially porn (except some of it) and Nazi-propaganda.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Tom]

The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.

Like, say, the USA?

It's funny how americans complain about everyone elses imperialism, and are completely blind to the many ways in which they aggressively export their own values.

and then regulate their own internet

There is no such thing as "their own Internet". That's like saying "their own atmosphere". Newsflash: Bits and air molecules don't give a fuck about political borders.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[AmiMoJo]

Newspapers don't get special consideration, but the court made it clear that purely factual publishing is not covered by this ruling. Such publishing is, in general, protected. Of course it must follow the law, so for example in the UK suspects accused of a crime cannot be named if they are under 18, and in Germany they can't refer to spent criminal convictions. The key point is that articles are written by people, who are responsible for complying with the law, and report factual information.

Google doesn't publish, it gathers and aggregates data about people. It essentially creates a profile of someone based on publicly available information. It does this automatically, and thus far not in accordance with various EU laws. The court is saying that it must come into compliance, like all publishers must do already.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[nosferatu1001]

Not at all vauge, if you read the summary of the judgement.

Like all conflicting rights, it is a balance - when does your right to privacy outweigh freedom of information.

Its asinine to pretend there are absolute rights. they dont exist - even in the US you have no right to certain speech

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[AmiMoJo]

It's more like censoring credit reference agencies, private investigators and others who collect information about people from multiple historical sources.

Newspapers are generally published, read and discarded. This can create some odd instances. For example a child could be named in a newspaper one day, but is then charged with a crime and cannot be named the day after. Someone could go back to old editions and find their name, but in reality few people bother and such details quickly slip from people's minds. We expect this level of privacy.

Search engines don't work like that. If you did something a decade ago, paid your dues and no longer have to mention it when applying for jobs it doesn't matter to Google. Type in your name and the link appears on the first page.

Try not to get bogged down in the technicalities of this and see it from a practical, pragmatic point of view. Yes, you can't erase history, but European society does allow past mistakes to be largely forgotten so that people can be fully rehabilitated. Punishment is time limited, not life long.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[DMiax]

The Northern European view is that people change, and that the 60 year old man is not the same person as the 20 year old. People change, and should not be held responsible for views they no longer hold or crimes for which they've served their sentence. There is no "soul", so when the person has changed, the decent thing to do is to forget and not bring it up again. Give people a chance to start over.

Roughly correct, but to be precise, the concept of redemption is more or less present in all Christian beliefs, including Southern Europe, Balkans, Eastern Europe and the Americas.

It is arguably a much stronger concept in Catholicism where redemption through deeds has a lesser role than in Protestant churches. Instead the main requirement to be forgiven is simply true repentance.

Most Asian and Eastern Asian religions are fundamentally linked with the idea of redemption especially through penance, most notably the ones that feature the reincarnation cycle. Just to point out that this is not at all an exclusively Christian thing either.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Savage-Rabbit]

There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company.

People that complain that corporations are worse than ever are very ignorant of history. For centuries, the East India Company had their own army, waged war in their own name, and occasionally executed people that failed to pay their bills. No modern corporation even comes close.

Today corporations either get their governments to wage their wars for them like the Americans did in Iraq or more commonly, they hire mercenary companies to fight wars. And I'm not talking about 'company' in the military sense, there are many commercial companies in the UK and now in the USA who offer this as a service. There is a myriad of modern examples of this such companies at work, especially from Africa.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

European privacy laws mainly aim to protect a person’s dignity and honor. You have a right not to be discriminated, humiliated or embarrassed in public, by anyone. Privacy in this sense mainly derives from traditional insult/injuria concepts. American privacy laws, by contrast, mainly aim to protect a person’s liberty in the quite narrow sense of freedom from interference by the state, in the home. Both represent important values, that sometimes cannot be served at the same time, and Europeans and Americans have different historically conditioned sensibilities and priorities. Take the holocaust as an example: an American typically sees firstly a failure of a society to keep tyranny in check, while a European firstly sees an ethnic group gradually being stripped of its honor and dignity, ending up being treated as animals. This difference already clearly existed in the 19th century, and I do not think religion as such has much to do with it (although humanists like Erasmus and Leibniz had an important influence on the dignity concept in continental Europe).

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[mapkinase]

>social pressure

"Firing someone" is not simply "social pressure"

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[pla]

The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.

Damned straight. Every single country on this pathetic mudball has the "right" to enforce their own laws on their own domestic network. Want to connect that network with your neighbors? Then shut the fuck up about what your neighbor does that you don't happen to like. Once you decide to play, you have exactly one "right" left - Take your ball and go home.

Unfortunately, Google (by virtue of having a corporate presence just about everywhere) has little choice but to at least give lip-service to compliance with the EU's new physically-impossible ruling (what, did an Italian magistrate make the final call?). The EU will very soon get a reminder of the Streisand effect, however - For ever takedown notice they send to Google, you can expect a hundred sites to pop up mirroring that content, completely outside any jurisdiction where they can put local execs in prison for noncompliance.

And yes, I realize the hypocrisy risk here, and would say the same thing about my own government. Seriously, filing charges against a foreign government's standing military officers for not playing nice on our network? WTF, Obama? Either put up the other side of the "great firewall", or step down before you get us into WWIII, dumbass.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most of Europe and the UK, US courts and laws were based on Christian Law and Philosophy

Actually, most of Europe is based on Roman law. It could be argued that "Roman law" is basically the codifications that were made by Justinian I (who was a christian) in the 6th century AD, but those were based on prior law that actually predates christianity.

Poor source, but interesting reading if you're into history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history#European_laws

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Woek]

Especially the Dutch East India Company...

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[AmiMoJo]

Taken to its logical conclusion it states that it could be legal in the EU for someone to publish information that can theoretically be accessed by the general public, but illegal for anyone else to point out that fact.

No, the ruling clearly states that isn't the case. Maybe we need a new RTFR tag.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[AmiMoJo]

"Forgotten" means "not remembered" or "not available for instant recall". It does not mean being erased from history.

That is the key difference between a newspaper archive and Google. One requires you to go to a specific web site and search only that site's archives. Since there are many newspapers you might have to go to several sites if the person was not prominent. The information is there, but largely forgotten and requires considerable effort to retrieve.

Google makes it extremely easy to find that information by drawing together data from a huge number of sources. They are more like a credit reference agency or PI who does the work for you. Therefore it becomes impossible to be forgotten by Google, because Google's primary purpose is to make that information easy to find and permanent.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[AmiMoJo]

you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property

If you believe in separation of state and church then that is indeed a serious problem. If the authorities fail to act you have a responsibility to take action yourself, to protect democracy and your country's values from corruption.

Bad example I think.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[gnasher719]

Its asinine to pretend there are absolute rights. they dont exist - even in the US you have no right to certain speech

Even if you did pretend there are absolute rights, you'd have to figure out what happens when absolute rights collide.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[NickFortune]

Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.

Hum. My own personal vision of "mob rule" involves fewer petitions and more burning cars, looted stores and people hanged from lamp-posts for wearing the wrong colour socks. Maybe that's just me.

So, just to clarify: are we free to say anything we like, so long as there's no danger of anyone losing their job? Or is it that we're free to say "so and so ought to get the sack" so long as we don't talk to anyone else about it. To the extent that that isn't a contradiction in terms, obviously.

Seriously: how do you distinguish between "organized pressure" and a genuine grass roots movement. I can't imagine any definition that doesn't boil down do "organized pressure groups are the ones I don't like".

Personally, I happen to think Mr. Eich got a bit of a raw deal. I still think you're barking up the wrong tree with this approach.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[CrimsonAvenger]

Its asinine to pretend there are absolute rights. they dont exist - even in the US you have no right to certain speech

Other than libel and slander (both of which require, among other things, that your statements are FALSE), I can't actually think of "certain speech" we're not allowed.

So, enlighten me, if you please, as to what truthful speech we are forbidden here.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[NotSanguine]

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

I agree. Lots of people need to get it through their heads that even when it is not government, but "social pressure" that restricts speech, it is still a restriction on speech. It is not JUST something in the Constitution, it is a long-held (and hard-won) CULTURAL VALUE. The reason it appears in the Constitution is that the Founders knew what it was like to not have it. And the reason for not having it is not very important. Whether that reason is government or social pressure, not having it is still not having it.

The US Constitution restricts the government from trampling your right to free expression. It does not require everyone else to give you an "atta boy" when you open your mouth and say something they find objectionable. Just as you can speak your mind, so can others, even if that point of view disagrees with yours. They can even try to convince others that their point of view is the correct one and not yours. Gasp!

This is rooted in the concept of the Marketplace of Ideas espoused by John Stuart Mill, whose Utilitarian philosophy greatly influenced 18th century thought and the founders of the US constitution.

Okay. I tell you what, why don't you go to those people at your job whom you find sexually desirable and tell them (in great detail) all about the sexual acts you want to perform with them. By your measure, that's you exercising freedom of expression. According to your statement, you believe that your employer should ignore this, because your free speech rights should not be impinged.

As for the Brandon Eich/Mozilla deal, IIRC, he resigned. He was not fired.

Beyond that, your right to freedom of expression is not impinged, you can say almost anything you want. But that doesn't mean you have freedom from the expression of others. If someone disagrees with you, they have the same right to express themselves as you do. If they can convince others to agree with their point of view, and you can't, that speaks to your either the quality of your ideas, the quality of how you express those ideas, or both.

Saying, "Waaah! people held me accountable for the things I said! That's not fair! I should be able to say anything I want at all times and no one should be able to do anything about it!" reflects a third grade mentaility, IMHO. Grow up.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[NotSanguine]

Technically public media and journalists have stronger free speech rights than individuals, for numerous reasons, including statutory and constitutional.

Cite please. What statutes and sections of the Constitution (amendments included) afford media/journalists stronger free speech rights?

IMHO, you're confusing having a widely distributed platform with which to express yourself with greater rights.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[martin-boundary]

What is it about "internet search engine" that is special compared to "online legal database", "hall of records", or "almanac of 1972"?

Internet search engines spy on people. An online legal database doesn't spy on people (laws), neither does a hall of records (official), or an almanac (astronomy).

I have no problem with laws restricting Google's ability to spy on people, and if it applies to other spying search engines equally, so much the better.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jason Levine]

What balance? If some content is 100% legal. how is pointing to that content illegal? This would be like arresting people who give directions to restaurants even if the restaurants themselves aren't doing anything illegal. You *might* have an outside chance of convincing me that saying "there's that illegal thing over there" can be against the law (albeit a lesser offense than actually doing the illegal thing you are pointing to), but how can you make pointing to legal content hosted elsewhere illegal?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[cpghost]

"Google is welcome to shut down its various European subsidiaries (including the ones in Ireland and the Netherlands that they use to shelter income)."

Indeed. What's the point of having some subsidiaries in the EU, and have to put up with silly EU regulations that are incompatible to US regulations? Everyone, including EU citizens, can access Google services even if Google are only in the US; and every advertiser from the EU can advertise with Google USA directly. So what's the point in forming subsidiaries abroad at all?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[cpghost]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Create a couple of giant hubs in the Atlantic and Pacific, controlled by NOBODY.

... but heavily bugged by every possible spying agency of the globe? Like all the commercial internet exchanges (CIX) out there?

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[jratcliffe]

Technically, he would have been fired for having a political belief, which would make it a criminal act in the US.

Whaa? Nowhere in the US is it in any way criminal to fire someone for their political beliefs. In one state (New York), it's against the law, but a civil case (i.e. the person fired can collect damages if they sue). In the rest of the country, it's 100% legal to fire somebody for their political beliefs. Government employees are an exception (can't be fired for political beliefs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[xelah]

The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.

Indeed - specifically, in this case, people wanting the US constitution to apply to a European court handling a case brought by a Spanish man against a Spanish company, Google Spain. The data was collected by Google Inc, but for the purpose of allowing Google Spain to sell advertising in Spain.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

You said it yourself. "Google aggregates data." Data is factual. Making it visible on the internet is publishing. And since Google doesn't do anything else with that data, Google is engaged in "purely factual publishing" by the strictest definitions available. Pure, unadulterated, unmodified, factual data, being published on the internet. For everyone to browse and search as they see fit (no, indexing is not a modification or addition, it is simply a method of organizing existing facts and data).

Articles are written by people, not Google. Google merely repeats what someone else said or wrote, and does so only when asked what that other source said or wrote.

Accusing (much less convicting) Google of wrongdoing is like accusing your mirror of making you look ugly.

Europe is the dumbest bunch of fucks I've ever heard of. And they just keep getting dumber every day. And uglier, according to their mirrors. Fuck Europe and their brutally stupid court system.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

If you believe in separation of state and church then that is indeed a serious problem. If the authorities fail to act you have a responsibility to take action yourself, to protect democracy and your country's values from corruption.

No, it was a good example of what I was talking about. It is a bad example of what you were talking about. But we weren't talking about the same things.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Triklyn]

personally, I don't like the positions advocated by Sterling or Eich, but what i dislike even more, and what i would argue most strongly for, is societies responsibility to protect minority opinions. Censorship is censorship, and it makes us all poorer for its application.

I used to think we were better than europe, because we censored NO speech; holocaust-denials and all. Now we are only slightly better than europe because that censorship is not enshrined in law. But, this current trend, with the flash outrage and the disproportionate response, may become something worse. A man shouldn't lose his job because of a political contribution, and one should never lose their property for uttering an unwelcome thought.

I don't worry about Government intrusion into my life, because they would never be so capricious as we've turned out to be.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[themusicgod1]

CocaCola has maintained a cocacola-labeled military force and has attacked villages with it. They can get away with it because they justify it by talking about the threat of unions.
There are mercenary armies (such as Xe) that are willing and able to do the bidding of whoever pays them, and there's plenty of money both flowing to them and available to continue to pay them.
Resource companies like Barrick Gold are just as dirty as the East India company ever was, but it's brown people far away from cameras and internet connections who get targeted by them so we don't tend to care or notice.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[newcastlejon]

Perhaps the paper should archive old articles and hide them from Google. They actually obey robots.txt, don't they? The way I see it, the ones who hold personal information should be the ones held to account rather than the ones that facilitate access to publicly published information (regardless of age).

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

Maybe it's not dictatorship, but it's interesting to point out that the countries that have contemplated and/or implemented (part of) what you're proposing are China, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Egypt.

And UK, and Russia, and any number of other countries. Each one wants to "govern" the internet in its own way. So... why not let them, in their own country? So they will leave others alone about how THEY want to govern THEIRS?

Because, quite frankly, these other countries have been having a negative effect on my own country's government and its idea of how to run the internet. And the "lowest common denominator" is not good enough, in my opinion.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Triklyn]

and your view lacks nuance, and it's like the 5th grade mentality mocking the 3rd grade mentality for immaturity. How do you assess the validity of ideas if those that can articulate them are punished for doing so? Just because you're not being coerced by a legally actionable entity "the majority" doesn't mean you're not being coerced, or that it's right for them to do so.

To paraphrase hitchens... who i believe was paraphrasing mills, it's not only the right of the speaker to say things that we are protecting, but also my right to hear those things being said. "...why do you believe what you believe to be true, it's always worth establishing first principles..."- C. hitchens

why is eich wrong? why is sterling? why do they believe it? how do i know they are wrong? is there any truth behind there words?

why do i believe what i believe? are my convictions sound?

If my argument is sound, and fair and correct, it will win out in the end, without my having to force an otherwise solid individual from the position that he could do the most good, in a capacity entirely unrelated to our disagreement.

I don't point to my moral compass often, but i think it's pointing true, and this just doesn't feel kosher.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[JesseMcDonald]

Freedom of speech does not include the freedom of consequences. Whatever you say can, and often will, have consequences.

True, but it is important to keep in mind that not all consequences are compatible with freedom of speech. A "freedom of speech" where you could say whatever you wanted in theory, but could be fined or imprisoned for it after the fact, would be meaningless. In particular, freedom of speech means that you can speak without placing your natural rights in jeopardy. On the other hand, your freedom of speech does not overrule others' freedom of association or property rights—total ostracism, where no one is willing to trade with you or otherwise interact with you in any way, is well within the scope of permissible consequences, much less the loss of a job or future prospects.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.

As another poster said, calling this type of scenario mob rule is a gross exaggeration, as long as there's no violence involved. Another way to describe what happened to Mozilla CEO (since it seems that's what we're talking about) would be to say that many people pressured Mozilla to get rid of him (freedom of speech), and that Mozilla decided to cut him loose (freedom of association).

There's no way to stop this from happening without cutting into someone's free speech, either the ability of ordinary people to pressure big companies, or for companies to fire people based on bad publicity. You can argue that people should have not *wanted* to have that man fired because of what he did, but then you're telling other people how and what to think.

I'm interested in hearing who you think acted incorrectly in this case (or a similar hypothetical), and how you would prefer they act.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[NotSanguine]

and your view lacks nuance, and it's like the 5th grade mentality mocking the 3rd grade mentality for immaturity. How do you assess the validity of ideas if those that can articulate them are punished for doing so? Just because you're not being coerced by a legally actionable entity "the majority" doesn't mean you're not being coerced, or that it's right for them to do so.

To paraphrase hitchens... who i believe was paraphrasing mills, it's not only the right of the speaker to say things that we are protecting, but also my right to hear those things being said. "...why do you believe what you believe to be true, it's always worth establishing first principles..."- C. hitchens

why is eich wrong? why is sterling? why do they believe it? how do i know they are wrong? is there any truth behind there words?

why do i believe what i believe? are my convictions sound?

If my argument is sound, and fair and correct, it will win out in the end, without my having to force an otherwise solid individual from the position that he could do the most good, in a capacity entirely unrelated to our disagreement.

I don't point to my moral compass often, but i think it's pointing true, and this just doesn't feel kosher.

Actually, I think we're in violent agreement here. I believe that all ideas and speech should be heard, discussed and analyzed. That's the essence of Mill's "Marketplace of Ideas." If we allow everyone to express their thoughts and ideas, presumably the best ideas will rise to the top and the worst ones will be seen for what they are.

I was taking issue with the OP's assertion that he shouldn't be held accountable for his speech. Let me clarify that point. When I say "accountable" in this context, I mean that just because someone has the right to say what they want, they should expect that others will respond.

Such response could take many forms, hearty agreement or disagreement (in both cases, that may be rational or irrational -- hence the importance of encouraging discussion), including calls for (in Eich's case) removal from their position. I take no position as to whether it's right or wrong to, say, boycott a business because of the beliefs of its leader(s). That's (IMHO) up to the conscience of those who may decide to do so or not.

You say my argument is immature. I think you missed the boat on that one friend. However, I'm glad you responded so we can discuss and analyze the topic. Perhaps I should have been more explicit (as in the paragraph above), What I did do in my previous post was to apply reductio ad absurdum to the OP's contention that they should be able to say anything to anyone at any time, and not expect some sort of response in kind. The quality, and quantity, of that response may or may not be of questionable value, but anyone who thinks that they should get a free pass (in terms of having their expression not discussed, analyzed and critiqued) is expressing (IMHO) a puerile attitude ("I can say anything I want, and you need to shut up and listen! Neener! Neener! Neener!").

What I think is inappropriate is for the government to limit expression. Every society has norms, customs and taboos. Whether those are appropriate can only come from examining those ideas and trying to determine their validity.

Where there is an open marketplace of ideas, the truth as well as the best ideas will (again, IMHO) generally be identified and accepted -- eventually. Sadly, that often happens after serious injury is done.

I know you will feel free to agree or disagree with what I have to say. And I welcome intelligent commentary either way. Because that's how the "Marketplace of Ideas" is supposed to work.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm...laws where never based on "Christian Law and Philosophy".

Murder and theft being illegal is not a "christian" idea.......

If it was, slavery would still be legal, rape would be just fine as long as you intend to marry the victim and we would be stoning to death teenagers on a daily basis.

The US is probably the most "Christian" nation of all the first world countries.....and studies conducted on your prison population show that the majority of people locked up claim of of one of the many christian denominations as their religion where as atheists are underrepresented.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

Well your country could have a separate network, that'd seem to solve the problem.

That's what I was saying all along.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Triklyn]

And your parent post didn't really have enough length for you to draw a coherent position to rail against. Particularly from the direction you're attacking it. In any case, government limits bad, we'll take that for common ground. What I find fearful in the cases in question is not so much that individuals express their displeasure, but that the concerted expression of these people, at nearly unprecedented speed and volume is coercive. A speed and volume that is largely facilitated and magnified by the advent of social media.

Sterling- just because all of america doesn't want him to own the property he owns, doesn't mean it's alright to force him to divest himself of it.
eich- loses a well-deserved position because of a 1000 dollar POLITICAL contribution he made, and is crucified at the same time.

If racial epithets were a crime, and this were the punitive action the courts handed down, i don't think anybody would disagree that it could be considered cruel and unusual. Sometimes governments most celebrated and least ambiguous role is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And this is it's very definition.

I don't know why, but it feels like extortion.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Darinbob]

But you don't want to hide old articles. This is historical information. Google already is pathetic about keeping history, it shouldn't become even easier to forget the past. Doing research for a school paper is much easier if you can use a search engine to find old newspapers. Asking papers to censor themselves in advance, blanking out all names that might want to be forgotten decades in the future, is a ridiculous notion.

The whole right to be forgotten is somewhat absurd. Even if it can be argued that it's a real right, it is still a lesser right than right to free speech. I think it's more cultural, since right now there's a massive backlash against anything US based, including Google, because of NSA scandal. Except that this right to free speech is exactly what allows US citizens to criticize the government and others without fear of prosecution, we don't have to check first what topics are allowed to be mentioned or if we're violating the official version of the truth.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Darinbob]

Is this about "right to be forgotten" or is it just a political retaliation about the NSA scandal? I don't see anything in the legal decision about Google or others spying on people. Real spies can always visit those other databases and halls of records (and already have). And the issue in particular is not about elmininating google and all search engines, but for people to point out which _specific_ links they want removed, which does nothing whatsoever to restricting spying or even targeted advertising.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[NotSanguine]

What I find fearful in the cases in question is not so much that individuals express their displeasure, but that the concerted expression of these people, at nearly unprecedented speed and volume is coercive. A speed and volume that is largely facilitated and magnified by the advent of social media.

A valid point. It is rather disconcerting that with the broad expansion of access to the Internet and the popularity of social media, what would have, in earlier times, been a "tempest in a teapot" becomes a firestorm of publicity. I'm not really sure how to address that without limiting free expression, and that would create more problems than it solves (if any).

eich- loses a well-deserved position because of a 1000 dollar POLITICAL contribution he made, and is crucified at the same time.

WRT Eich, I personally think that it's unfair for the government to legislate who and how we should be allowed to express love and commitment. As such, I disagree with Eich's stated (a political contribution is, as the SCOTUS as told us, speech) position. That Eich is being crucified by some of those who disagree with his stand on marriage equality is certainly true. I'm sure that those who are doing so feel justified in their actions because they see themselves as fighting for liberty and equality. On the flip side, I'm of the opinion that OKCupid management callously used Eich's political speech as a canard to drive visitors to their site.

Unlike others, I don't believe that I should have a role in the Mozilla Foundation's employment decisions. I can (and do) express my beliefs, and if I feel that an individual or group is doing something that violates my ethical standards, I will speak and vote with my wallet.

I'd point out that, rightly or wrongly, public shaming (Johns named in local papers, boycotts of businesses, lunch counter sit-ins, bus boycotts, etc.) is a time-honored tradition in the US.

Sterling- just because all of america doesn't want him to own the property he owns, doesn't mean it's alright to force him to divest himself of it.

This is really up to the NBA which, as an entity, wishes to project a certain image. Given that the profits of the NBA come from the public exhibition of their product, if one of their own is unable or unwilling to do so, the league has the right to decide who should be associated with them.

Personally, I find bigotry quite distasteful. If I were associated with a person or organization who expressed bigoted views, I would take steps to distance myself from them, both personally and professionally.

But whether I agree or not is irrelevant. Both Mozilla and the NBA took steps which they believe will positively impact their respective businesses. Since both Eich and Sterling were/are poster children for those businesses, their personal beliefs projected an image that the businesses felt were harmful to their business.

No one is telling Eich or Sterling that they cannot believe what they choose to believe. Mozilla and the NBA are, however, telling them that they will not be allowed to represent their businesses because their respective positions will, rightly or wrongly, cause their personal beliefs to be conflated with that of the business.

If racial epithets were a crime, and this were the punitive action the courts handed down, i don't think anybody would disagree that it could be considered cruel and unusual. Sometimes governments most celebrated and least ambiguous role is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And this is it's very definition.

I don't know why, but it feels like extortion.

Actually, that already (again, rightly or wrongly -- which is beyond the scope I want to maintain in this post) happens. In most parts of the US, if someone is assaulted and bigoted comments are made during the commission of the assault, it can be considered a "hate crim

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[NotSanguine]

So let's say you were an atheist. (I'm not saying you are, it's just hypothetical.) And because of your atheism, you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property. (Again just hypothetical.) Lots of people would consider that to be freedom of religion. You might disagree. So in those circumstances, would you say it was socially acceptable to post a massive internet campaign to insult and disparage John Smith, boycott the company he just happens to work for, and demand that he be fired?

I am an atheist and I have a problem with putting monuments to Jesus on government property. Not because of my Atheism, but because it would show favor to one religion over others (or none).

That said, I wouldn't go after the guy personally. However, I'd have quite a bit to say about the quality and appropriateness of his ideas in a free, secular society.

That said, going after the livelihood of someone with whom you disagree is commonplace. Too many people believe that the ends justify the means. It's rather sad. But don't expect it to change anytime soon. People can convince themselves that just about anything (up to and including indiscriminate murder of persons unrelated to the issue at hand) is justified in pursuit of their goals.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Triklyn]

hrmm, maybe strengthen privacy laws or hiring laws, ultimately it'll be hammered out in the courts, because this issue isn't going away. It's a conundrum, we might already be too far gone for us to ever go back. But society is going in a troubling direction.

I was using extortion more colloquially.

And in general I'm of the mind that the best marketplace of ideas is when it's consisting of a majority-minority distribution. The herd might be right today, but that doesn't mean it won't take us off a cliff tomorrow, and punishing people for expressing ideas, is egregious regardless of the idea.

Dutch newspapers and the self-censorship of the press showed us the way, and we're getting there steadily but surely, to a society where there is only one side to divisive issues, the popular side.

I'll defend Eich and Sterling, and say they should be free of the repercussions they're currently suffering, because i think we're agreed, that freedom of expression is worth defending. I'm just a little more paranoid about it. :)

Best Regards

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[dnavid]

Taken to its logical conclusion it states that it could be legal in the EU for someone to publish information that can theoretically be accessed by the general public, but illegal for anyone else to point out that fact.

No, the ruling clearly states that isn't the case. Maybe we need a new RTFR tag.

I actually read the entire ruling word for word. Did you?

Part 99:

It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to Question 3 is that Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, when appraising the conditions for the application of those provisions, it should inter alia be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, without it being necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in that list causes prejudice to the data subject. As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.

In other words, the court ruled the only primary issue is whether the subject had a legal right to that information and could decide whether it should be disseminated, and that fundamental right should, by default, override all other issues, except for the specific case where the subject and the information in question play a sufficient public role that the right of the general public in knowing that information supersede the subject's right to privacy.

Although it doesn't explicitly state so, TAKEN TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION the legal argument could be construed as leading to that conclusion.

Now, since you believe the ruling "clearly states that isn't the case" I'm sure you would have no problem quoting that clearly stated conclusion.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[fustakrakich]

That's one of the things we fought a war to get away from.

Not really. That war was just to change ownership of the corporation, or more correctly the local franchise, not to diminish it in any way. After that it was business as usual, snuffing out insurrection during the long march westward, and southward, all the way around until the Navy docked back in New York.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Grumbleduke]

Just to clarify the EU court ruling didn't say:

1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

It said something like:

You may have a right to be forgotten if your right to privacy in certain information outweighs the public interesting in knowing and accessing the information, and if removing the information from a search engine is a proportionate response.

EU law is often drafted in terms of proportionality, and the CJEU doesn't usually rule on the facts of a case, just gives guidance on interpreting the law. The key parts were that a search engine didn't have immunity just because it didn't host the original content (it was still processing data) and that just because the information was still available on a website didn't mean that removing it from a search engine was necessarily a waste.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[harryjohnston]

I'm puzzled. On the one hand, we have someone making a donation to an organized group so they can pay professionals to manipulate public opinion regarding a referendum. This you say is free speech.

On the other hand we have someone joining a campaign to complain to an organization about their choice of CEO. This isn't?

What's the difference?

Utter nonsense

[jedidiah]

if anyone cares about your worthless narcissistic ass, they would have been just as interested in the pre-Internet age. The fact that there is now an on-line encyclopedia really doesn't change anything. The media was quite free to 'slander' you in the past. They just would have done it in print or on TV. Either of those mediums can be propagated worldwide.

Also, anything involving you being incarcerated is not an issue of "privacy". It's a matter of public record and needs to be open and available for public audit.

Re:Utter nonsense

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Also, anything involving you being incarcerated is not an issue of "privacy". It's a matter of public record and needs to be open and available for public audit.

Although I've never been incarcerated and it's highly unlikely that I ever will be, I don't think a criminal record should be a permanent millstone around anyone's neck. If you've done your time and are no longer a threat to anyone or anything, it should need a court order to turn up criminal records. Time done, move on. Anything else is vengeance, not justice.

Re:Utter nonsense

[Darinbob]

Of course mistakes are forgotten. You can barely find any information on Google that is more than a decade old, it gets scrubbed and removed over time as not being relevant to generating ad revenue.

The other problem is that when this information really matters it will be found out. Apply for a new job and they'll find out all the dirt about you when they run the credit check and criminal history check, so that will hurt you economically far more than if your neighbor found out. Even if a criminal record is expunged it still will be discovered by people doing the background check.

Re:Utter nonsense

[nosferatu1001]

really, "anything" invllving your incarceration? No, what should be available are the court records. Not the sensationalist just-this-side-of-libel newspaper versions of truth, heavily editoriliased to give their message prominence and sell more papers. That helps noone rehabilitate - which is the purpose of the verious acts here. After a time your crime is officially forgotten (there, but not relevant - like expired points on a driving licence record) and you should be free to move on with your life.

Re:Utter nonsense

[cpghost]

Although I've never been incarcerated and it's highly unlikely that I ever will be, I don't think a criminal record should be a permanent millstone around anyone's neck. If you've done your time and are no longer a threat to anyone or anything, it should need a court order to turn up criminal records. Time done, move on. Anything else is vengeance, not justice.

That's an example of cultural differences between the US and Europe.

The question is: how do you reconcile both opposing views? By respecting each one on the other side of the divide, i.e. by having US outfits respect Europe's privacy laws w.r.t. EU citizens, and having European outfits respect US's right to public information w.r.t. US citizens? Now the question becomes: how do you determine whose citizen someone is?

Re:Utter nonsense

[harryjohnston]

So ... who exactly decides that you're no longer a threat?

Re:Utter nonsense

[Intrepid imaginaut]

America, land of the free, where every sentence is a life sentence.

Re:Utter nonsense

[harryjohnston]

Personally, I'm far more critical of their habit of incarcerating people for trivial reasons and their inhumane prison conditions. But I don't see that it's relevant to my question.

Do Europeans really say things like, "I lost my life savings by investing with someone who turned out to be a criminal, but never mind. Yeah, it would have been nice to know about his past convictions before I invested my money, but hey, privacy!"

IMO, if the state *is* going to forbid me from researching someone's past before making decisions about them, the state should also compensate me for any resulting losses, whether monetary or otherwise. Somehow I'm doubtful that the EU is planning to do that.

Re:Utter nonsense

[Intrepid imaginaut]

That comes down to whether or not the person is an ongoing menace as I said. Not to mention that someone convicted of fraud, imprisoned for fraud, who continues to engage in fraud hasn't been "fixed" by the prison system, so different approaches to rehabilitation should be looked at.

Re:Utter nonsense

[harryjohnston]

That comes down to whether or not the person is an ongoing menace as I said.

Which again begs the question: how do you tell?

Re:Utter nonsense

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Better to let ten guilty go free than wrongly punish one innocent. If everyone can check whether or not you have a criminal record and will judge you accordingly, where's the incentive not to be a recidivist? I mean everyone already thinks that's what you are. Confirmation bias is a horrible force when applied to real live people.

Re:Utter nonsense

[harryjohnston]

Taking precautions when dealing with a known convict is not punishment. And what kind of person needs an incentive to behave decently?

Re:Utter nonsense

[Intrepid imaginaut]

"a known convict"

So, someone who smoked a little pot. Or jaywalked when John Q Law was having a bad morning. Or was guilty of the horrible crime of getting too hot and heavy with his two weeks underaged girlfriend. Or even better was randomly accused of rape by some woman he didn't even have relations with. Or even better just had the temerity to open their mouth at an inconvenient juncture.

Or whatever.

The law is an ass and the world isn't divided into monsters and non convicts.The sooner you and the rest of the Americans get that the better off the universe will be.

Re:Utter nonsense

[harryjohnston]

So, someone who smoked a little pot. Or jaywalked when John Q Law was having a bad morning. Or was guilty of the horrible crime of getting too hot and heavy with his two weeks underaged girlfriend.

OK ... and if any of this shows up in a Google search, who's going to care?

The law is an ass [...]

Certainly the "right to be forgotten" is.

The sooner you and the rest of the Americans get that the better off the universe will be.

I don't think you're paying attention. I've already pointed out that I'm not American.

Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[TrollstonButterbeans]

There are a large number of things that Europe "gets right".

Europe doesn't realize that privacy in theory becomes censorship in practice.

There are a large number of things that the USA "gets right".

The USA doesn't realize an *unregulated* free market without *PROPER* government supervision means all companies merge into one company and then do really shitty things.

Which form of stupid to do you prefer: ___________ >>--- fill in your choice.

(This is my view of what happens, in Europe ultimately there ends up being a Ministry of Censorship that results in websites warning about cookies and the plutocracy having more rights, while in the USA evil corporations end up being immune to government because they contribute $$$ to our broken political system.)

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[ravenshrike]

Oh they damn well do realize it, and the governments at least consider that working as intended.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As far as I'm aware, there is literally no country in the world that actually has 100% free speech protection in law. Certainly the US does not: there are numerous things that you are not free to express without penalty. You can shout about your theoretical First Amendment protections as much as you want, but you can still be sued for infringing copyright, you can still be arrested for threatening to kill someone, etc.

Equating privacy protection with censorship misses the point. There's an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the bridge of my nose. It's not strictly true from a modern legal perspective, but the point that you need to balance many rights and freedoms for everyone is just as valid as it ever was. There will always be a tension between freedom of expression and right to privacy, and using inflammatory language like "censorship" to describe anything but an absolutely one-sided position isn't going to achieve anything constructive.

In fact, it's rather ironic that in one paragraph you attack the idea of protecting privacy as a form of censorship, yet in the very next paragraph you argue for government supervision and market regulation so that companies are not free to act as they wish.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[TrollstonButterbeans]

"In fact, it's rather ironic that in one paragraph you attack the idea of protecting privacy as a form of censorship, yet in the very next paragraph you argue for government supervision and market regulation so that companies are not free to act as they wish."

The two aren't related in the slightest.

You might believe that "corporations" have "rights" --- but I sure as hell don't.

I also don't believe Lex Luthor or Dick Cheney or Kim Jong Korean Dude has the right to purge the internet of facts he finds inconvenient --- you might as well rule that big enough aholes can write and sculpt their wikipedia pages how they see fit.

Apparently, you seem to call that privacy --- but such a privacy when it is backed by money and lawyers isn't a right but rather a plutocracy where the size of one's purse is your right under law.

I think that stinks, but you seem to disagree.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[epyT-R]

True. That doesn't mean we say "oh well, might as well get comfortable with ever more pervasive surveillance and censorship."

You can make that case for physical violence involving your fists, but not for much else. Once the law starts covering things like feelings too, you effectively have crazy censorship and monitoring driven by the limits imposed by the most powerful social activists (the mozilla firing, invasive employee background checking, etc). I'll pass on this too. It's really not that hard to pass a law that forces businesses and government agencies to 'forget' you if you demand it. Just associate personal information as personal property that cannot be retained either by force or by condition of service, and be done with it. It's very obvious that we are unable (or unwilling) to secure systems technologically or legally, so such information should be the property of the person in question, governments and corporates be damned...and governments which refuse to abide by such a law are criminal and need to be treated as such. Is this likely to ever happen? No, but I am saying it's possible if our leaders were truly legitimate.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It appears we are in strong agreement.

I don't think we should ever become comfortable with state surveillance and censorship, just as for example we should never be comfortable with armed people going around with the power to forcibly detain us or worse. These things may be necessary evils without which the law cannot in practice be upheld, but they are evils all the same.

Such powers should therefore be granted by law only to the minimum necessary level to enforce the law itself, and they should be applied to everyone equally, and they should probably be overseen by ruthless monsters with the ability to punish in some suitably slow and painful fashion any public official who abuses their privileged powers.

It is unfortunate that in reality government officials tend to get away with a lot more than they should, even in our supposedly democratic and civilised societies. We still have a long way to go before serious abuse of office is considered a high crime tantamount to treason and punished accordingly, but I can't help thinking modern society would probably be a fairer place if we could get there.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[Opportunist]

I'd prefer the European system. It has the better chance to get changed.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[Anonymous Coward]

you might as well rule that big enough aholes can write and sculpt their wikipedia pages how they see fit.

They already do, I have been in edit wars on some pages and give up because I don't have a sock puppet army to fight them. Pay attention to hot topic issues on Wiki and keep screen scraping. In fact I'll go one better, do some fact checking and try to correct some of their edits.

The two aren't related in the slightest.

If censorship comes from the Government it's not censorship? Come on now, you can do better.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[NapalmV]

Looks like the difference between censorship of ideas or scientific theories/facts and practicing restraint in publishing personal data is too subtle for you.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[pjt33]

US federal law has a concept of personal privacy too. Just look at HIPAA. So unless you see that as part of a slippery slope into censorship, your position needs a bit more exposition of where that slippery slope starts.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[Nephandus]

Yeah, government regulation clearly doesn't make them just the parent company of a now larger megacorp with its policies enforced as law and its own military-industrial complex that openly serves it's business interests. Politicians aren't just particularly incompetent and corrupt executives after all. Only silly paranoid conspiracy nuts would ever think such things. Who really wants to record all your personal phone conversations, track your grocery bills, or kill you over meta-data, right?

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[pantaril]

Equating privacy protection with censorship misses the point. There's an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the bridge of my nose. It's not strictly true from a modern legal perspective, but the point that you need to balance many rights and freedoms for everyone is just as valid as it ever was.

In this particular case people seems to sympathize with the court decision but i wonder if they'd equaly support for example the right for privacy of a politician who would ask google to remove references to articles about his past coruption scandals or other inconvinient facts which are no longer "valid" (because the politician in question was never convicted or because he already served his sentence).

I see this decision as higly problematic. Even if google removes the references it could be technicaly chalenging to prevent it's search engine to crawl and index the public data again. I think that the right course of action is to determine if the published data were illegal and if yes then remove them from the source web page.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I tend towards the view that if someone was tried and not convicted, it should be possible for them to have unproven allegations against them hidden. If a court with actual evidence in front of it did not decide to convict, should the accused really then face a second trial by public opinion? Whose interests are really served by such a policy?

Then again, I tend toward the view that no-one should be publicly named as a suspect in most crimes anyway unless and until they have been properly convicted. None of these situations allows some perfect disclosure policy that never gives undesirable outcomes, and I do understand that there are reasonable arguments in favour of disclosure. However, my bias is toward innocent-until-proven-guilty, simply because some damage can't be undone, and once rumours start they will tend to spread whether or not they are founded on anything remotely resembling the truth. Which brings us back to where we came in...

Of course this all applies as much to the original source as to any services dealing in second-hand information, but I don't think it's plausible to ignore the huge magnifying effect of a service like Google. Its actions clearly have consequences, possibly serious ones, in cases like this, so it is not obvious that they should be absolved of all associated responsibility just because it's inconvenient to their business model.

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[harryjohnston]

In this case, it's being used in a targeted way for what *should* be a good reason. For example, a 21 year old is in a bad patch of his life, ends up scoring a conviction for theft and rugs offences. When he gets out of prison, that conviction will haunt him for a while, restricting the fields he can find work in - this happens in the US as well. But, when that same man is 40 years old and has managed to clean his life up, should he still be punished for the mistakes he made half a lifetime ago?

Punished? Maybe not. But treated with caution? Absolutely.

Cultural divide is right

[Anonymous Coward]

"The internet is so new that the law hasn't caught up with it but eventually it'll be regulated like every other aspect of society and that's quite right."

Yes, that's why our forefathers left Europe.

Re:Cultural divide is right

[Opportunist]

The question is, where are WE going to go? It's not like there's any space left that's really "free".

Re:Cultural divide is right

[nosferatu1001]

No, a lot of you left because you werent free to discriminate against others as much as you thought they should be discriminated against. its why you still have fucked up ideas about nudity always being sexual, for one.

Only problem is that google has assets in Europe.

[anwyn]

If google had no assets in Europe, it could shoot Europe the big finger, because of the SPEECH Act. But because google does have assets in Europe, it will have to comply or move its assets out of Europe.

Google is too subject to international pressure. It is time for those interested in truth to move to a search engine that has no assets in Europe.

What about Duck Duck Go, does it have assets in Europe? What about other search engines?

TTIP

[manu0601]

Don't worry, the upcoming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will fix that divergence by removing any European specific thing from Europe.

Re:TTIP

[Opportunist]

In other words, we will have shitty meat, shitty gen-manipulated corn, shitty clothing, shitty living standards and shitty jobs.

But we will have the right to freely express our dissatisfaction with them.

Re:TTIP

[cpghost]

But if some EU-think remains after all, we well also have the right to forget about those shitty things.

Re:TTIP

[Opportunist]

Nah. You can take away much, but take away our right to complain about a situation (without doing anything else to change it, of course), you're risking a revolution.

Re:TTIP

[manu0601]

But we will have the right to freely express our dissatisfaction with them.

And the right to carry weapons.

Oh, wait...

Re:TTIP

[Opportunist]

Do you really think that would change anything?

Half of the EU is the former Warsaw Pact by now. With plenty of surplus weaponry nobody cares about anymore, and with open borders, it's trivial to move guns about. Want one? Makarov? Automat Kalaschnikova ("74 harder to get, but 47 shoot really well too!")? With a bit of lead time also RPG7s and Strelas, by now maybe also SA-18s, who knows.

You don't need a right to bear arms. You just need arms in the hands of people who need money and open borders.

Re:TTIP

[manu0601]

I was joking. Indeed EU nations are far from enjoying true democracies, but at least they have a few rare opportunities to change things through votes. Armed revolutions means the winner is the one that has the more weapons, which most of the time means the more support from foreign countries : this is even less democratic than rare elections.

Both deserve to lose.

[Karmashock]

Two powers are trying to take control over the internet and neither is worthy of it.

The US overstepped its authority in wire tapping everything. The NSA needs to have reasonable limits placed upon it.

And Europe has no right to dictate what people say on the internet. This starts out with limiting pornography and hate speech... and then very quickly it becomes about shutting down political rivals or ideas you simply disagree with...

Both deserve to lose.

Re:Both deserve to lose.

[Karmashock]

No where have americans said none citizens have no rights.

It is true our intelligence agencies tend to not take foreign rights very seriously but they're intelligence organizations. If you were paying attention to the media, you'd be aware that European intelligence agencies were either doing the same thing or were simply accepting US gathered intelligence from this source.

That was the deal. The NSA spied on Europeans and then shared the intelligence with european intelligence agencies.

Did you not know that?

Consider what else you don't know and consider how free you actually are if your information is not getting through.

Stop and think.

Re:Only problem is that google has assets in Europ

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that they basically don't pay tax it wouldn't be a great loss anyway. Maybe piss off the nsa and gchq. So could be a positive move all round. Win win!

And the balanced perspective...

[jandersen]

Yes, it is coming up the the European elections over here, and this 'story' should be seen on that background: as a self-serving piece of propaganda from one of the wing-nuts.

...bitterness on the EU side at U.S. influence online.

Meh? I suspect most of us are not so much bitter at all as simply plain, old tired of American self-importance. The fact is that American influence is on the decline and has been for many years; any bitterness is probably on the American side. The Chinese are taking over as the great influencers of cultural and intetllectual expression, but these things always shift; it is only a few decades ago that it was Italy, UK, France or Germany.

Europeans who have been told that the Internet is basically ungovernable â" and if it does have guiding principles then they come from the land of the free...

Ask a real American if USA is the 'Land of the Free' any more, if ever it was. The internet is not ungovernable; there are many ways govern, and not all rely on legislation, democracy or use of weapons. The rulers of the internet are not national governments, but big corporations like Google, Facebook etc, who have a near monopoly on the most popular methods to access information. If you control the sources of information, you control people's minds. In Europe we have a very sound scepticism towards the wisdom of letting unelected corporations have that much power.

Re:The Problem Isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

You are entirely too metaphysical for my tastes. I'm not sure that the theory about souls is the operative issue here.

This is my theory. The European view is based upon the notion of a supportive state. If a person has changed their life and behaviours, then the state is willing to support that change (funny how this only applies in cases where the earlier behaviour was bad and the new behaviour good. Let's not dwell on this though).

The US view is based upon historical facts. The person has their history and they may change. However it's other people's right to discover what that history is. Even if the story is controversial and contested, the dispute over the facts is itself part of the historical record.

What I cannot currently reconcile is that it is an accepted cultural truism that America is the land where people can reinvent themselves. Which appears to contradict the above??

Re:I want to become an American and move out of Eu

[radio4fan]

Photography has become illegal in Europe due to misguided "privacy" laws. It's just ridiculous that I cannot do street photography in Europe because the European governments have decided that we photographers should ask people before we take their photo or publish it!

While this is true in certain countries in certain circumstances (France and Spain come to mind) it is certainly not true in the UK.

So this isn't a Europe-wide problem, and definitely isn't the fault of the EU.

Information Theory vs Lawyers, round 2, fight!

[VortexCortex]

The US vs. Europe?

Correction: Europe vs Streisand Effect.

Good luck, dumbassess.

Re:I want to become an American and move out of Eu

[nosferatu1001]

Erm, those arent actual laws....

Winston Smith are you there?

[DoctorBonzo]

Google has a job for you in the EU...

Re:Only problem is that google has assets in Europ

[gnasher719]

If google had no assets in Europe, it could shoot Europe the big finger,

Even without assets, they would risk any ad revenue coming from Europe. If there is a fine to be paid and no assets to recover, they can just contact everyone owing money to Google (like every advertiser) and tell them to make the payments to the EU instead of Google.

Impossible

[JimSadler]

There is no way to keep information of the net. Laws that attempt to do that are limp to the point that Viagra will not help. How about Europe getting the point that we all have to live with our past. We own that information as does everyone else in the community. And yes, if I am about to hire a person, date a girl, or make a loan or investment I do want to know all of the criminal history of the person in question. And yes, even if they were 13 years old when they butchered heir neighbor I still insist on that information being public and easily obtainable.

Re:The Problem Isn't

[KingMotley]

And there is the problem. You believe that free speech should mean that you can say whatever you want without consequences, and that isn't a right. Never has been, and never should be. You are free to say pretty much what you want, but you must face the consequences for saying it. You should also note that free speech is about what the government can prohibit, while there is no such protection from what private or non-government entities can limit.

Please read your constitution and bills of rights.

Re:The Problem Isn't

[KingMotley]

And by those rules, slashdot must comply as well (assuming they have some relationship with something in the EU), as most of their articles are not much more than links back to other sites.

Not sure about that

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the demographic that is pushing all these "tough on crime", "lock 'em up and throw away the key" policies. Then look at the heavily religious demographic. Then look at the overlap. I've even heard people argue that the risk of executing the wrong person is not a significant argument against the death penalty, because God will sort it all out in the end (and this from multiple sources - not just one whackjob but multiple unconnected individuals who clearly see this as a moral justification for their beliefs on how the real world should be run). There's no way you can claim that it's "anti-christian" people pushing this... ...unless you want to go for some kind of "no true Scotsman" argument that says the religious right aren't really Christians?

+4?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just feeding a well-connected troll here, but I feel like someone has to point out that Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality, ethics, justice, or faith.
 
  I guess petry just hit the right chord of Christians and rose-tinted "in my day" folks to get the +. Morons.