Slashdot Mirror
Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten
mpicpp writes with this news from the BBC: Google is under fresh pressure to expand the 'right to be forgotten' to its international .com search tool. A panel of EU data protection watchdogs said the move was necessary to prevent the law from being circumvented. Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one. The panel said it would advise member states' data protection agencies of its view in new guidelines. However, a link is provided at the bottom right-hand corner of the screen offering an option to switch to the international .com version. This link does not appear if the users attempted to go to a regional version in the first place. Even so, it means it is possible for people in Europe to easily opt out of the censored lists.
Brought to you by the same people who invented Mandatory Data Retention, a politician's: we need to preserve accurate history for government control, but allow narcissistic individuals to enforce social forgetting. Only the powerful may control their own memory.
Lets all forget to use Google and their 'Services'
I mean, seriously, what will they be doing next? Asking all proxies, VPNs, and TOR to filter "right to be forgotten" search results. All airlines and airports offering international flights will require memory wipers to remove any "right to be forgotten knowledge" from your brain. All libraries, archives, repositories and public records offices will be required to go through old paper copies of documents with tipex...
(Fun fact: "Right to be forgotten" censoring was basically Winston Smith's day job in 1984...)
Send the request to be forgotten to the site that actually hosts the information. That way it will disappear in all search engines.
...by the right to be forgotten. Do not read!
More seriously, is it possible under the law to replace "Right to be forgotten" links with a big red "THIS POST HAS BEEN BLOCKED IN YOUR COUNTRY, PURSUANT TO THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN"?
If Europe can regulate what the whole world sees on Google, why not China?
If they do go through with it, let's at least have a www.google.us without the censorship. (Probably a good idea anyway.)
...people would stop calling it the right to be forgotten.
Call it what it really is: "The right to pretend certain things never happened."
That wouldn't cover sites outside of EU jurisdiction, which the EU not unreasonably thinks makes it a poor solution.
If you have put something unpleasant behind you, then really it should not matter if details of it are still available for other people to read... In fact, if it does, then the matter isn't really behind you at all. if other people are going to judge you by your past, that's unfortunate, but that's also just life... It shouldn't be up to legislation to change how liable people are to judge books by their covers, as it were.... That's a moral failing on their part.
People need to live their lives the best that they can... everyone fucking makes mistakes, and we learn to live with them. I used to know somebody who was crippled for life as a teenager because he was being reckless. he could easily still be reminded every single day of his life, even now over 30 years later, of what he should have done... so you can't somehow say that the Internet is somehow different just because something online can last forever, because there's other stuff that can be just as interminable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The world-wide web is most definitely not under their jurisdiction either. Europe has no authority to censor the internet on behalf of the rest of the world.
The law does not allow that. It would be censorship. The law only requires commercial companies who are not protected by things like public interest journalism handle your personal data in a certain way. For example, banks are not allowed to tell other banks about bankruptcies you had 20 years ago. Google is not exempt from these requirements.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is the big thing. Not just NSA, but retailer cameras selling stuff you literally "browse" by foot in the aisle. According to this article, Google and Facebook have the biggest "face banks" for the facial recognition software. Can they be told to forget that, too? If not, you aren't really "forgotten" just because you don't appear in a search engine. I don't think Europe could pass a law making Google delete the information. http://www.fastcocreate.com/30...
Gently reply
Worse, it takes away their "we're not censoring anything" argument. If you enforce "forgetting" by delisting a page from Google, but the original page remains intact, then (as the EU argues) you haven't censored anyone, just removed a search page's response. If anyone (like a journalist) bothers to go looking for the original source page, they'll find it, and so no one's right to speak out against injustice has been curtailed.
Now, consider if they were to start telling the original pages to "forget" something. Then there's no way for the EU to say that they're not acting like they thought George Orwell wrote their playbook: that would be blatant censorship and a destruction of the memories of the true past in order to foster a false sense of the present.
Regardless of that both are a form of censorship, ordering individuals to censor themselves and destroy records of the past is politically harder to do than ordering Google (a dirty corporation! rich, dirty Americans! Amis go home!) to keep researchers from finding those records.
Before saying a particular measure is good against KKKorporations (and that is the proper spelling for a rant like yours), apply it against yourself first.
For example, if you want the minimum hourly pay to be $15, remember, that it will apply to you, when you are blessed with a child and need to hire a nanny. Oh, and if she works for you full time — you'll need to provide her with health insurance and a few other things.
Likewise with the right to be forgotten — what you welcome for KKKorporations, may some day be applied to you. Manipulating human memories is already possible. Would you like your ex to be able to obtain a court order requiring you to undergo the procedure to make you forget the good times you two once had?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
EU is not going to shut Google down. What everyone's going to use? Bing?
Well, it's not that different from me (non-US citizen) receiving DMCA requests. If I mail them back that I don't care about laws that are not valid in my country some Americans seem unable to understand why I refuse to take action.
I understand we have little control over what the media prints but don't you think a web site owner has far more control over what google/yahoo/bing collects? Isn't there a no/google code that tells google do not collect/save/linkto ?? that sites can use? Not a coder don't know html nor do I care to leans no web sites in my future. AND what about the site that prints the story/article/whatever why should it just be google they are not creating the story they link to it kinda in a way as they say to use no humans read or look at any data lol ya right.
Jack of all trades,master of none
They're demanding that Google do for EU citizens, what they already do for the MPAA and RIAA.
Or did you think DMCA takedowns only affected US users?
Send the request to be forgotten to the site that actually hosts the information. That way it will disappear in all search engines.
The law does not allow that. It would be censorship.
That's OK, censorship is alive and well in many countries. For example, those in which truth is not an absolute defense in libel cases. It should not matter what your intent is if you are only using facts unless you are deliberately using them to defraud, e.g. by careful omission of relevant information.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Stalin-era edition of Soviet Encyclopedia — a monumental collection of large volumes not unlike Britannica — once had a large article (full of praises, of course) about Lavrenty Beria. When Stalin died, Beria lost to others and was promptly shot.
To erase the memory of those praises, all owners of the encyclopedia (there weren't that many) were required to cut out the article about him — and replace it with an article about Bering Strait. True story...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Betas are told to see 'moronic' demands by their 'betters' as proof that their 'betters' are idiots that can be safely ignored. This is a carefully designed psychological ploy (known by military black propaganda units as a PSY-OP).
What is REALLY happening is a massive program of social engineering, intended to create a VASTLY different internet experience for citizens of the near future. The elites KNOW that existing users that experienced the modern 'birth' of the Internet (yes we all know the 'true' Internet pre-dated this) will hang on to their online RIGHTS with both hands until the day they die. The ground is being laid, however, for future generations- sheeple trained from the earliest age to accept a much more Orwellian form of society.
Incrasing computing power at decreasing cost gave us the (modern) Internet, but also gives the monsters perfect methods of control and surveillance. The amount of significant 'broadcast' content of the Internet doesn't grow as fast as the technology that can scan and censor such content. Governments the world over are planning 'NEW AGE', where what the monsters call the 'Wild West' is 'tamed', and the sheeple put well and truly back in their place.
Take the UK, for instance. Before the age of the Internet, explicit pornography OF ALL FORMS was highly ILLEGAL. No UK politician was ever going to back a program of reform giving adults the RIGHT to enjoy sexual material. The Internet completely eliminated this form of societal control in the UK by the monsters. But the monsters fully intend to take back that control just as soon as possible.
Or take UNIONS. When they could, the monsters in the UK and elsewhere hanged or deported to prison colonies ordinary people who attempted to gain RIGHTS for the ordinary working Human. Societal circumstances changes enough to finally allow worker's rights- but the monsters NEVER forgot their agenda, and in the UK Unions were DESTROYED just as soon as became possible- which was the early 1970s through into the time of Thatcher and Blair.
This game is NOT about eliminating the ability of alphas or higher betas to 'bypass' the system. This game is about the experiences of the general population. The 'Right' of your masters to place 'inconvenient' information into the Orwellian 'MEMORY HOLE' ***WILL*** be established sooner or later. Only 'terrorists', for instance, will own the video record of WT7 collapsing at free fall speed in a conventional controlled demolition, or video of the BBC newsreader announcing the 'collapse' many minutes before it actually happened.
Britain's THREE parliamentary party leaders have already stated that owning evidence to the contrary of ANY official government position will be declared to be an 'act of terrorism' under new laws in the UK. The 'Right to be forgotten' is simply the classic 'right' to rewrite history that the monsters have always claimed as essential if they are to control the sheeple effectively.
Europe has the authority to do anything in the whole world because WE ARE EUROPEANS. The Herrenvolk. The Master Race. Verstanden? Or are you a Jew?
Editing the historical record sounds awfully like hiding your past. Why isn't this like pretending the Holocaust or Stalins purges just never happened? Wouldn't IBM like to assert (without contradiction) that it never assisted the Nazis in the Death Camps?
This is an initiative only a corporate tool could love.
Someone should ask Richard for a ruling. This might be heresy.
Removing information from the search engine is censorship. If something was only considered censorship when it removed all available copies of the information, then censorship would literally not exist, because that goal is nearly impossible.
Outsource their Advertising business to a subsidiary that has no control of what search results appear on the page.
Let that subsidiary do all business in Europe; let the search company not do any business in Europe.
And then the search company can simply ignore all requests to control search results as out of jurisdiction.
A place where dirty laundry that has been removed from the google search engine can be listed.
This would rely on some kind of time-based diff, or on Google publishing a list of the links it has removed just prior to removing them.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
So what about, say, google.ca (Canada, not California)?
Through the use of tools, humans are becoming more powerful. We not only have access to thousands of books worth of information, but can search through it instantly to find what we are looking for. That is an incredible leap forwards for humanity.
The problem is that social conventions haven't caught up... yet. There is much more compassion towards those that are different or have made mistakes than there was in the past. I think that modern transparency has broadened much of what we thought was acceptable behavior and helped people to accept their own mistakes and the mistakes of others.
The real disease that people fear is the puritanical hatred that may be directed at them. I argue that the way to solve this problem is not through less transparency, but more.
The state forgets YOU!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The world-wide web is most definitely not under their jurisdiction either. Europe has no authority to censor the internet on behalf of the rest of the world.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hahahahahahahaha Only the US has that right eh ?
To restrict public information. I can walk up to you and see your face, do you expect to be able to tell me to forget i ever saw you? No. Google is the same.
This law is total nonsense even if you agree with the concept of being forgotten, because the law doesn't even go after the content!
If you have issues with content on the web, you should be going after the host of the content, not search engines who just arbitrarily index.
The ONLY reason this law is targeting major international search engines is because the EU knows that if the law targets the actual content owners, then the law would never be enforceable. By targeting major international search engines, they can enforce it (IE, they are being lazy).
This law is essentially useless because isn't actually causing ANYTHING to "be forgotten", the content is still out there, and non-international search engines like DuckDuckGo and many others will continue to return that content.
So essentially it is a useless law, that accomplishes nothing except forcing Google, Bing, and Yahoo to waste resources.
I need to be able to look up all information about someone. If I didn't, I wouldn't need the internet. I would just ask them to attach anything they felt I should know to their application.
So if they break Google, I will need another search engine. It may need to be run from somewhere outside the control of the EU, USA, NSA, FBI and so on..
Perhaps there is someone in Russia who knows about computers?
I'll stick to the EU over the USA though. Less militaristic and their silliest ideas are aimed for human beings and against corporates. At least they want us to think they are trying...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
leftist idiots of EU should just shut up.
This is NOT revisionism or censorship. The fact we got to be forgotten is a something we enjoyed for most of our history. Until google and search engine came along, then it went out of the window. Think about it : if you were published as having pissed on the US flag in 1970, chance is that it will be obscure and be forgotten a few weeks, month , years later. Today it will haunt you forvever. It was not censorship or revisionism it was the simple fact that people forgot, people are not machine. machine never forget unless you force them.
We enjoyed being forgotten until google came along. This is not about imposing a "new" right, this is about enjoying what we the previous generation has as a freedom. This is about reclaiming what search engine stole from us. As I already said multiple time on slashdot, a society which do not forget , helped by a seaerch engine, is a pathologic society which does not forgive, and ruins potentially lifes forever.
As for the accusation of revisionism and censorship : this is the exact reason why the search engine are asked to remove stuff, and NOT the original publication. Because then the information is still reachable by the same OLD fashioned way we did before : old fashioned research.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Except in the case listed, you're basically removing things based on charges that have been shown as untrue (or at least unsubstantiated) in a court of law.
However, what people seem to be *actually* using the tool for is to remove things that are personally uncomfortable, but not untrue. So if salesman X is noted for scamming a bunch of people, or Banker Y is shown doing something inappropriate things, they can then get any linked articles about their behaviour removed. Then, when a new customer comes to Salesman X for Banker Y, they look them up and "hey, I can only find good things about this guy, I guess he's legit"
This is one of the most ridiculous rulings ever... if there is incorrect information out there it should be corrected at the source... not removed from a search engine. If the information is true, then too bad. People don't have a right to try to hide public information... that's why it's called public. This was just a half-ass ruling shifting the responsibility of policing information to search engines. Search engines don't create the information, they just make it easier to find.
The Internet: made in the US, destroyed by the EU. It was cool while it lasted. Blame the euro trash pedo nazis for what happened. Hey, you scheisse-lovers, I'm talking to you.
"He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future." - Orwell, 1984
Correct information itself is never out of date. If someone has been charged with a crime, that fact stays, even if s/he was found not guilty.
I wonder whether you would take such an unqualified position if you, yourself, were an innocent party who had been maliciously/negligently taken to court. In the real world, having that kind of thing hanging over you despite your complete innocence and having done nothing wrong of any kind can and does destroy lives. For example, there was an infamous case in the UK a few year ago when a paediatrician -- a doctor who specialises in helping children -- was run out of their home by vigilantes who were too stupid to know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.
You are correct, of course, that facts are facts. I would even agree that universal knowledge is, in principle, a good thing if you also have universally rational and fair observers accessing and using that knowledge. For example, historians are typically interested in getting as much complete and accurate information about a period of history as possible, and they place great emphasis on the quality of sources and corroborating evidence. They are unlikely to leap to damaging conclusions based on a single dubious source.
However, in reality the people accessing information on the Internet are only human, and in reality even well-meaning people may come across incorrect or misleading information and make judgements based on it without realising they were in error. That means sometimes it does make sense to conceal information, at least partially or for a limited period of time, in order to protect other humans from unfair harm.
I believe everyone has a basic moral right to fair treatment in this respect, particularly because the damage to a wronged individual if that right is violated will be far greater than the damage to someone who just didn't trivially find out about some possibly incorrect allegations.
I also note that the justice systems in almost every civilised country take a similar view, often such that even actual criminal convictions become "spent" after a time and no longer need to be disclosed. It turns out that sometimes people do change and that encouraging the successful rehabilitation of past offenders makes that much more likely than leaving them with some minor infraction hanging over them for the rest of their lives.
On the contrary, it shows how socialistic nanny-states try to force companies founded in free countries to adhere by their standards.
You and I have very different definitions of freedom. I assume that in yours my freedom of movement also extends to the right to enter your home and my freedom of expression extends to the right to spray paint abusive comments all over it?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
However, in reality the people accessing information on the Internet are only human, and in reality even well-meaning people may come across incorrect or misleading information and make judgements based on it without realising they were in error. That means sometimes it does make sense to conceal information, at least partially or for a limited period of time, in order to protect other humans from unfair harm.
Yes, and they would be responsible for those mistaken judgements. Just like it is now. Google does not return misleading information.
This law has nothing to do with incorrect information. So that is irrelevant. It only relates to search results listing actual web pages that contain the content of the search items someone typed in. In fact it's results are always accurate. The returned pages definitely contain those search terms. Google or any search engine makes no promise, or guarantee of any kind regarding the relevance of those pages to what you may actually be searching for. It's results are never in error nor misleading. Those search terms always appear on those pages.
That is all that it guarantees.
That some people, or you, attributed an additional set of meaning to the results is your responsibility. If you go out and buy stock in a company based on a fraudulent web site returned in a google search it is your problem. Google did exactly what it promised to do, nothing more, nothing less. Return to you a list of the web pages that contain the search terms you entered in.
If Google was filtering the results in some way not based on the search terms that you entered that would be different but they aren't doing that.
All the rest of the interpretation of the results, well that's your issue, not Google's.
For example, there was an infamous case in the UK a few year ago when a paediatrician -- a doctor who specialises in helping children -- was run out of their home by vigilantes who were too stupid to know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.
So, you're arguing that due to English schtupidity (pronounce as Clarkson), Google should conceal factually correct data from being discovered while it is perfectly visible elsewhere on the web?
in reality the people accessing information on the Internet are only human, and in reality even well-meaning people may come across incorrect or misleading information and make judgements based on it without realising they were in error. That means sometimes it does make sense to conceal information, at least partially or for a limited period of time, in order to protect other humans from unfair harm.
No disagreement there.
I believe everyone has a basic moral right to fair treatment in this respect, particularly because the damage to a wronged individual if that right is violated will be far greater than the damage to someone who just didn't trivially find out about some possibly incorrect allegations.
And this is the part where it becomes interesting. Remember what is happening here. Google is a search engine, an indexer of information that is readily available elsewhere. If the Guardian reports about child-abuse allegations against John Doe, and Mr Doe is acquitted in court, the report about the allegations are still correct. You're arguing that Google should no longer be allowed to produce search results that link to the original allegations. I'm arguing that this is a silly way of handling things. If one would really want to protect the acquitted, the law should mandate that the article be amended with information regarding the acquittal.
Obscuring the fact that the original allegation was made by passing laws against an indexing service smells like Chinese Censorship to me, and I find that to be a dangerous slippery slope.
I also note that the justice systems in almost every civilised country take a similar view, often such that even actual criminal convictions become "spent" after a time and no longer need to be disclosed. It turns out that sometimes people do change and that encouraging the successful rehabilitation of past offenders makes that much more likely than leaving them with some minor infraction hanging over them for the rest of their lives.
Totally agree there. But my point remains valid: in such a case the origin of the information should be affected, not the indexer. And also, most criminal convictions will stay on the record (especially in the case of felonies), but won't be taken into account (or to a lesser extent) when performing a background check. In my former home country (The Netherlands) that usually means 4 years for infractions, 8 years for felonies. The record itself stays and the individual can go to the courthouse to see the rapsheet, but it will not be disclosed to anyone.
I assume that in yours my freedom of movement also extends to the right to enter your home and my freedom of expression extends to the right to spray paint abusive comments all over it?
You have the freedom of movement that extends to the border of my properties. Your freedom of expression extends to the right to say whatever you want. Spray painting is not free speech, that would be infringement on my property rights. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once said:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
A search engine ruins your life not by merely "publishing" the false/outdated information, but by pushing it up to the top of the search results meaning that it's the first thing that people see. The right to be forgotten protects the subject from accidental discovery. That's a good thing.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Consider also that while I personally would not be fussed if the world discovered the real name of "Half-pint HAL", but I post pseudonymously here so it doesn't become the first thing people see when they search for me. I use various pseudonyms (some unique, some repeated) on various different sites.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
So, you're arguing that due to English schtupidity (pronounce as Clarkson), Google should conceal factually correct data from being discovered while it is perfectly visible elsewhere on the web?
No, I'm arguing that because of human nature search engines should be required not to promote misleading or inaccurate information that may lead to unfair inferences being drawn about innocent people, once the search engines are explicitly made aware that they are doing so.
If one would really want to protect the acquitted, the law should mandate that the article be amended with information regarding the acquittal.
Ideally, yes. Unfortunately from this point of view, there are plenty of places in the world where they will tell you to go hang, because their right to mislead people about you is more important than your right to be treated fairly. This law is the closest we have right now to routing around that problem.
You have the freedom of movement that extends to the border of my properties. Your freedom of expression extends to the right to say whatever you want. Spray painting is not free speech, that would be infringement on my property rights.
Indeed. But if you apply the same logic from the other direction to cases like this, you see why it's important not to promote misleading or incorrect information about innocent people.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
I suppose the difference is that in the centuries since Jefferson said that, we have learned that the pen is mightier than the sword, the printing press is mightier than the pen, and the Internet gives anyone the power of a printing press that can reach an audience of billions in moments and at negligible cost.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That some people, or you, attributed an additional set of meaning to the results is your responsibility.
That's a lovely ivory tower you live in, but in the real world, your position is of little comfort to all the people who miss out on opportunities or suffer harm because someone did a quick web search and leapt to the wrong conclusions about the victim.
What next, I have a right to drive around at 90mph past the school down the road, and the law shouldn't stop be because I'm just exercising my freedom of movement and not necessarily doing any harm to anyone? Of course if I do hit a child, it will be my fault and the law will punish me, but that won't be any consolation to the dead child's parents.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
They are demanding to apply their laws to the entire world.
No they're not -- they're demanding that google.com doesn't keep pretending not to know that a user is based in the EU when they've already geolocated the user by IP address. It's like a club bouncer IDing an underager then suggesting he use the back door.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Why don't they just license The Great Firewall of China.
We all know this is where Europe is heading with this; the only difference is they're asking Google to implement it for them, rather than having to implement it themselves, as China has done.
Yes, people will behave badly based on incorrect information. This is true regardless of this law.
That's a poor reason to pass a poor law.
The fact that you have to resort to an argument regarding unsafe driving, an actual act, versus a discussion of speech and censorship indicates the obvious weakness of your position.
Plus the ivory tower versus real world bit is just tired and pointless.
The EU and the US need to clue in to the fact that their local laws don't apply globally, no matter how much it pisses them off that other nations do things differently.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Attempting to discourage bad behaviour is pretty much the only good reason to pass a law. Your inability to understand that even when presented with a very obvious and uncontroversial analogy is no-one's problem but your own.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The actual articles, records, whatever, aren't being removed and instead this whole 'right to be forgotten' goes after indexers of information.
Proponents keep pointing out that somebody can still find the information if they dig for it - or hire somebody to dig for it - and rather than removing information this just makes it harder for *regular people to find.
So people who can't afford it don't have access to that information and the internet becomes a less useful tool for those that can't afford to pay for LexisNexis (or whatever service it happens to be).
Not only a benefit for the pedos that get to have their records essentially expunged but a *huge blow to the economic viability of small businesses.
The wealthy get to use the internet - the poor not so much.
This is one of the most short sighted, and potentially destructive, things I've seen regarding internet regulation.
If that's your argument, go after the people publishing the information: newspapers and commercial databases.
But preventing Google from returning those search results is only intended to hurt Google and to make it difficult for regular folks to get at information.
I'm arguing that because of human nature search engines should be required not to promote misleading or inaccurate information that may lead to unfair inferences being drawn about innocent people, once the search engines are explicitly made aware that they are doing so.
Unfortunately from this point of view, there are plenty of places in the world where they will tell you to go hang, because their right to mislead people about you is more important than your right to be treated fairly. This law is the closest we have right now to routing around that problem.
Ok, so we have nailed your point of view down to "we can't control the content of the book, but we do control the table of content". Don't you think that's a bit like shooting the messenger? Furthermore, don't you think that you're now placing an undue burden on a company that has nothing to do with the content that is being indexed?
I find this a typical case of where governments go wrong. They won't go after the one they need to go after, so they go after the one they can go after.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Ok, so we have nailed your point of view down to "we can't control the content of the book, but we do control the table of content".
That's not so much my point of view as the entire point of the court ruling.
Don't you think that's a bit like shooting the messenger? Furthermore, don't you think that you're now placing an undue burden on a company that has nothing to do with the content that is being indexed?
No, I really don't. The existence of services like Google's dramatically amplifies the damage that would otherwise be done by sites that publish incomplete or misleading information about people. Google may not be the original source of the problem, but it is still contributing to it, and as such I don't see why it should get a free pass when it has been explicitly notified that it is doing so.
They won't go after the one they need to go after, so they go after the one they can go after.
That's a false dichotomy. In law, you can only ever go after someone within your jurisdiction, and in this case either or both of the original source and a search engine that directs people to it would be required by law to comply if they are within that jurisdiction.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If that's your argument, go after the people publishing the information: newspapers and commercial databases.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can go after the original source with a direct defamation action if they're within the same jurisdictions. All this law means is that just because the original source has escaped to a different jurisdiction, that doesn't give everyone else a free pass to propagate and amplify incorrect or misleading information about someone.
But preventing Google from returning those search results is only intended to hurt Google and to make it difficult for regular folks to get at information.
That's a very cynical viewpoint. One plausible alternative is that it's meant to stop people from missing out on say a job or a mortgage they would otherwise have had just because someone once accused them of doing something inappropriate that they did not in fact do.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Anyone know if there are any term limits on these "EU data protection watchdogs"?
Attempting to discourage bad behaviour is pretty much the only good reason to pass a law.
Well, duh. That is not what is being discussed by anyone. Your inability to understand that is no-one's problem but your own. Way to try to change the subject.
If all it took to pass a law was a desire to discourage bad behavior then:
Manufacture of knives would be illegal. Could be used to harm others.
Manufacture of guns would be banned. Could be used to harm others.
Manufacture of cars able to break the speed limit would be banned.
You can in fact speed through a school zone and kill children. However no one is arguing that car manufacturers are liable for these deaths and should stop making cars that can speed. The appropriate analogy would be you arguing that GM should not manufacture cars able to break the speed limit because humans are humans and will speed and cause accidents.
If the, 'we know humans will abuse these tools', were sufficient grounds for forcing businesses to stop doing things almost all businesses would be ground to a hault.
Before you tried to change the subject your entire argument was basically since some humans will definitely act irresponsibly on incomplete but true information Google must be forced to remove this information from its search results. Even when the information is accurate, publicly available, and already available on the web. Google must protect its users from themselves.
if this were a sound basis for a law blocking this information we would have absolutely no newspapers or media of any kind.
Basically you are arguing that Joe Paterno should be able to block links to web pages reporting the fact that he knew of but did nothing about child abuse by Jerry Sandusky because it would be harmful for his reputation if people knew about this actual true behavior of his.
Seriously, equating search results to driving through a school zone and killing children? And you accuse others of not living in the real world?
"I'm pretty sure for "most of our history" people have lived in the same rural communities where, not only did everyone who regularly encountered you have a pretty good running list of all your past major mistakes"
Move away start your life elsewhere was always a possibility. With a search engine you cannot. this invalidate this point. We enjoyed a natural right of being forgotten by virtue of going somewhere else where we could be anonymous and unknown. There was only an old fashioned way to find about you : physically go to the library and look for journal snippets with your name. Which was a very time consuming process, so most people would not do it. And that include your new neighbors , your new job. De facto, google is not making you more anonymous, it is making you LESS anonymous, unless you are named with a very generic "John Smith" name. Today your new neighbors, your new job can google your name. And chance is , that it will find you. And that is what we lost and the right to be forgotten is trying to set back.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
In law, you can only ever go after someone within your jurisdiction, and in this case either or both of the original source and a search engine that directs people to it would be required by law to comply if they are within that jurisdiction.
Ok, so your point is that as long as Google operates within a certain country, it should comply with all laws in that country? Take this one step further. Google operates in China, do you expect Google to comply with all Chinese laws, including censorship, as well? No of course you don't. Chinese law is applied on google.cn, not on google.com.
And this is exactly what's going on here, according to TFA, or even the summary:
Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.
This would imply that China (or the EU for that matter) is now forcing its own laws on the international version of Google. Which means that they would be grossly overstepping the bounds of their own jurisdiction.
And for what it's worth: there is no such thing as EU law. There are EU directives, which have to be implemented into local law by its member states. Which means that, assuming you agree with me on the China analogy, Google would only have to censor individual country-specific TLD search results such as google.nl, google.de, google.be etc. And what is happening now is that the EU tries to force Google to change the international version of Google, meaning it is attempting to shove EU directives through the rest of the world's throats.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Ok, so your point is that as long as Google operates within a certain country, it should comply with all laws in that country?
Yes, of course. And domain names are utterly irrelevant to this.
This would imply that China (or the EU for that matter) is now forcing its own laws on the international version of Google. Which means that they would be grossly overstepping the bounds of their own jurisdiction.
Not really. A state can only impose sanctions against a business to the extent that the business falls within its jurisdiction, but otherwise no business has any power to override national laws in nations where it operates, so it has to play by the rules or accept the consequences. It really is as simple as that.
And yes, this does create fundamental problems if one nation's laws are directly contradictory with another's and you want to operate in both. This is currently a significant problem for US IT companies who are subject to obligations under US law to supply information on demand to certain security organisations, but also subject to obligations under the laws of European countries where they operate that prohibit sharing personal data by default. However, the inability to lawfully operate everywhere in the world simultaneously is a problem for the business, not for any of the nations involved.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Yes, of course. And domain names are utterly irrelevant to this.
A state can only impose sanctions against a business to the extent that the business falls within its jurisdiction, but otherwise no business has any power to override national laws in nations where it operates, so it has to play by the rules or accept the consequences. It really is as simple as that.
I think you have just proven my point. Google operates in Germany with its google.de domain name and its own Google legal entity for Germany. Google operates in The Netherlands with its google.nl domain name and its own Google legal entity for The Netherlands. Google operates in Belgium with its google.be domain name and its own Google legal entity for Belgium. Google operates in the US with its google.com domain name and Google Inc.
Why would some local I-feel-important politician that hasn't even been chosen directly in The Netherlands be in the position to dictate a foreign entity what to do? Let them have jurisdiction of google.nl.
Lawmakers need to simply accept the consequences that connecting to a global network (the internet) means that there are boundaries with regards to their legal jurisdiction. If the EU does not want to deal with American companies, they should choose to disconnect. If China can do it, then the EU can do it as well. And I honestly, honestly do not see a difference between the censorship in China and the censorship of the EU. Well, maybe one thing: at least China does it openly.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Google operates in Germany with its google.de domain name and its own Google legal entity for Germany.
That's a nice theory, but rather like the complicated international revenue shifting arrangements these companies use to avoid paying tax, you're going to have trouble finding any politicians who accept your argument.
If the EU does not want to deal with American companies, they should choose to disconnect.
Be careful what you wish for. That is the logical conclusion to your argument, and it would be damaging for everyone but much more so for the American companies. For a start, given the defaults in the relevant browsers, most Google users at least in English-speaking countries probably arrive via google.com not their local equivalent so just blocking that one domain would probably cost Google a small fortune.
And I honestly, honestly do not see a difference between the censorship in China and the censorship of the EU. Well, maybe one thing: at least China does it openly.
I don't really know how to respond to that. To me, the difference between allowing individuals to assert a right not to have misleading information about them knowingly propagated with damaging results and allowing a national government to arbitrarily censor access to information about the government itself by its own people is night and day.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
...they're going to need their own great firewall now...