Slashdot Mirror


France Claims Right To Censor Search Results Globally

Lauren Weinstein writes: I've been waiting for this, much the way one waits for a violent case of food poisoning. France is now officially demanding that Google expand the hideous EU 'Right To Be Forgotten' (RTBF) to Google.com worldwide, instead of just applying it to the appropriate localized (e.g. France) version of Google. And here's my official response as a concerned individual:

To hell with this ...
Weinstein's page links to the paywalled WSJ coverage; you might prefer The New York Times or Politico. Related: a court in Canada, according to TechDirt, would like to do something similar, when it comes to expanding its effect on Google results for everyone, not just those who happen to live within its jurisdiction.

21 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Governments and religious ideologies destroy the right to self preservation, to think for oneself, to make your own choices in life, basically destroys individuality. Not only that, but it literally enslaves and destroys human lives just look at the amount of genocides caused by governments around the world. #1 rule in life? Don't trust anyone. Censorship is just another way to keep the sheeple in control.

    1. Re:hum by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Governments, corporations, and religious ideologies destroy the right to self preservation, to think for oneself, to make your own choices in life, basically destroys individuality."

      You missed one. I fixed it for you. Corporations are also about centralized command and control and have a rigid power hierarchy that benefits the few and devalues human beings.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:hum by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry but with the exception of state created monopolies you trade with corporation by your own choice. Don't like Kellog's pricing for their cereal buy another brand. Don't like the neighborhood store, buy from another or shop online/mail order. Don't like your employer offer your skills elsewhere. Of course some people are a little to special to be like everyone else and get offended at having to make their own way.

    3. Re:hum by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Sherman Anti-Trust act wasn't just created on a whim. If you actively avoid treating corporations with the same skepticism that is popular for governments, then they WILL devolve into monopolies.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:hum by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Annd corporations are WHY you have a 401K, instead of a pension plan or a proper social system. It's all about their profits, always, if you mattered you'd be a CEO.

    5. Re:hum by plopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except when you don't have a choice. There are cities where you MUST own a car and you MUST drive and you MUST support oil companies and corrupt terrorist nations. Or you MUST buy your meat from 1 regional meat packer. Or you MUST buy GMO vegetables because you have no way of knowing what you are actually buying. Welcome to the jack boot of corporations on your neck.

      You are free to choose as long as you choose the only choice you have.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  2. Hideous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    France is now officially demanding that Google expand the hideous EU 'Right To Be Forgotten' (RTBF) to Google.com worldwide, ...

    Hideous? Speak for yourself.

    Remember the Duke LaCrosse player scandal years ago? To make a long story short, on 60 Minutes one of he geezers yasked the parents why they were fighting so hard to clear all the charges and not cut a deal.

    One responded, "The Internet." They didn't want their kids coming up on Google searches over false charges. And they were false. The prosecutor got fired and disbarred..

    And considering how employers these days demand to know every little dipshit thing about you, and considering how the smallest thing can be blown out of proportion (people ALWAYS assume the worst), you bet your ass I want this. And Google, Bing and every other advertising/search company can STFU.

    1. Re:Hideous? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember the Duke LaCrosse player scandal years ago? To make a long story short, on 60 Minutes one of he geezers yasked the parents why they were fighting so hard to clear all the charges and not cut a deal.

      I suppose it's completely impossible to imagine that they fought the charges because they were innocent?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Hideous? by Ken+D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And when some court in some majority Muslim country demand's that all Google results world wide be purged of results that reference Charlie Hebdo will France be okay with that? or does Google just need to obey EU courts and can ignore the courts everywhere else?

    3. Re:Hideous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose it's completely impossible to imagine that they fought the charges because they were innocent?

      You don't remember it, do you? How drawn out it was and in the beginning, it really looked like those kids were guilty. If it weren't for the Internet, I bet those parents would have taken the deal.

      And most folks just cave to prosecutors and take the deal regardless of their innocence because they will bury you in legal fees, intimidate you and really screw you over. See, this guy for an idea of the BS prosecutors put you through.

      Luckily, the Duke kids parents had the means to fight for the truth when most of us don't.

    4. Re:Hideous? by zedaroca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that if the French could do it (decide what appears on Google outside of their country), it would only be fair that the Chinese could do it too, so Internet censorship for everyone.
      The Tiananmen incident would go out of existence, as well as anything that offends any dictator or anyone with access to a friendly court.
      If they push forward, they should just do like they did in China, leave. The bad part is that, like in China, it would leave the market open for others who are more willing to comply with worldwide orders.
      It's funny that while it is common to criticize China, I don't see them trying to give orders outside of their country. It seems they have more respect over other people's laws than the west.

    5. Re:Hideous? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we are seeing here a case where the French are trying to do so.

      Alas, while the Chinese rulers are pragmatic enough to accept things they don't really like but can't control, the French rulers are idiots who believe nothing is beyond their power, because, after all, they're French....

      And everyone (in France) knows that the French, as a people, are ALWAYS right....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  3. Good for the Goose.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since the US claims the right to enforce its won stupid fucking laws globally, stop whining when other countries want to enforce their own stupid fucking rules globally...

  4. Too young by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Based on more than just this news story: I've been thinking lately that we're just too young of a race yet for the the world to have become as small as it is, and what's worse is the world is getting smaller all the time. The world's shrinkage started with things like the ability to communicate almost instantaneously over long distances (telephone, radio) and later the ability to physically get from almost any point on the planet to any other relatively quickly. These things began to make national borders less and less relevant, and the advent of the Internet has just made that effect more highly pronounced. The problem is essentially the same as with any other technology we've developed: it's evolving orders of magnitude more quickly than humans themselves are evolving, physically and socio-politically. We (humans) are not anywhere near ready to live in a world without borders (look at how we treat each other still!) but the Internet especially is working to erase all borders. Meanwhile, as we're not anywhere near ready for that, one nation or another is always jockeying for the ability to claim the Internet as it's national property, and thus control over Internet policy. Then there's organizations like the United Nations, which would like nothing better than to have ultimate control over the Internet itself -- because, I believe, they think that being able to control the Internet would, ultimately, be a path towards having control over all nations. Which brings me to this point: Will there, eventually, have to be one global governing body? In my opinion, yes, that's going to have to happen one day, as the world is continuing to shrink -- but as previously posited, the human race is not anywhere near the point in it's evolution where that's going to happen. Trying to force it would probably start the War to End All Wars.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  5. Is there a little bias in the article? by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Words and phrases like 'hideous', 'food poisoning', and 'to hell with this'. The article needs to be withdrawn, edited, and resubmitted. Otherwise I can't take it seriously. Highly unprofessional.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  6. Sauce for the goose ... by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ... is sauce for the gander.

    So if any one country arbitrarily gives itself the right to globally police the internet, decide what should be allowed, prosecute (according to it's national laws) content it deems unlawful, and punish people - even people in other countries - for things that happen on it, then every other country cannot be denied.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Sauce for the goose ... by mrbester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. The hypocrisy in this thread is unfortunately not surprising.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  7. Clarification Required by Luthair · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it depends on precisely what they're asking for here. To me the TLD accessed is a red herring by Google, if the EU wants the filter to apply to its citizens its not unreasonable it would apply to all of Google's domains. Though that should not mean the filter would apply to folks outside the EU accessing those domains.

    This is also the pot calling the kettle black. The USA frequently attempts to govern outside its national boundaries, see the recent FIFA investigation as a recent example.

  8. Re:Good Luck by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bet this is misreported and what they demand is that all searches originating from France be censored, regardless of whether a Frenchman goes to google.fr or google.com -- this easy Google to implement. This does not affect anyone outside of France.
    " France Claims Right To Censor Search Results Globally " -- rubbish
    " France Claims Right To Censor Search Results Locally " -- corrected

    Also, even if true, US-Americans are not really allowed to cry about it because "US Claims Right To Wiretap Globally".

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  9. Re:Good Luck by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correct, that is exactly what it is. They are simply saying that Google should obey French law when serving French citizens, which isn't particularly unreasonable considering how much effort Google themselves put in to geofencing French users. For example, French users can't get in to the US Play store or install apps that have been set to "only available in the US". More over, Google serves google.com to European users from servers located in the EU anyway.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. "Worldwide"? by Kludge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are simply saying that Google should obey French law when serving French citizens,

    That is not what it sounds like to me:

    "For Google, the answer is worldwide," said Ms. Falque-Pierrotin, when questioned late last year about the scope of the European privacy ruling. "If people have the right to be delisted from search results, then that should happen worldwide."