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.

Comments

Good Luck

[Njorthbiatr]

You'll have to pry it from the NSA's cold dead fingers.

Re:Good Luck

[buchner.johannes]

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".

Re:Good Luck

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re: Good Luck

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you forgot to remove the word "because" from the cherry picked quote you used to misrepresent him. Now, readers of mediocre intelligence will know there was a point to what he said and read the whole thing ... dumbass.

Re:Good Luck

[retchdog]

Greek Nationalist, eh?

I don't understand. You seem to be anti-socialist, yet without the Poles and the Turks, would anyone do any work at all in Greece? I'm just wondering.

Re:Good Luck

[koan]

The move relates to a decree from Europe’s top court last year that allowed anyone with connections to the region to request that links about themselves be removed from search engine results.

It appears what they are saying, is that if you live in a region covered by these privacy laws then you have the right to not only have the information removed in the region, but World Wide.
After all anyone with a bit of wit can call up a Google search from another part of the World to see what is restricted where they live.

Personally I think it should be regional only, but that's the same as having no protection if all one needs to do is gather the results from another part of the World.
These are the sorts of laws that trade agreements are trying to conjure up, restriction of access to information.

Re:Good Luck

[koan]

From the NYT
The authorities want the ruling to apply to all of Google’s domains, including Google.com, although the company contends that Europe’s privacy legislation should apply only to regional domains like Google.de in Germany.

In effect they want it removed World Wide, if it's "all of Google's domains".

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

I find it very interesting that you are siding with France on this when on Microsoft you had precisely the opposite stance. There the USA was demanding that Microsoft's USA employees follow USA law and in that case your feeling was the the EU / Ireland had an obligation to be involved and regulate because of where the servers were physically located regardless of the status of the data.

Re:Good Luck

[Applehu Akbar]

France is free to implement its own Ligne Maginot de l'Internet if it chooses to, just as the Chinese have done. But because French taxpayers can't just be clubbed and dragged off the corrective labor camps like their Chinese counterparts, they are not going to pay out a huge amount of state revenue just to make life worse within France.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

Personally I think a far better situation is to do something like flag ships. There are no international corporations. Every corporation registers with a single county and that country regulates. Then at the WTO level the countries can cross negotiate with one another.

That way Google is regulated by the USA primarily with only its French specific version regulated by France and Orange is regulated by France with only its American specific MVNOs regulated by the USA.

Re:Good Luck

[KGIII]

Wait, there are NAZI supporting Poles in Greece? Also, who the hell picked the name NaZi anyhow?

Re:Good Luck

[cfalcon]

Does every slashdot thread have to become about Greece?

> Post about France
> Involves international law
> Possible clickbait headline
> ....
> Greece?

Re:Good Luck

[Hognoxious]

Does every slashdot thread have to become about Greece?

Until such time as arianastassinopolousblowupdoll (or whatever his name is) gets his karma banged down into the two posts a day zone then I fear that yes, it does.

Re:Good Luck

[KGIII]

How curious... I would think that folks would want to avoid self-referencing with Hitler and the Nazi party. I am aware that they are not the same thing but it still seems highly unusual. I am not sure I would affiliate with any Nazi party, regardless of capitalization/spelling, or with Hitler no matter how much I agreed with that party's platform. In fact, I dare say that I would remain ignorant (if I could) and would never look into that platform because, frankly, I would not want to be associated with them due to the name alone.

Additionally, I am quite aware of how the state of Israel got its start. They did not have much of a choice but to be nationalistic at the time. At that time it was a perfectly sane and logical choice.

As for the Grecian military issues with the USSR and Nazi Germany, yeah that sucked. The bit with the Partisans, after the war, was also bad and it is sad that Britain dropped the ball on that one. Britain made a lot of promises during the war, it failed to keep many of them in a timely manner (or at all). One is forced to wonder if they had any intention of upholding the promises in the first place.

Either way, Greece is a nice place and is full of nice people. There are obvious exceptions. I do not judge based on the exceptions and have enjoyed my three visits - one of which was extended and I had no trouble getting permission to stay for six months. I seem to recall that I needed a special tourist visa to stay that long (longer than 30 days as I recall) but it was painless to get.

I no longer drink so I will not be able to share in the Ouzo but it is on my agenda to visit again even if you have a Nazi party. I needn't agree with your politics but I certainly should respect the right to affiliate yourself as you choose. Though I did serve in the military I am not very nationalistic and, actually, have dual citizenship as I am part Native-American (First Persons) and have Canadian citizenship as well as my US citizenship. I do not agree with Canadian politics nor do I vote there - I spend most of my time here and it would be unreasonable for me to try to assert my political views on a people where I am, for the most part, more a guest as, realistically, I am a citizen in name only.

This post should probably be entitled, 'The Great Digression.' I can easily take a karma hit so the chance to understand and communicate needn't be passed up or left to speculation.

Re:Good Luck

[AmiMoJo]

It's really simple. It's down to where the company is based.

Google has a subsidiary in France. That subsidiary is responsible for handling the French version of Google services, like search and the Play store. Even google.com is served from within France for performance reasons, and it gives location based results using language settings and geolocation of IP addresses. Google France needs to comply with French laws, including the version of google.com it serves up.

Microsoft's subsidiary is based in Ireland. It needs to comply with Irish law. US law enforcement doesn't have jurisdiction over it. Just like French courts don't have jurisdiction over Google's US operation.

Re:Good Luck

[AmiMoJo]

Note that the ruling only applies to Google's subsidiary in France. They don't have jurisdiction in the US. They can only force Google in France, and possibly the whole of Europe if they take it far enough, to comply.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

Just like French courts don't have jurisdiction over Google's US operation.

Well google.com is Google's US operation. Google.fr is Google's French operation. I don't mind that global CDN's being illegal, that every country has their own content rules but if you want that then the rule should be that Google.com can't be served out of France.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

You would also want to ban out of country ownership that's not open and regulating. No foreign holding companies in the Cayman islands. Foreign holdings only from countries that are seen to regulate and where that is open and above board.

Re:Good Luck

[koan]

France is part of the EU (as I'm sure you know) so "right to be forgotten" will most likely apply any where in the EU.

I'm torn about this though, on one hand I want data on people (CEO's, Politicians, etc, not so much "regular people) accessible to me so that I can see their histories.
If they get that erased it becomes exceedingly difficult in a digital World to discover more about them.

Re:Good Luck

[koan]

Hmm, I had to re read that but you're suggesting that they want it removed from all of Google's domains as they apply to, or can be reached from France only?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm interpreting it differently based on the NYT article, if they want it removed from say google.as then effectively Samoans can not see the data.

But it's being suggested France wants it removed from all of Google's domains, which would mean we couldn't see it here in the states unless Google sets it up for the US only.
I doubt that would happen, unless these "secret" trade negotiations (TPP, TISA, TTIP) have that in there by design.

Re:Good Luck

[Altrag]

They are unrelated.

They're related in the sense that both countries are trying to apply their local laws on a global stage. Beyond that aspect though you're right, they're unrelated.

Though its not quite the same. While the US is claiming the right to retain information about citizens of other countries, they aren't attempting to force companies in those countries to feed them the data (though I wouldn't put bribery past them) -- they're only claiming collection rights of stuff that they can get their hands on themselves.

As opposed to this French claim where if I (as a Canadian) decide to look up a French national using google.ca from a Canadian IP address, they still expect Google to filter my results. At least that's what its sounding like to me. So they're explicitly attempting to apply their local laws not just to Google' French subsidiary but to all of their worldwide subsidiaries.

Its understandable that they'd want to do that (inasmuch as such a law is understandable at all) since they're likely well aware that someone could just use a VPN or other workaround if they only blocked such searches for French IP addresses.

Of course they don't seem to be addressing the workaround of "use a different search engine." You can say what you want about the results ranking of Bing/Yahoo/Duckduckgo/whatever but they still all crawl the web in (fairly close to) the same manner and index the same pages -- you might just have to dig a little further into the results view to get what you want.

Re:Good Luck

[Altrag]

Practicality has rarely stopped politicians when it comes to tech issues.

Re:Good Luck

[Altrag]

That's basically how things work already, even if the definitions aren't as strict as you're suggesting.

The problem with this particular is that the internet gives approximately zero fucks about your national boundaries and national laws, no matter who makes the judgements.

Stupid as this decision is, and horrible as the precedent it could potentially set is if Google complies, it shows a remarkable amount of technological awareness (for a pile of politicians at least) in that they recognize the only way to remove something from the internet is to literally remove it everywhere on the planet simultaneously.

Re:Good Luck

[antiperimetaparalogo]

You described the situation better than i did.

Anyway, their current target is Google because they have a "vendetta" with them but if they succeed they will try to inforce it on other search engines also... basicaly France (and Europe) want to be able to censor "the (global) internet" based on our European censorship laws (like this "righ-to-be-forgoten" and other similar), but currently they don't even want to implement a French/European censorship filter (because we like to pretend we are "free"...), so we try to force non-European companies (e.g., Google) to do it for us.

Re:Good Luck

[Smauler]

I think you're confused. If you've got consumers in a country, and you're selling to them, you've got to abide by local consumer laws. Sorry, that's how it is. It doesn't matter where the company is based.

Trying to get some tiny shop in Hong Kong to comply with the morass of EU legislation, and whether it's worth going after them if they don't is an entirely different question. But if you're a multinational, and try to sell out of somewhere to the EU without adhering to the regulations, you will get slapped down.

Now, the trouble is that Google isn't actually charging for anything, which makes it a little less clear. However, they are making profit by people in the EU using their service, though, and so (in my opinion) should obey the laws that apply to those people, and the local companies.

Re:Good Luck

[Smauler]

Britain made a lot of promises during the war, it failed to keep many of them in a timely manner (or at all). One is forced to wonder if they had any intention of upholding the promises in the first place.

Britain was in massive debt after the war, and in bad shape (sugar rationing ended in 1953, meat rationing ended in 1954, nearly 10 years after the end of the war). It was also coping with colonies left right and centre wanting to declare independence. Essentially, Britain wasn't in much of a position to deal with a lot of promises made during the war.

We still managed to start the Suez war, though, I guess (and that went really well).

Re:Good Luck

[Etherwalk]

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

1. Criticism is not "crying" about it, unless you are in preschool.
2. An action by a government does not invalidate criticism by its citizens of a foreign jurisdiction's actions, even if those actions are in some way similar to that government's actions.
3. Even if it did, signals intelligence and censorship are two radically different actions.
4. Intelligence-based Wiretapping is formally not used in civil and most criminal matters. The right to be forgotten can be used in civil matters (i.e. lawsuits). Big difference.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

The problem is today is that companies operate in multiple countries and are thus ambiguous as to who is responsible. So what I'm suggesting is that when the France wants to regulate Google

French Government -> USA Government -> Google USA -> Google France not
French Government -> Google France -> Google USA

And conversely when the USA wants to regulate Orange's USA MVNO
USA Government -> French Government -> Orange France -> Orange's USA MVNO not
USA Government -> Orange's USA MVNO.

Re:Good Luck

[Enter the Shoggoth]

Does every slashdot thread have to become about Greece?

> Post about France
> Involves international law
> Possible clickbait headline
> ....
> Greece?

If the one who writes things about the cultural differences between France/Europe and USA, in a story about France/Europe trying to mess with a USA company, in a mostly American site like Slashdot, is a Greek (like i am), yes... i believe that i must mention my nationality (and i would not mind if everyone else did that - i find it "cultural honest" when i do it, plus i struggle with my English and i feel bad, so i mention it as a "don't be hard with me, i try!") - If you read my post you may understand that even while i am a Greek/European, i blame France/Greece/Europe, so this "have to become about Greece" you write is not exactly what you may think.

I think that the cultural differences between a Greek like me, a French, an American (like most people here), effect ANY discussion (even about systemd!) - can you please answer me this question: do you think my nationality is unrelated to THIS discusion, or you just object because i mention my nationality very often? Thank you very much Sir.

Beta won't be the death of slashdot; this retard will be!

Re:Good Luck

[rtb61]

If a foreign consumers orders a product from you and it is legal in your country, than it is the problem of the foreign consumer for illegally importing it.

So the action is, the French resident (can be citizen, can be tourist) dislike the locally served product and instead, THEY CHOOSE, to flout the law and seek a foreign product instead. The individual that seeks it, is the one that is required to be penalised as they are illegally importing the data.

Does not matter what is legal or illegal, it is never the responsibility of the exporter, it is always the responsibility of the importer. The only time the exporter gets caught in this, is when they are also the importer.

Let's be honest, the right to be forgotten has more to do with the implausible right to pretend you are not what you track record has indicated you are. That is no right, that is just more potential victims being left accessible to psychopaths and narcissists, this law written by psychopaths and narcissists. The real right is for people to know who they are dealing with and not having the truth hidden from them.

Re:Good Luck

[ArmoredDragon]

So what's Google supposed to do? Install a Great Firewall of France that even blocks French people from using proxy servers that might be used to get uncensored search results?

Re:Good Luck

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Does every slashdot thread have to become about Greece?

> Post about France > Involves international law > Possible clickbait headline > .... > Greece?

If the one who writes things about the cultural differences between France/Europe and USA, in a story about France/Europe trying to mess with a USA company, in a mostly American site like Slashdot, is a Greek (like i am), yes... i believe that i must mention my nationality (and i would not mind if everyone else did that - i find it "cultural honest" when i do it, plus i struggle with my English and i feel bad, so i mention it as a "don't be hard with me, i try!") - If you read my post you may understand that even while i am a Greek/European, i blame France/Greece/Europe, so this "have to become about Greece" you write is not exactly what you may think.

I think that the cultural differences between a Greek like me, a French, an American (like most people here), effect ANY discussion (even about systemd!) - can you please answer me this question: do you think my nationality is unrelated to THIS discusion, or you just object because i mention my nationality very often? Thank you very much Sir.

Beta won't be the death of slashdot; this retard will be!

Reading this reply to me, plus your reply in the other story, where you call me not just a "retard" but a "fascistic retard", i understand that you are in love with me! Am i right or am i right?

You know what is the sad thing about Slashdot (the "death of slashdot" to use your words)? That i constantly get down-modded for answering up-modded comments about my low IQ... it is like Slashdoters have a problem with retards... i always thought that Slashdoters were libtards! Come on Slashdot, where is your libtarded compassion to retards...

Re:Good Luck

[ArmoredDragon]

Nazi is basically an abbreviation of the German word for National Socialism, spelt in German as Nationalsozialismus, with those first four letters sounding exactly like the word you know as Nazi ("not see".) I'm sure National Socialism sounds similar when said in other languages as well, so it wouldn't surprise me if there are other "Nazi" parties that aren't the same as the German one from the early 20th century.

National Socialism is basically Fascism, (a "strength in unity, but one person doesn't matter" type approach to politics and economics) which actually started in Italy by Benito Mousolini, and spread throughout Europe, even to countries that weren't allied to the Axis powers during WWII, in fact many weren't part of WWII at all. For example, Spain was officially Fascist in that period, remained so until at least the 1970's, and still carries fascist elements within its government.

Most Eastern countries then, and still do, consider Fascism to be an example of a European model of government.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

Even if your made up on the spot legal analysis was correct, your argument still fails. This is EU law, and Google had datacentres in Europe that serve European requests, regardless of which google.* domain they are. Google also has a European HQ (located in Ireland last time I looked) and charges European advertisers for their adverts.

Not only is Google definitely subject to this law, for all their domains, the EU has the European branch right there to extract penalties for. Google have no leg to stand on.

As to the right to be forgotten, it will certainly be taken advantage of by low-lifes. But equally people who have done nothing wrong but have been victimised online can use this law to get a degree of protection. And regardless that is the law, and Google have no choice but to obey it or remove themselves from the EU.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

As Google would be quite legally serving content to the place (outside the EU) where the proxy server is located, that's not an issue.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

The right to be forgotten doesn't apply to media companies, so you can go to a news site and use the site search engine for politicians, CEOs etc.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

Google has got two choices. They can use geolocation to serve different content for Google.com in the EU than outside. This is technically trivial.

Or they can stop serving google.com at all within the EU. Meaning that French citizens have to go through the censored google.fr domain.

Re:Good Luck

[ArmoredDragon]

So what is France trying to accomplish then? Clearly if Frenchies want to find this information, they will. And why should Google even comply?

Re:Good Luck

[dryeo]

That's not totally true. Here we had someone selling marijuana seeds (by mail and the internet) to Americans. The seeds are illegal to the tune of a couple of hundred dollar fine here. America extradited him and threw him in jail for 5 years.
Strictly speaking we shouldn't have extradited him as the crime needs to be roughly equivalent in both jurisdictions. We don't extradite a murderer without guarantees of no death penalty, yet under American pressure and a Conservative Pro-American, anti-crime government we extradited someone for a minor crime.
Marc Emery is the name to Google if curious.

Re:Good Luck

[msobkow]

Marc Emery was NOT extradited. He took a plea bargain and went VOLUNTARILY.

I HATE the way that bastard and his minions keep trying to re-write history to make him look like a victim. He was protecting his BUSINESS INTERESTS from the possibility of losing them if he went to court and lost.

Nothing more, nothing less than good old fashioned self-interested GREED.

Re:Good Luck

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Since we're being racist here, my experience of greeks are that they are thieving cunts.

O.K., no problem with me being racist (i am racist!) - but Greeks are well known for NOT being thieves!

Greece has one of lowest crime (generally) and/or theft (specifically) rates in the world (out of 190+ countries it is in the lowest 20, comparable to Japan for example) - AND GET READY FOR A RACIST FACT: while (illegal) immigrants are about 1/10 of our population, almost 2/3 of our crime (theft included) is done by (illegal) immigrants! - also, anecdotally (because i don't have the data right now), keep in mind that the 1/3 of crime that is done by Greek citizens includes crime that is done not only by Ethnic Greek but also by Gypsies that are Greek citizens...

You can also try to examine Greeks that live in the rest of Europe (e.g., Nothern), North America, etc. Again anecdotaly, i think that they are not known to be involved in crime.

Can you share you experiance with Greeks, so i can help you form a more informed opinion, and help me undertand what makes you think that we are "thieving cunts" dear Sir?

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

It's still worthwhile because when searching for someone's name, hardly anyone will use a proxy server. People who are not already aware of the information and the fact that it's been withdrawn won't even try to circumvent the filter.

What's it trying to accomplish? For example some people's lives are ruined by "revenge porn". Imagine that there was video of you having sex, or some other activity you aren;t proud of. And every time someone searched for your name that video was a top result.

But beyond that, in Europe we have the concept of rehabilitation of offenders. That once a criminal has done their prison sentence and a period of time after that has passed, then their punishment is spent. They should be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated. One crime - other than the most serious ones - shouldn't ruin a persons entire life forever.

And Google have the choice of complying, or of closing down their EU operations and not doing business in the EU. The latter would take a huge chunk out of their revenue.

Re:Good Luck

[koan]

Right and media companies don't manipulate data.

Re:Good Luck

[koan]

Or just remove the content.

Re:Good Luck

[shutdown -p now]

Nazism is not "basically Fascism". So much so that Nazis have in fact cracked down on fascists in Austria, for example.

Fascism is an ideology that puts the state above everything. It's basically pure etatism taken to the most extreme form possible. It doesn't care about ethnicity or race (and this was true in Italy until it allied itself with the Reich, and Mussolini adopted the latter's racial policies as an act of appeasement). It seeks unity solely on the basis of common adherence to that same ideology - it's an open club that anyone can join.

Nazism is an ideology that puts the nation (defined primarily ethnically) above everything. It also supports a strong state, and in that is reminiscent of fascism and other totalitarian ideologies, but for it the state is not a goodness in and of itself - it's a means to an end, and the end is the prosperity and worldwide dominance of the nation. Thus, it seeks unity on the basis of ethnicity, and does not extend membership to just anyone.

Re:Good Luck

[Enter the Shoggoth]

Does every slashdot thread have to become about Greece?

> Post about France
> Involves international law
> Possible clickbait headline
> ....
> Greece?

If the one who writes things about the cultural differences between France/Europe and USA, in a story about France/Europe trying to mess with a USA company, in a mostly American site like Slashdot, is a Greek (like i am), yes... i believe that i must mention my nationality (and i would not mind if everyone else did that - i find it "cultural honest" when i do it, plus i struggle with my English and i feel bad, so i mention it as a "don't be hard with me, i try!") - If you read my post you may understand that even while i am a Greek/European, i blame France/Greece/Europe, so this "have to become about Greece" you write is not exactly what you may think.

I think that the cultural differences between a Greek like me, a French, an American (like most people here), effect ANY discussion (even about systemd!) - can you please answer me this question: do you think my nationality is unrelated to THIS discusion, or you just object because i mention my nationality very often? Thank you very much Sir.

Beta won't be the death of slashdot; this retard will be!

Reading this reply to me, plus your reply in the other story, where you call me not just a "retard" but a "fascistic retard", i understand that you are in love with me! Am i right or am i right?

You know what is the sad thing about Slashdot (the "death of slashdot" to use your words)? That i constantly get down-modded for answering up-modded comments about my low IQ... it is like Slashdoters have a problem with retards... i always thought that Slashdoters were libtards! Come on Slashdot, where is your libtarded compassion to retards...

Perhaps I've got you all wrong... maybe you're just a very advanced version of Mark V. Shaney

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

Look above. The claim of AmiMoJo is that where the production of data takes place not the consumption is the controlling location.

And no that isn't how it is. Many American businesses with consumers outside the country don't follow local laws. For example the New York Times doesn't follow British security laws even though it has UK subscribers. Similarly the Guardian doesn't follow US law regarding warrants even though it has many millions of Americans who consume their content including advertising.

But if you're a multinational, and try to sell out of somewhere to the EU without adhering to the regulations, you will get slapped down.

Of course. But that's not the problem. This argument isn't over Google.fr but Google.com

Now, the trouble is that Google isn't actually charging for anything, which makes it a little less clear.

Google's customers are advertisers, the attention of the EU people using Google's services are the product. That's one of the problems with the consumption model in that Google reverses the newspaper / magazine way of doing business.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

and Google had datacentres in Europe that serve European requests

That's not entirely true. Not all requests for data will be served out of Europe. Particularly as people start using USA sites. Quite often the data moves and far less of the data is served out of France. The argument that where the computers live is what's important not where the consumers live is much easier to enforce but of course that doesn't accomplish everything the EU wants. For example the situation with Spanish Google news where Google did pull out and yet Spain still wanted to the right to regulate.

  I think the problem is the existence of multinational international information services with national regulation is simply impossible if we are going to have a world of freely flowing information. The proper way for this to be handled is by treaty law not national law.

Re:Good Luck

[dryeo]

No he plead guilty and was extradited. Extradition is when you are forcefully sent to another country for their justice system to take care off. When extradited you can plead guilty or fight in court and once he was at the mercy of the American courts he took a plea bargain which included others not being prosecuted and serving part of his time in Canada. Note that Canada did not hold up its end of the deal as the Conservatives hate marijuana and seem to think it is on the par as Tylenol for killing children or aspirin for killing adults ( aprox 300 deaths a year). Tylenol is a horrible way for someone to die as it destroys their liver.
Wiki has a good overview including various links to the original sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Good Luck

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Does every slashdot thread have to become about Greece?

> Post about France > Involves international law > Possible clickbait headline > .... > Greece?

If the one who writes things about the cultural differences between France/Europe and USA, in a story about France/Europe trying to mess with a USA company, in a mostly American site like Slashdot, is a Greek (like i am), yes... i believe that i must mention my nationality (and i would not mind if everyone else did that - i find it "cultural honest" when i do it, plus i struggle with my English and i feel bad, so i mention it as a "don't be hard with me, i try!") - If you read my post you may understand that even while i am a Greek/European, i blame France/Greece/Europe, so this "have to become about Greece" you write is not exactly what you may think.

I think that the cultural differences between a Greek like me, a French, an American (like most people here), effect ANY discussion (even about systemd!) - can you please answer me this question: do you think my nationality is unrelated to THIS discusion, or you just object because i mention my nationality very often? Thank you very much Sir.

Beta won't be the death of slashdot; this retard will be!

Reading this reply to me, plus your reply in the other story, where you call me not just a "retard" but a "fascistic retard", i understand that you are in love with me! Am i right or am i right?

You know what is the sad thing about Slashdot (the "death of slashdot" to use your words)? That i constantly get down-modded for answering up-modded comments about my low IQ... it is like Slashdoters have a problem with retards... i always thought that Slashdoters were libtards! Come on Slashdot, where is your libtarded compassion to retards...

Perhaps I've got you all wrong... maybe you're just a very advanced version of Mark V. Shaney

So now you started coplimenting me about my IQ, soon you will start doing it about my looks... yes, that's what love is!

Re:Good Luck

[AmiMoJo]

The flaw in your analogy is that people in France are not importing search results. Google France is supplying them, from servers in France.

Re:Good Luck

[rtb61]

So Google should move it's servers out of France and eliminate the problem. Basically that is exactly what all digitally based companies should do when they run into unbalanced problems with hosting nations, leave and serve them only as a data importing nation.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

It is treaty law. It applies across the EU. It's not enough to pull out of France or Spain individually. Companies that want to defy EU decisions have to pull out of the entire EU.

I'm aware that that not all Google requests from the EU will be served by EU data centres. But I was just making the point that the argument that Google is a US company and thus shouldn't be subject to EU law is far from so clear cut.

Re: Good Luck

[antiperimetaparalogo]

He doesn't know, he's just being a fucking troll spouting off shit that pops in his brain. He is one of those "barbarians" you explained above.

I am afraid that you are right...

Re:Good Luck

[ArmoredDragon]

For example some people's lives are ruined by "revenge porn". Imagine that there was video of you having sex, or some other activity you aren;t proud of.

So then go after the hosting provider of that content.

Search results are literally Google's opinion of what is the most relevant to what you're looking for. Censoring that basically means that your government is allowed to censor whatever opinions they'd like.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

Too many sites are impossible to get to. Google isn't.

It's nothing to do with censoring opinions. This is a right to be forgotten.

A right.

Your concept of free speech, that you are implicitly defending, is just another right. It's not more important. It just happens to be one that the US considers a higher priority. The US isn't the arbiter of the universal scale of which right is more important. Though Americans's often implicitly assume this.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

It is treaty law. It applies across the EU.

The context here was treaty between the EU and the USA not treaties within the EU.

Companies that want to defy EU decisions have to pull out of the entire EU.

Possibly. It is unclear right now. The EU hasn't wanted to cultivate its own technology infrastructure. The disruption of driving USA technology out of the EU would likely be a recession and could very well be a depression. So far that's not something they have wanted to have happen.

The EU has conflicting and competing interests. For example they want to advantage EU technologies and at the same time they want other businesses which are technology consumers to get the maximum advantages at the lowest cost from technology. Moreover they are much more concerned with keeping tariffs low in areas like machinery where they are the dominant producers than worrying about computer technology imports.

So I don't know what the EU is going to choose to do over legal conflict. My guess is that they are going to muddle through. The EU will try and maintain some ability to regulate, mostly to satisfy domestic pressures, but at the same time not attack American technology companies in ways that cause them to simply pullout of the EU marketplace.

Re:Good Luck

[ArmoredDragon]

Too many sites are impossible to get to. Google isn't.

So you've chosen Google to answer for the sins of others.

It's nothing to do with censoring opinions. This is a right to be forgotten.

It doesn't matter what it's a right to, or even what purpose it is for. These are still opinions.

Your concept of free speech, that you are implicitly defending, is just another right. It's not more important. It just happens to be one that the US considers a higher priority.

And for very good reason. Being denied the ability to express an opinion, even if it's an unpopular one, is the driving force behind oppressive governments of any variety. In fact it was the very basis of that with which allowed Fascism to take over Europe, and is the same basis behind North Korea and China holding the power they presently do.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

It's not a punishment for a crime. And Google isn't uniquely affected, the law applies to all search engines.

You show an inability to see beyond the parochial legislation of the USA, assuming that their priorities are a human universal. They are not. I don't expect you to open your mind, so I won't be answering any more.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

This has all been played out before with Microsoft and leveraging the Windows monopoly for IE. Not complying is not an option.

Re:Good Luck

[david_thornley]

It's not the servers that are the problem. It's the local business. Google presumably makes money out of selling ad space to French companies. As long as they do business with the French like that, they're subject to French law in France.

Since the right to be forgotten is a EU right (the first case was in Spain), Google could defy it only by shutting down all its EU presence, removing its servers to outside the EU, and not doing business there. I think it's easier to comply with French law.

Re:Good Luck

[david_thornley]

Removing the information from the original host would be denying free speech. Removing all search results that point to it would also be denying free speech, which the EU is committed to. The rule is that, if you do something that damages your reputation, like bankruptcy, and a certain time limit expires, a search on your name does not go to that news item. A search on bankruptcy will pick up the original news, and so pretty much all uses are fine except to notify others of your bankruptcy when they Google you.

The EU censors things about individuals, not opinions. You want to write about bankruptcy, fine. Google for bankruptcy for source material.

Re:Good Luck

[david_thornley]

You left out the question marks. It's the same form as the "Profit" meme.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

I'm not sure that's such a good example for your case. The EU didn't want an Internet explorer monopoly. They still got one and got token versions of Windows with Netscape that no one really used and didn't meaningfully influence IE becoming the web standard.

That's rather a pretty good example of the EU caving in all but name.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

The EU got exactly what demanded.

Whether that was a useful thing is a different question, and not relevant to the right to be forgotten.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

The EU wanted browser diversity in the windows ecosystem They didn't get that.

Re:Good Luck

[ArmoredDragon]

You show an inability to see beyond the parochial legislation of the USA, assuming that their priorities are a human universal.

No, the US actually has limits on free speech. Though opinions are almost always not within those limits, unless an opinion is made with the express intention of causing harm to somebody else, in which case it's a civil matter, which the government never gets involved in.

They are not. I don't expect you to open your mind, so I won't be answering any more.

Actually my mind is quite open. The US also doesn't have a history of causing world wars because some people failed to question the wisdom of their government.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

What?! The US is an enormous war monger! They have started more wars in the last century than any other country!

Re:Good Luck

[ArmoredDragon]

What?! The US is an enormous war monger! They have started more wars in the last century than any other country!

No, definitely not. Who is the biggest "war monger" over the last century depends on how you measure it.

England declared a LOT of wars during the early 20th century to establish masses of colonies. There was a saying "the sun never sets over England" which was meant literally. Why do you think it was meant literally?

Russia declared performed a lot of military actions, though it's hard to say whether or not they were wars; they were expanding and maintaining the Iron Curtain, and a lot of people died.

China killed some 40 million people along its borders over the last century, though they weren't exactly wars.

A lot of wars that are commonly attributed as being started by the US were started by Europeans. For example, the Vietnam War started as a French effort to colonize the country.

Re:Good Luck

[BasilBrush]

No, Britain developed it's empire earlier than that. And for sure it was massive. But the the 20th century was the period of decline. For sure before the 20th century Britain was the most vicious empire. But the USA took that title over in the 20th century.

Re:Good Luck

[Altrag]

I can't say I agree with that. In my mind it should be:

French Government -> Google France. Period.

If the French government wants to try and dictate local laws in the US (or Australia or China or wherever,) then they should be poking around tribunals at some place like the WTO which is set up specifically for negotiating trade disputes between nations.

And why would the US government need to go through two (like long and legally intensive) battles in order to regulate shit that happens on American soil? If Orange doesn't like American laws, they're welcome to haul ass back to France and let somebody else have their market share.

Google already has (or at least has threatened) to do exactly that in several countries already when they couldn't come to terms with local laws (search for "Google pulls out," but be careful what you click with that sort of phrasing!) That's how it should be.

Of course its entirely up to Google to decide whether their French servers are worth breaking their system elsewhere in the world. France has no jurisdiction to enforce this ruling in the US or anywhere else outside of their borders, which means the worst they can do is force Google's French offices to shut down.

Now its never as simple as it sounds. I'm sure there's more than just a passing interest from the rest of the EU given that the right to be forgotten legislation is theoretically in effect for the entire union, as well as a handful of other countries around the world with similar legislation. And of course anyone who's ever wanted to force Google to censor anything (including the US) are going to be keeping close tabs on it in hopes that whatever decision is reached will provide precedent for their own issues.

So we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully Google sticks to their guns. I'm a big fan of countries having the right to create and enforce their own local laws but our international legal systems aren't really sufficient to handle (never mind enforce) cross-jurisdictional issues like this yet and a sloppy legal structure is a fine way to grease those slippery slopes.

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

And why would the US government need to go through two (like long and legally intensive) battles in order to regulate shit that happens on American soil?

Because they don't have a choice if we are going to have foreign corporations. Orange-USA doesn't really exist. One of the core powers that gives the government the ability to regulate is the ability to punish. The USA government can't meaningfully punish Orange by punishing Orange-USA because Orange can create dozens of subsidiaries or buy shares in other companies and move resources and assets between them. Orange is the "immortal person" the USA subsidiary companies are like their clothes easily changed. So for the USA government to be able to regulate they need the help of France. Which means that this negotiation has to take place

As for long legally intensive battles... Why does that need to occur?

Google already has (or at least has threatened) to do exactly that in several countries already when they couldn't come to terms with local laws

Not really. Because the people in those countries continue to use Google services. Google pulling out is mostly a technical rearrangement. It isn't them meaningfully completely pulling out. And so the countries often can't accomplish their objective.

Now I happen to like how Google is handling corrupt EU regulations but Google is a perfect case in point of the futility of trying to regulate international corporations in each country. The USA government is the government that can effectually regulate Google. If Germany or France or Spain wants a regulate the USA government is who they should be negotiating with, if they want their regulation to actually happen.

Re:Good Luck

[Altrag]

The USA government can't meaningfully punish Orange by punishing Orange-USA

So? What gives the USA govt the right to punish (meaningfully or otherwise) a French company?

because Orange can create dozens of subsidiaries

The USA govt's responsibility is to regulate things that happen on their soil. As long as those dozens of subsidiaries follow USA law, then there's no connection to the specific subsidiary (Orange-USA) that is breaking the law and being punished.

What you're suggesting is the corporate equivalent of jailing your entire family because your brother committed a crime, even though the rest of you are perfectly innocent (and extraditing your French grandmother to boot!)

As for long legally intensive battles... Why does that need to occur?

It doesn't. But when have you ever seen it not occur?

It isn't them meaningfully completely pulling out. And so the countries often can't accomplish their objective.

And that's the sticky point in the issue. The internet gives no fucks about national boundaries or localized laws. So governments are in a position where they either have to give up their sovereignty (well technically try to convince other nations to give up their sovereignty, but that certainly won't be a one-way street,) or give up their ability to censor random things that they don't like.. or I suppose a third option is follow China's plan and just break the internet all together -- but even with their massive firewall they aren't entirely successful.

The USA government is the government that can effectually regulate Google.

No, they can't. The USA government has no more control over Google France than the French government has over Google USA. The only difference is that the head decision makers are in the USA and can potentially be convinced (but not forced) to apply changes across their global operations. But then again, France could also call them up and try to convince them to do things globally.. the USA just has a bit more sway in that aspect due to (mostly) human aspects like patriotism rather than any legal rights.

If Germany or France or Spain wants a regulate the USA government is who they should be negotiating with, if they want their regulation to actually happen.

That would require a treaty and while I'm sure its not unheard of, generally speaking nobody would want to instigate a whole treaty negotiation process to deal with a single company's policies. Which is why, as I noted, things like the WTO exist.

Essentially, the WTO is an organization that has already been empowered by the US and French (and many other) governments to handle these disputes on their behalf, specifically to avoid the situation of dealing with direct government-to-government negotiations. (Well I'm sure the WTO does more than just arbitrate trade disputes but that's one of their jobs at least.)

Re:Good Luck

[jbolden]

So? What gives the USA govt the right to punish (meaningfully or otherwise) a French company?

You were arguing that this French company could be meaningfully regulated. If you don't want governments punishing them, then they can't regulate them on their shore or off.

As long as those dozens of subsidiaries follow USA law, then there's no connection to the specific subsidiary (Orange-USA) that is breaking the law and being punished.

And if they aren't following the law then what? They just shift assets between them everytime one of them gets caught.

But when have you ever seen it not occur?

Everyday. I work in telco. Regulators cross borders and revolve disputes all the time. Same with airline industry who handle new problems. Shipping and packaging. Oil shipping and refining (though extraction often gets quite violent). It happens most of the time.

. So governments are in a position where they either have to give up their sovereignty (well technically try to convince other nations to give up their sovereignty, but that certainly won't be a one-way street,) or give up their ability to censor random things that they don't like

Or create an effectual system of global regulation like what happens for most industries.

No, they can't. The USA government has no more control over Google France than the French government has over Google USA

They have full authority over the parent company. They could order Google USA to shut it down. Same power they have over any other owner of foreign stuff that commits international crimes. Their are plenty of Americans in American prisons for things they did abroad.

nobody would want to instigate a whole treaty negotiation process to deal with a single company's policies

I'm not saying a single company I'm saying all multi-nationals. And then another specific one having to do with multi-national internet businesses.

I agree the WTO is a good place as well to deal with this. But that is a new power and so likely requires at least an agreement.

Looks like

[penguinoid]

France finally decided to get rid of Google with "Right to be forgotten" in France. (If you can't comply with part of a rule, why comply with any of it.)

Re:Looks like

[TWX]

There'll be years and years of appeals, and I expect that if it ends up in a court with EU-wide jurisdiction then it could get very interesting.

Re:Looks like

[reboot246]

Does all this mean we can simply forget France? If so, then great!

Hideous?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hideous?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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?

Re:Hideous?

[Ken D]

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?

Re:Hideous?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hideous?

[zedaroca]

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.

Re:Hideous?

[zedaroca]

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.

Re:Hideous?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

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 [wikipedia.org] for an idea of the BS prosecutors put you through.

So you are saying that we should screw the Internet because our legal system is already screwed up? I have a better idea: what about getting rid of plea bargains?

In any case, this doesn't apply in much of Europe, because there, often, the press is not allowed to name defendants until they have been found guilty.

Re:Hideous?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

It has nothing to do with respect for other people's laws. It has everything to do with practicality. It's not feasible to force people in other countries to obey your laws, so the Chinese rulers don't bother (except in places they can bully/cajole local lawmakers into making nice with China (like the USA)).

Re:Hideous?

[zedaroca]

While I do agree with you that that's probably the reason, we are seeing here a case where the French are trying to do so.
Also, since the mainland is respecting Hong Kong's decision to keep Google, I think that's something to consider on the debate on whether they respect jurisdictions only out of practicality or some respect also.

Re:Hideous?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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....

Re:Hideous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Myself, some country can demand something similar but not the same as what France is pushing. What if India decided it wanted google to censor specific information world wide or else? Maybe Australia wanted to hide something and demanded google stop indexing?

Anytime a country wants to give it's citizens more options in how to live and how parts of their lives are shared with the world is a good thing. It would be great if this was a world right.

Of course, what if some other important country or block of countries decides to push google to deindex information they don't want the world to have easy access to?

Re:Hideous?

[Headw1nd]

So your logic is that if it weren't for the internet, we would have convicted a bunch people for a crime they didn't commit. And you want this changed, so people have more freedom to confess to things they didn't do?

Re:Hideous?

[Opportunist]

Fuck China, what if Iran or Saudi Arabia demand it? Porn as we know it would be gone!

Re:Hideous?

[radarskiy]

"I don't see them trying to give orders outside of their country."

That is because they use direct action: They firewall international connections and they tamper with content in flight.

Re:Hideous?

[CaptainDork]

I think that's a "people" problem.

Anybody who does research needs to do so thoroughly.

Back when I was a kid, George Washington had wooden teeth and chopped down a cheery tree. Later, he was a slave owner.

Things change.

Google can help tell the whole story, from initial falsehood to corrected version (or reverse).

The fact that someone WAS wrongly accused is an important part of the story you cite.

Re:Hideous?

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK and many other European countries defendants are named before being found guilty. There is currently some debate over whether people accused of rape should be anonymous until they are charged (not convicted, merely charged with a crime), but at the moment even suspects are routinely named in the press.

Naturally, when a suspect is cleared of a crime, that fact is rarely reported with equal prominence, if at all.

Re:Hideous?

[AmiMoJo]

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?

As long as the ban is only enforced for searches originating from that country, which is what France is asking for, then yeah, I'm sure they will be fine with it.

Re:Hideous?

[AmiMoJo]

Well, they did explicitly say that at least part of the reason was because of the internet, so I imagine it was a bit of both...

Re:Hideous?

[BitZtream]

... because in the ridiculous example provided ... they would certainly model it exactly after the EU law ... because Muslim extremist countries are so thoughtful and considerate ...

What they would do is 'Google is not allowed to exist anywhere in the world because they know of Charlie Hebdo'

Thats the point. Do you want this sort of thing happening where countries think they can tell other countries what to do, more so than already happens?

In reality, Google will just invade France with something as powerful as an Android device that just repeatedly plays 'capitulation' loudly and that would be the end of France complaining about 'Right to be Forgotten', which, by the way, is a stupid fucking law.

If people in France actually wanted to solve a problem, they'd remove the original source material, not just remove it from the index.

Re:Hideous?

[AmiMoJo]

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....

How ironic. It's the American idiots who got it wrong this time. The permanently outraged hack journos and bloggers got the wrong end of the stick. They are only demanding censorship of google.com when serving pages in France, not world wide. There is no global censorship request, just a request to make google.com work the same way as google.fr already does when the request comes from a French IP address.

Also, it's not the Right to be Forgotten at all, it's just bog standard data protection laws that have existed since the mid 90s. The Right to be Forgotten hasn't even been formally proposed yet.

As usual, reactionary idiots don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Re:Hideous?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

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....

The U.S. authorities have a history of this type of behaviour. Just think of the case Microsoft is currently fighting, the one where they do not want to give the U.S access to emails being held in the E.U. (Ireland), or the case where some NYC judge imposed a massive fine - and confiscation of assets - on the Iran for some terrorist attack they patently had nothing to do with.
The U.S. mostly try to be a "force for good", but accept no outside authority in the many cases where they failed - often maliciously.

For the record, I am not particularly happy with the "right to be forgotten".

Re:Hideous?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

So far.
They are probably watching this rather closely.

Re: Hideous?

[vakuona]

The solution to this is to allow privacy for certain court proceedings and to not allow reporting of the names of the people involved. Basically, grant anonymity to all people involved in criminal proceedings.

That is the easy, non-technological solution to the problem. Every person charged with a crime is a John Doe until he/she is convicted. All court records etc refer to John Doe unless the person has been found guilty and sentenced to prison.

In the Duke Lacrosse case, anyone searching on the internet would just see that x John Does were accused of a crime and, unless you name is actually John Doe, being accused and then acquitted need not leave you with a lifelong association with the crime you did not commit.

Re:Hideous?

[ScentCone]

The problem with your example is that the "right to be forgotten" thing doesn't actually expunge your name from public records. It allows you to request to have your name removed from certain indexes in search engines, but it doesn't remove those records from internet-facing servers. And in many cases, the search engine listings for some of those records are off-limits from such removal requests. If you get arrested and charged for even a fake rape (like in the Duke case you mentioned), sorry, your name is part of the public record, period. If you want to reduce the number of times that sort of thing happens, make draconian laws that send stupid, agenda-minded prosecutors to jail for supporting such baseless arrests and prosecutions in the first place.

Re:Hideous?

[squiggleslash]

That's what Google claims it's doing for RTBF, and what France says it's not good enough

No, it's not what Google claims it's doing. Google has never claimed that a French user accessing google.com will see results filtered by RTBF. France is upset because Google is only applying RTBF for the domains that have European postfixes (eg google.fr, google.co.uk, etc), not for users of Google coming in from European IP addresses.

Re:Hideous?

[strikethree]

WTF does your "right to be forgotten" have to do with Google or any other search based company? You should be demanding removal from the website that is posting the actual information, not messing with an algorithm designed to help you find stuff.

Re: Hideous?

[david_thornley]

How do you grant immunity (in the US)? Trials in the US are public (the Constitution requires it), so anyone accused of a crime has the choice between being identified after pleading guilty or being identified in court. Getting newspapers to not publish names is a problem, and something like the Duke Lacrosse case would result in identifying the group.

Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

At what point is it more economical for Google to simply stop providing a service to France and lose some advertising revenue rather than enduring the expense and risk of following local laws?

Re:Economics

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

That could end up being the lesser evil, and would end up making a hell of a statement.
Of course the consequences with countries like China or Russia would have to be thunk through - they would be encouraged to pass similar laws so as to get Google out of their countries.

The balkanisation of the Internet.

Re:Economics

[BasilBrush]

They'd have to pull out of the entire EU. EU HQ and all data centres. And they'd have to give up all their customers (advertisers) in the EU.

Can we interpret France as damage

[Anonymous Coward]

...and route around it?

Good for the Goose....

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Good for the Goose....

[TWX]

If you're referring to FIFA in-particular, I expect that a lot of countries wanted that to happen and basically the US was the only one whose soccer/fubtol enthusiast population is small enough to allow it to happen. Now that the US has taken action, other countries are starting to investigate their local officials. Even if all American charges are dropped (and it looks like there are at least a few with sufficient American ties to be prosecuted regardless) there will be plenty of other countries with their own jurisdictions that are going to jump on the bandwagon.

As for other laws, the US does have some conditions under which it will prosecute Americans or those with permanent residency for acts committed overseas, usually related to sexual slavery or other acts that the US populace considers egregious enough to prosecute. I expect that the acts have to be pretty damn overt and that there has to be no real chance of local prosecution and that most individuals that could theoretically be prosecuted aren't.

Re:Good for the Goose....

[alci63]

Well, another interesting case of "US laws apply worldwide" is the BNP-Paribas Case, where the bank was fined several billions of dollars for not following a US boycott on Iran. The interesting part is that the bank is a french bank, it was acting from Swiss, and France was not supporting the boycott. No US citizen and no US company was involved. But USD was used, and somehow US judges found they were entitled to act... (of course the bank had to pay).

Re:Good for the Goose....

[Anonymous Coward]

"BNP went to elaborate lengths to conceal prohibited transactions, cover its tracks, and deceive U.S. authorities. They used “cover payments” to hide the involvement of sanctioned entities in transactions that were processed through New York and elsewhere in the United States. They worked with partners and subsidiaries around the world to structure transactions in needlessly complicated ways – using sophisticated techniques that served no legitimate business purpose, but that allowed them to obscure the truth: that these transactions violated the law and should not have been occurring in the first place."

You were saying?

Re:Good for the Goose....

[Ryanrule]

The US also has the ABILITY to do so.

Re:Good for the Goose....

[ScentCone]

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...

Citations, please. Or do you mean "the US chooses to sign treaties with other nations so that all parties in the treaty can pursue the same law enforcement options, like extraditing criminals as appropriate." Because if actually meant the words you used, it means you're either deliberately lying or are yet another low-information ranter (in either case, please just go away).

Re:Good for the Goose....

[Smauler]

Now that the US has taken action, other countries are starting to investigate their local officials. Even if all American charges are dropped (and it looks like there are at least a few with sufficient American ties to be prosecuted regardless) there will be plenty of other countries with their own jurisdictions that are going to jump on the bandwagon.

The prime reason why the FIFA corruption scandal has come to the forefront is nothing to do with the US. It's essentially about UEFA (the European football association) actually making enough of a stink about it (enough for some to actually start talking about leaving FIFA), and (more importantly) the Swiss legislature talking about forcing organisations to disclose payments (bribes). The US has essentially zero to do with it, as the US has essentially zero power in world football.

Re:Good for the Goose....

[ScentCone]

And yet Google removes results from my searches due to the DMCA - a US law.

No, it doesn't. You clearly don't even know what that means. The DMCA is about copyright infringement, not some imaginary "right" to have your name removed from public knowledge.

Re:Good for the Goose....

[david_thornley]

Really? The DMCA does take stuff down on the Net, including references to it. The DMCA is "about" copyright infringement in that it was tied to copyright, but it's not used just to protect copyright.

Re:Good for the Goose....

[ScentCone]

The DMCA is "about" copyright infringement in that it was tied to copyright, but it's not used just to protect copyright.

What are you saying? That people are willing to perjure themselves in the filing of a formal federal complaint, lying about copyright infringement, in order to have something they don't like removed from online publication? You do realize that's actually a criminal offense, right? Would you, as a web site owner, take down content in response to a DMCA filing that doesn't actually point out copyright infringement?

Re:Good for the Goose....

[david_thornley]

I have copyright on my last post. In order to avoid perjury in a DMCA takedown notice, I need to correctly state that I have copyright on a certain thing, or at least represent the copyright holder. I then claim, not under penalty of perjury, that your post violates that copyright. All legal, in the sense that I'm taking no legal risk and am incurring no criminal liability. The part of the notice that perjury applies to is often gotten wrong.

Therefore, I can allege that anything on the web violates my copyright. I'm going to be wrong, but that's not illegal.

Consider the website that receives a DMCA takedown notice. If the website complies with that notice, including removing access to the material temporarily, the website is automatically not liable for the alleged copyright violation. There's then a counter-claim process, and if the website goes through the counter-claim process it is automatically not liable for the takedown, and the legalities can go through without affecting the website. If the site does not comply with the takedown notice, there's the possibility of being sued for copyright infringement, and that's going to be somewhat expensive no matter what the result.

The kicker here is that many websites post content from people who don't pay the site. Therefore, the website has no liability to the poster in any case, and there are often no legal consequences for not going through with the counter-claim process.

So, if Google gets a DMCA takedown request, it needs to make some decisions, and the cheapest is to just remove the content. The next cheapest is to go through the counter-claim procedure, and if the posting is a copyright violation the poster is unlikely to counterclaim in any case.

Re:hum

[plopez]

"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.

Too young

[kheldan]

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.

Re:Too young

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

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

We're getting fat?

and socio-politically.

Well, yeah: technology increasingly gives regular folks the kind of power only kings used to have.

Will there, eventually, have to be one global governing body? In my opinion, yes,

I don't think so. The only way that would happen is through a totalitarian regime, but totalitarian regimes can't exist unless they have some external enemy to blame their failures on.

No, more likely, we will have many more "governing bodies" than we have now, responsible for many different aspects of our lives, and you pick whatever combination suits your needs. Think of it as extending the concept of an HOA, your vacation time share, and your professional associations to your entire life.

Re:Too young

[roman_mir]

I agree with your premise and disagree with your conclusions. Yes, technology is making nation states and borders irrelevant over time. No, I don't think there ever will be 'one world government' that people will listen to or care about. Government is a system of oppression via violence. The kind of reach that the one world government would have to have is not feasible and not desirable either. One world dictatorship is what you are talking about. One world slavery.

No, I think the internet and other advances will reduce the power of the state and the governance will be transfered closer and closer to home. Municipal government is a much more legitimate level of oppression for the people living in a city than state level or any federal or continental or global level of oppression. At least municipal answers to the people that are nearby and it does not pretend to understand every other city in the world.

I think that the internet and other tech in the long run leads towards decentralization and that is a good thing. People should be oppressed less, not more.

Re:Too young

[Anne Thwacks]

Government is a system of oppression via violence.

You might want to try living somwhere where there is no government. (Other than your basement).

Re:Too young

[Sloppy]

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.

Physically and socio-politically?

I think you're implying that without the tech, future humans would be more adapted to better the consequences of tech. I call bullshit.

I don't know if we're much brainier than we were 5k years ago, but if we are, tech is what allowed us to put those precious nutrients and energy into brains instead of muscles.

Furthermore, tech is what allows us to "evolve" socio-politically. Without communications, you're hunter-gatherers who can sneakily backstab competitors without future consequences. Without nukes, it's viable (and possibly even sane, in a horrible evil way) to start a World War. Without tech, an otherwise perfectly admirable person gets sick and dies for no good reason. This goes on and on in so many nasty ways I don't wanna talk about.

The ensmallening(*) of the world is how we grow up. You might not like some of the directions it goes, but look where we're coming from.

We (humans) are not anywhere near ready to live in a world without borders

Maybe you're right, but you're casting it as though there's some progression where later, we might be ready. WTF are you talking about? Without tech you think we'll eventually become "wise beings of pure energy" from Star Trek or Babylon 5?

(*) Principle Skinner is telling me that's a cromulent word, so don't make fun of it.

Re:Too young

[AK Marc]

I don't think there ever will be 'one world government' that people will listen to or care about.

There already is, and people care more than you assert they do, and if you didn't care, you wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. The UN, G8 and so many others.

Government is a system of oppression via violence.

So is non-government. At least with government, there are rules around the oppression.

Re:Too young

[kheldan]

I don't think so. The only way that would happen is through a totalitarian regime, but totalitarian regimes can't exist unless they have some external enemy to blame their failures on. No, more likely, we will have many more "governing bodies" than we have now, responsible for many different aspects of our lives, and you pick whatever combination suits your needs. Think of it as extending the concept of an HOA, your vacation time share, and your professional associations to your entire life.

See, here's the thing: You're no more evolved than anyone else is, so of course it's difficult to imagine a single world government; you're no more ready for such a thing than anyone else is. No, I'm not insuling you or making fun of you; no malice of forethought or otherwise.

Re:Too young

[kheldan]

You're sounding like you think it has to be all-or-nothing, either technological progress as fast as we can all the time, or NO progress. I'm saying it's TOO FAST.

Re:Too young

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

See, here's the thing: You're no more evolved than anyone else is, so of course it's difficult to imagine a single world government; you're no more ready for such a thing than anyone else is.

I can perfectly well "imagine" a single world government, which is why I absolutely reject it as a desirable possibility. People are far too diverse to be governed by a single set of rules, and human diversity is increasing, not decreasing.

I also understand what happens when you try to institute a "single world government": all the crooks and psychopaths of the world come out of the woodwork and compete for who gets to run it; no sane person would actually go for those jobs because (1) it's pointless, and (2) you have to be insane to compete with crooks and psychopaths.

You'd think that after eugenics, WWII, and Stalin, people would be a little more self-conscious about peddling your kind of crap, but apparently progressives, communists, and fascists never learn.

As for evolution, all organisms on this planet have evolved for the same amount of time, and you and I are no more evolved than an earthworm or cockroach. Nevertheless, there are obviously huge differences in mental and physical abilities between creatures, and that's not going to change. Humanity will not evolve into (fascists) or be indoctrinated (communists) into perfectly selfless and altruistic individuals that submit to the power of selfless and self-sacrificing leaders. It's biologically impossible. Even if it were to happen, we'd cease to be human or even intelligent.

Re:Too young

[kheldan]

You'd think that after eugenics, WWII, and Stalin, people would be a little more self-conscious about peddling your kind of crap, but apparently progressives, communists, and fascists never learn.

I'd write a couple paragraphs for you continuing a discussion on this subject, but it's fairly obvious that you've made up your mind already, and are so stuck on who you are the way things are, that you probably can't even have a theoretical discussion on the subject without getting all emotional about it. You've already pigeon-holed me with a label, and beyond that point no useful conversation is going to happen. I will tell you this much though: We (and you're a good example of this) are not even mentally evolved enough yet to even conceive of what any 'world government' would look like, so you fill in the gaps with what concepts your brain can conceive of, so of course it's not a pretty sight; you can no more conceive of what humans 1000 years from now will look, act, or think like, than humans 1000 years in the past could, and quite frankly it's utter arrogance and ignorance on your part if you think you can.

Re:Too young

[kheldan]

Nothing ever changes, and people never change

Everything works fine the way it is now so why would we ever change anything?

640k of RAM should be enough for anyone

But Mister Lincoln, slavery works just fine for us, why would we want to abolish it?

Niggers are only four-fifths of a human being

Women aren't rational or intelligent enough to vote

The Earth is the center of God's Universe, can't you tell by the way the Sun revolves around it?

How can you say the Earth is round? It's flat, everyone knows that!

You're stupid, even for an Internet troll. Please fuck off and die now.

And I have the right

[Lawrence_Bird]

to demand France suck my dick every morning. Somehow I doubt that's going to happen either.

Re:And I have the right

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Of course it's not going to happen. Even if you were the Pope, France isn't that Catholic anymore.

Re:And I have the right

[rubycodez]

I also suspect he's far past the prime altar-boy suckee age they would consider

Is there a little bias in the article?

[plopez]

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.

Re:Is there a little bias in the article?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is /., not Pompous McDouchbag Weekly, you hideous shart-beast.

Re:Is there a little bias in the article?

[kevmeister]

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.

Shouldn't this be labeled as "Funny"? I mean, this is slashdot. Do you really expect anything like "professional" editing?

FWIW, I find the words pretty appropriate. If you use the Internet, you better take them seriously.

Sauce for the goose ...

[petes_PoV]

... 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.

Re:Sauce for the goose ...

[mrbester]

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

Re:Sauce for the goose ...

[Ryanrule]

This isnt about the right. Its about the ability.

Re:Sauce for the goose ...

[KGIII]

Don't make the US force ICANN to give them your domain name... Well, you won't if you know what is good for you. Also, I am not exactly sure what Kim Dotcom did that requires (or allows) the US government to screw with him. I guess he won the whole frozen assets thing, which is nice. However...

When good men do nothing

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Government has no right to censor, nor do you, through them, or through a democratic vote. Numbers do not make right.

Politicians pandering to you, to lead you on crusades of outraged censorship, is just another form of those in power using censorship to maintain their power.

Re:When good men do nothing

[rubycodez]

wrong, I have the right to censor information about myself. Your decrees otherwise are meaningless.

Re:When good men do nothing

[rubycodez]

Because you the idealistic geek say so? Wrong. Humans societies have privacy protocols. Normal People have a right and expectation of privacy in parts of their life. Normal people are already pushing back against the intrusions of your ilk.

Google's response

[JimDarkmagic]

Release a statement to all prominent french news outlets:

Citizens of France

Due to unreasonable demands of your governing bodies detailed at www.google.com/FrenchWithdrawl, Google will be withdrawing from the French market in 30 days. This includes all Google services - GMail, Google search, Youtube, Zagat, maps, flight information, Android, and others listed at www.google.com/FrenchWithdrawl. We feel we must protect the rights of the other 97% of our customers that live outside of France.

You have 30 days to download all of your data using the "Download" button at www.google.com/FrenchWithdrawl. On the 31st day, no service will be provided to anyone within France for a minimum for 6 months. Also, no services regarding France will be provided for people based out of France - no maps, no search, no Youtube, none of the services listed at www.google.com/FrenchWithdrawl.

One final note from outside the PR department: Don't bother with VPN, proxy, Tor, or any other half-baked obfuscation schemes because we'll know. Why? Because we're Google.

Love,
Google.

Threaten to grind their social and work lives to a halt in 30 days and effectively wipe them off the face of the internet for everyone but China (use Baidu) and Russia (use Yandex) and they'll think twice before pulling shit like this.

Re:Google's response

[KGIII]

So Google is going to pull a France in France with the whole withdrawal thing?

Actually the meme about French cowardice is rather unfounded. Surrendering to Germany was the right thing at the time. The correct thing would have been, of course, attacking Germany immediately when they attacked Poland but hindsight is 20/20. Otherwise they do not really have a history of avoiding a fight - even to their own detriment. Hell, the French Foreign Legion is rather impressive and while it has ''foreign" in the title that does not make it any less French.

Re:Google's response

[KGIII]

That is all well and true but those will take time to ramp up or become popular. France would lose access to a lot of content and integrated services if they tried to do that.

Re:Google's response

[david_thornley]

The French did attack Germany pretty much immediately, but half-heartedly. While I think they should have put more force into it, they didn't have the support for large offensives until they finished mobilizing and getting stuff together, and it was too late by then.

The 1940 German success was because of bad French deployment, and the only lack of fighting spirit was in Class "B" reserves. In the second half of the campaign, the French implemented new tactics, not a sign of an army that wanted to surrender.

There is bias in every article.

[drinkypoo]

The most you can hope for is that it is not hidden.

Clarification Required

[Luthair]

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.

Re:Clarification Required

[Ryanrule]

The fifa investigation is related to actions taken WITHIN the US. With US BANKS. IDIOT. Can we put you on ignore? You are a shill or stupid.

google should just terminate service in France

[Karmashock]

France will blink.

Re: google should just terminate service in France

[Karmashock]

Good luck with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You can only pass such a law because the public isn't paying attention and doesn't care.

You fuck with something everyone notices and the politics change remarkably.

Uber's success is based on this political principle. They don't ask for permission from the local city council. They just start providing service. And by the time the government gets around to trying to ban them, people already like the service and banning them would be politically expensive. So Uber operates on a policy of it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Google has also already faced off against EU member nations for similar things. Google's response has been to terminate services in those countries. This creates a political backlash against the politicians and the laws are basically dropped.

So really the issue is who cares more?

Your idiot politicians doing something they don't really care about pushed along by a few marginal lobbying groups or the general public that likes these services?

You can't win. Don't embarrass yourself by trying. You're pissing into the wind.

Re:hum

[Crashmarik]

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.

Bluntly: Fuck France

[msobkow]

'nuff said

It's not global censorship

[jlowery]

It's corporate censorship. Google can opt out of doing business in France. Or China. Or the U.S. Or it can comply. It will comply.

This is why we can't let corporations run the world. They're in it for money, not principle or human rights or whatever. They don't have ideals... they are like sociopaths that are in it for themselves. That's not to say that they're not useful, but they shouldn't be in charge of politics.

Hate to say it, but this problem isn't going to go away. The internet will have to become regulated, with various strictures applied according under a multitude of jurisdictions. It will be messy.

Re:

[doug141]

Google (and Baidu) is learning to recognize letters, numbers, images, faces, the spoken word, more complex things every day, not unlike a baby. Eventually, Google will recognize our internet of things (with exploits), including everyone's phone, and medical implants, and DARPA's robot progeny. Maybe a human, perhaps one of the AI experts recently hired by Google, will be at the helm, maybe not, that just changes who has total control. If Google (or Baidu) wants to grow (it's that or be conquered by that which does), it'll need more resources. What will the top AI (or its operator, if it has one) want to do with everything else and everybody else? Render them nonthreatening first, then use them.

You do Realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

This "Right" was never that. You do not have the right to be forgotten by me if we pass on the street...
So why is this different? If someone with a 100% recall memory were to meet you have have a 1 hour conversation, they would be able to know as much or more about you than google. So why is the ability to be forgotten even relevant to the global discussion? Its not now, nor was it EVER, even possible. You cannot effect the memory of another. Google is just a PERFECT TOTAL RECALL "Other"... DEAL WITH IT! (Aka, don't do stupid shit that gets posted to the internet...)

Re:Time to forget France

[Opportunist]

Where do I sign the petition?

Death of the Global Internet...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just one of the thousand cuts that will in 5-10 years have killed the global internet.

Slowly it will be split in dozens (or more) local internets as local laws and security measures cut it up.

The same development might also spell the end of the globe spanning multinational corporation, at least in IT related fields.

One curious effect is that IP4 addresses will again be plentiful, as US allocated A and B series can be reuesd in other internets...

Re:Death of the Global Internet...

[KGIII]

Highly improbable but I can see the logic behind your postulating (I think). I would be willing to bet that your proposal does not happen. I will give you 2:1 odds and put the money in escrow but make it worth my while and do a $1000 USD minimum. I will use any reputable escrow company you choose. One additional stipulation is that my heirs must be allowed to collect as I am aging. The date for completion will be ten years from today - UTC. You can attempt to further define your statement until the bet is made, it is not a matter of ego but a chance to make some money so I will allow small amendments to your proposal.

Re:Time to forget France

[Opportunist]

Well, Google could implement a filter that allows you to reverse its "look by country" filter, i.e. display everything BUT results from a certain country.

I doubt it's something they can "sue" for if the user controls it. And if anything, a chance to retaliate against government censorship is easily picked up by the internet community. You just have to inform them...

Lauren Weinstein - bias much?

[TrimTabTim]

To the poster: There are general principles built into most bodies of law related to rehabilitation whereby criminal histories are expunged after a period of time. Likewise, statutes of limitations proscribe a time window after a lesser crime is conducted in which law enforcement must bring charges or else lose the right.

The above ideas together are the brick and mortar of a civilized society whereby we are forgiven for our minor misdeeds and our law enforcement is not able to pick on people they don't like by sifting through their past to dig up j-walking incidents.

Would you do away with these universal and beneficial legal ideas? If not then i suggest the actual correct and moral action is to extend them out into the world, including the internet. If a teenager does something stupid (lets face it we all did at one time) then it is not right or moral for them to be punished by disadvantage in life and job for the rest of their life. This would ammount to a return to feudal caste systems, and you just aren't looking at it correctly if you don't see this simple truth. The internet should not be immune to moral principles and ideas of rehabilitation and justice.

To say otherwise, you just sound like a shill of the tech companies who would be inconvenienced by such things in their quest for ever higher profit margins.

Re:Lauren Weinstein - bias much?

[jedidiah]

This is not a problem of "having too much knowledge". This is a problem of what you do with it. The direct approach to addressing this problem is to simple not punish people for ancient misdeeds. However, that just seems "too hard". Instead, we would rather try to subject the entire world to a sort of enforced amnesia instead.

No. It would be far simpler to simply alter our approach to how we deal with a person's "permanent record".

Besides, this idea of yours that we "forget old crimes" isn't even accurate anyways. So your entire premise is bogus to begin with. Old crimes can and WILL in fact come back to haunt you. If you thought otherwise then clearly you've never been in a position to see how the system (as it is now) actually works.

Re:Lauren Weinstein - bias much?

[TrimTabTim]

Depends on the crime. Crimes have different statute of limitations and expungement periods based on severity as written into the laws of each jurisdiction. Many crimes are rightly never forgiven, and can always be prosecuted no matter how old the evidence might be. (Murder, rape, etc..)

I am not wanting total amnesia, and think this is a misrepresentation of what the French are after. Furthermore, I disagree with those blatant criminals and ass-hole movie stars who want a global delete button to suit their private and selfish purposes.

I only want law to apply to the information which technology companies gather and harvest from us. Lauren Weinstein's and her ilk misrepresent and twist this sensible desire.

If a minor crime i committed has been expunged from my public record. If youthful indiscretion has marred my social feed. If an enemy slanders me online. We should be able to seek remedies just as we can if we discover our credit history contains errors or fraud. That's all this is about. "Global delete buttons" are hyperbole.

I'm well aware of how difficult this is from a technological viewpoint, given the nature of the internet. But it's a noble pursuit to bring justice and law online while at the same time embracing encryption and privacy. It's going to take a few generations to find solutions, and I have no idea how it will pan out. Anyone who says they know is a liar I suspect. But I’m optimistic that barring biased trash like the OP from L. Weinstein, we will find ways to write software that lets us exercise law, grant privacy, and to eat our cake too.

Re:Lauren Weinstein - bias much?

[KGIII]

Wouldn't it make more sense to make discrimination based on criminal history illegal? That could be fleshed out to include a pass for things directly to do with the job or housing or similar. It could have a time limit where crimes committed x-number of years ago are fine to discriminate against until they pass a certain distance in time where such is illegal. As an example, felonies could have a seven year wait and misdemeanors can have a three year wait. After those time periods have passed they would no longer be a consideration for housing, employment, government assistance, etc...

Re:Lauren Weinstein - bias much?

[jbolden]

Forgiveness and forgetfulness don't have to be related. We can also have societal indifference. If everyone knew all the dirt on everyone that also creates a situation where you can't hold grudges against people for past misdeeds.

I don't see in any case with our current information infrastructure how we can enforce forgetfulness. It is far easier to enforce forgiveness if needed.

Re:Lauren Weinstein - bias much?

[david_thornley]

How do you make discrimination based on criminal history illegal? There are laws against discrimination based on quite a few groups, and it's really hard to enforce those. It may be worth passing those laws, but it isn't going to solve the problem.

Could there be possibly any LESS substance

[Opportunist]

Not that the topic has any, but the only link is to a poorly written blog you simply copied the first few lines out of, with the only link going to a paywalled WSJ article.

If that's what's necessary for a front page on /., I could offer an article on a miracle breakthrough in the cure on Asperger. Just gimme an hour to make it up.

Re:hum

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:hum

[SuricouRaven]

Not only state-created monopolies. There are also natural monopolies - situations like utilities, where once one company enters a market it becomes impossible for another to do so profitably. This is part of why many areas have exactly one internet service provider: Whoever makes the first investment to to dig up roads and lay cables gets 100% of the customers, and no other ISP is going to invest in their own cables if they would only have to compete with an entrenched interest.

French prosecutors discover VPN

[redelm]

... news at 11 :)

Look at it from their PoV: the French have a law, and their civil-code attitude to the law is to enforce on principle, not to the letter as English common law. Loophole closing rather than toleration (which might be applied wholesale to certain violators.)

Some well-intentioned person probably argued against RTBF by pointing out that VPN bypasses geolocation. So the Prosecutors were informed and instead of abandoning an impractical (if not stupid) law, they figured out how to close the loophole.

Les procureurs [correctly] figured they could not stop VPNs, but Google was there for the muscling. Like all impractical laws, even worse measures are required for enforcement (eg.drugs).

It will be interesting to watch. The French and EU courts could go either way. At one extreme it is an act of war (blockade) and the other Google leaves France. Most likely a deal for a hidden something France wants.

Re:hum

[plopez]

OIt's not like I have much of a choice. I could just stuff my money under the couch.

Re:hum

[Daemonik]

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.

Re:hum

[plopez]

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.

Re:hum

[Crashmarik]

The funny thing about that was that Standard Oil was the inspiration for the antitrust act, and all the while "People", were upset about the monopoly, their fuel prices were going lower because Rockefeller wanted the sales.

Hmmmmmm

Re:hum

[Crashmarik]

I have heard a rumor you can buy an electric vehicle and power it from the sun. Sounds a little ridiculous I know.

Why just Google? Why not Bing or Yahoo?

[walterbyrd]

Seems like they are singling out one search engine to be treated differently than others. Hard for me to see how that is fair. Just because Google has been successful, is no reason that the law should not be applied evenly. I guess that is how Europe "thinks."

Re:hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is forcing you to live in such a city?

Re:hum

[plopez]

If it is the only place you can get a job you have no choice.

Re:hum

[plopez]

If you can afford it. There's the rub.

Re:hum

[dargaud]

WTF is a 401K ?!? Can't you speak English ?

Re:hum

[Crashmarik]

OK, Goldilocks go through life convinced you are the victim and you certainly will be.

Re:The true leaders of France know Google = NSA

[jbolden]

Methinks you are kinda nuts. Saudi Arabia is an independent country with independent policies on many many issues. Certainly they are an ally of the USA but not an extension of the USA.

Re:The true leaders of France know Google = NSA

[Applehu Akbar]

May France fart a few Rafales in your general direction.

Re:oh

[KGIII]

Bread and chocolate? I have been to France, nobody tried to feed me any of that. I think I might just be kooky enough to like it. Hmm... I bet a slightly salty bread is nice with that.

Re:It will be a lot easier

[KGIII]

Even better if Google uses name forwarding to point google.fr to bing.com.

Re:hum

[KGIII]

If there is only one place you can get a job then I have a hard time feeling sorry for your plight. The market is tough but not *that* bad.

Re:hum

[ScentCone]

There are cities where you MUST own a car and you MUST drive

And if you move away from these mythical cities, what happens ... the Eeeeevil City Enforcers drag you back by your hair and force you to live there?

Or you MUST buy your meat from 1 regional meat packer.

Because you're not allowed to have things shipped to your address from somewhere else? UPS and FedEx are being kept at the border of your city, with their trucks being checked by Armed Meat Thugs working for that one meat packing company?

you MUST buy GMO vegetables because you have no way of knowing what you are actually buying

Because ... you're convinced that your local farmer is lying to you?

Welcome to the jack boot of corporations on your neck.

Hold on a sec while I take some corporate-made pain killers to help with the headache I just got from rolling my eyes so hard.

Here's what you can do: butcher your own meat. People do it every day, though you sound much too lazy and entitled and whiny to do anything that might involved getting your hands dirty. Which probably also rules out you growing your own vegetables - you might have to clean your fingernails afterwards, so you won't soil your keyboard when typing your next woe-is-me rant.

Here's what you could do, if you weren't so lazy:

1) Move somewhere you like. There are towns all over the country where you can put on your Birkenstocks and hop on your bamboo bicycle for a ride to the local market where humanely raised tofurkeys are slaughtered only while they're in the middle of REM sleep, dreaming about a time when growing soy plants will somehow avoid the murder of earthworms.

2) Start your own company. Hire people, meet all sorts of endless and expensive regulations, and produce food or other services that you think people like you want and would be willing to pay for. But whatever you do, do not incorporate your business. You should be willing to put your personal assets entirely at risk so that if one of your employees accidentally has a delivery truck accident that kills a kid who fell into the street after passing out from lack of protein in his cruelty free diet, you will be personally wiped out, financially. That way you can no longer participate in the forming and running of exactly the sort of business activity you so would prefer to see, competing with other businesses. Because if you and a few people grow your business a bit and want to find a way to let it survive your personal death, or want to reach even more customers who would love your company's products and need to be able to show investors why you can't personally just pocket their money and walk away ... you're going to want to form a formal entity. You know, an eeeevil incorporation with actual rules and structure. Can't have that! Because you would suddenly turn evil, right? Yeah.

Your entire rant is based on fantasy. You want to imagine that you're not allowed to buy a hamburger anywhere in your city from a company you might like, because that cartoon villainy fantasy scenario you've concocted excuses you from having to imagine yourself doing anything personally to bring to market the things you think should be there. Because you're lazy.

Re:hum

[ScentCone]

If it is the only place you can get a job you have no choice.

Really? In a country of hundreds of millions of people with millions of businesses all across the country, there's only ONE place where you can get a job? You don't suppose that would have anything to do with you not lifting a finger to make yourself actually valuable to more than one single employer in one single town, do you? No, it must be that the Eeeeevil Corporations have gotten together to talk about you and make sure that you personally are blacklisted from working anywhere except that one place, where - according to your other post - they also force you to buy meat from one supplier, among other things.

Do you even listen to yourself?

Hypocriteopotamus

[pubwvj]

Hmm... I call them a Hypocriteopotamus.

France is trying to force their law on other countries like the USA. France would be all upset if the USA were to do that. I see a hypocritopotamus in the room. France needs to back down and to realize how trivial they are. The UN needs to step in and remind France that they can only make laws within their own borders. Google needs to step in and just forget France.

Re:That's A Bit Grand, Init?

[KGIII]

My French is awful but isn't that "please the cheese is smelly?" Or, I suppose, just "please smelly cheese?" I am missing the "get fucked" part in all of that. I can not spell French - it is much worse than my inept attempts to speak it - but, maybe, "faire baiser" would be in order? Also keep in mind my French is not so very French. I live on the Canadian boarder and they do not speak French really. My time in France was limited and I had a guide so speaking the language was not important but I did try because I would hope that others would attempt to speak to me in my language when they come to my home.

I can't reach US google anyway

[Blaskowicz]

Try this from France : go to google.us or google.com, and you end up redirected to Google France anyway. So they don't want you to do unlocalized searches, or perhaps you have to dig deeper and learn syntax or go into "advanced research".
On duckduckgo they seem to have anticipated I wanted to do that and there's simply a clickable toggle!

Re:It's right!

[KGIII]

How'd that whole 'Master Race' thing work out for Europe last time? I think I recall something about Americans paying to keep you safe - and they have been doing (or trying to) so ever since (for better or worse). I realize you were trolling but, come on, you can do better. That does not even rile anyone up.

Re:This needs to stop

[KGIII]

Cannot be or should not be? CFI. US laws regarding encryption.

Once again

[Ol Olsoc]

The cheese eatin' surrender monkey's trying to conform the world to your view.

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:I love to se how people jump without checking f

[KGIII]

That they were processing through US banks on US soil...

How convenient that you skipped that part. I will assume you were not aware of it.

Dancing Monkeys and Lawyers

[JimSadler]

OK so i start a site that does searches from within the US and then create a file and send it to a French national. In other words the notion will not work at all and the legal issues will never cease and new businesses will appear to deliver that information to the French. We actually need to make it clear that only US laws are in play for anyone operating in the US.. Think of it as the porno in Podunk problem. A guy in NY send porn to a guy in California but because the message travels through Podunk Podunk claims a right to legal judgement over whether it is "too" graphic. By doing that they push free speech into the trash can and insist that the most radical conservative backwater, hick town can control materials being sent across the nation. Who owns jurisdiction?

Re:Dancing Monkeys and Lawyers

[BasilBrush]

The fact that a law can be worked round is no reason to not have the law. It's illegal to burgle a house, but obviously people can still break in.

We actually need to make it clear that only US laws are in play for anyone operating in the US.

Google is a multinational company. They have a European division in Ireland, that makes money from across the EU. And they have datacentres in the EU that serve requests for all google.* domains. Therefore they are most certainly subject to EU law on what they serve from the EU to the EU. No question.

They can serve what they like outside the EU, but not within it.

Re:Dancing Monkeys and Lawyers

[shutdown -p now]

They can serve what they like outside the EU, but not within it.

You guys might want to talk to Russia about that, I hear Putin also likes this idea and has made some arrangements already.

Perhaps you could even share a Great Firewall, and split the cost!

Re:Dancing Monkeys and Lawyers

[BasilBrush]

You have to understand that Free Speech is only the most important right of the US. It's not the most important right in the rest of the world, where there are other rights at play.

That doesn't make the rest of the world wrong. It just means that the US isn't the sole arbiter of rights and wrongs that it thinks it is.

Re:Dancing Monkeys and Lawyers

[shutdown -p now]

Freedom of speech is not important because US thinks that it is. They're just less wrong than the rest (because they still have some irrational exemptions from it).

Re:Dancing Monkeys and Lawyers

[BasilBrush]

All you're doing is claiming that you are the ultimate arbiter of what the more important right is rather than the US itself. Likewise, you're not. It's just an idea that you were brought up to believe. Like some people have a religion drummed into them.

Re:That's A Bit Grand, Init?

[KGIII]

I will check it out but, alas, it is tough for me. I did take a single year of French in school but that was Parisian French. The French that I sometimes use, in reality, is Canadian French. The two are very different. It is a bit like Mexican and Spanish. I speak Mexican Spanish quite fluently but I have to slow down and hope for the best when I visit Spain. However, the differences between Spain and Mexico are much smaller than the differences between Canada and France. That is, of course, based on my observations. I am not a linguist so I may be mistaken but that is how it seemed to me. It may also be that I took Latin and that my Spanish is much better than my French.

"Worldwide"?

[Kludge]

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."

Re:"Worldwide"?

[BasilBrush]

And following one of the links in that article reveals that there is not an issue if Google uses geolocation to restrict results in the EU, but serves full results elsewhere.

Hideous right to human rights

[JohnStock]

Just shows the state of the US when they hate human liberty unless its by the gun.

Re:Time to forget France

[techno-vampire]

Well, for starters, this site is devoted to petitions, although very, very few of them get any response.

Re:Time to forget France

[Opportunist]

That's like sending it to /dev/null.

The Internet is it's own territory

[randalware]

France does NOT own the net.

USA does NOT own the net.

Austrailia does NOT own the net.

repeat until The internet is chaos/anarchy.

harden your equipment & software and do un to others as you would have them do to you.

develop understanding for others with differences and do NOT pick fights.

If you can't behave yourself and ignore or avoid stuff that upsets you,
                STAY OFF THE NET !

Re:hum

[Smauler]

Here's what you can do: butcher your own meat. People do it every day, though you sound much too lazy and entitled and whiny to do anything that might involved getting your hands dirty. Which probably also rules out you growing your own vegetables - you might have to clean your fingernails afterwards, so you won't soil your keyboard when typing your next woe-is-me rant.

Yeah.... that works well in the middle of a big city. Do you know how much is actually eaten daily in a big city? If everyone were to individually try to grow their own vegetables, and rear their own meat in a city of 10 million, it'd be instant chaos, and probably at least double the carbon output of the city.

Mass production works better, generally, that's why we do it.

1) Move somewhere you like.

And if everyone "moves somewhere they like"? You can't solve bad places by just saying "move".

2) Start your own company. Hire people

Which people? The people I was going to hire already started their own company. There aren't any employees any more in your utopia.

ps. I do butcher some of my own meat, and grow some of my own vegetables, but I'm lucky to live where I do.

There is a simple solution for this mess

[msobkow]

There is a simple solution for this mess. Mandate that any international corporation MUST provide a country-TLD version of their website, and the .com for any jurisdiction outside the US redirects you to the appropriate country TLD version based on your geo-location data.

The country-specific domain has to abide by the rules and legislation of the jurisdiction you are in.

And any and all VPNs are to be automatically and completely blocked by corporate websites for their entire IP range from accessing *any* of the domains.

Re:There is a simple solution for this mess

[Cederic]

and the .com for any jurisdiction outside the US redirects you to the appropriate country TLD version based on your geo-location data

Why outside the US? Why not redirect to the .us tld too?

Should the french redirect be to .fr or .eu? or .cunt?

Re:hum

[ScentCone]

Yeah.... that works well in the middle of a big city. Do you know how much is actually eaten daily in a big city?

Which is EXACTLY why the GP's idiotic complaint about only being able to buy meat from one provider is so preposterous. When you have that much demand, you have many, many suppliers competing to provide products of every type, including ag stuff ranging from back-yard-raised to large scale organic to more moderately priced "conventional" goods. His entire point is just wrong on the face of it.

You can't solve bad places by just saying "move".

If EVERYONE in a place dislikes it so much that moving is tempting, that means that the place where they live is a prime target for political re-invention, and external investment. If nobody wants to invest any money in launching new businesses there, it's because the local population is doing it wrong. And there are places like that, which is why you do see exactly what you're saying more or less can't happen: abandonment of large swaths of crappy space (like, say, parts of Detroit) as people move to where governance and business is working correctly. That story is as old as civilization.

Which people? The people I was going to hire already started their own company. There aren't any employees any more in your utopia.

Offer them more money and a better gig. The GP's point is that he feels under-served by what his local market environment is offering him. So unless he's just making stuff up about there only being one meat packing plant supplying all the meat to his entire city (which is ridiculous), then he's probably (in his imaginary scenario) representative of a pent-up demand for a different looking market. And if there's demand, there's the willingness to pay more money for more options. And that means that the company offering a new and better option can afford to pay more for people because they can afford to charge more, given the pent-up demand.

Frenchmen want to be forgotten?

[ebvwfbw]

Come on France. You were once proud. Viva la France? Not so much now socialists have castrated you. Now you belong to the ages. You're not dead yet, you're well on your way unless you do something about it.

Re:hum

[david_thornley]

We speak American here, pardner. It does sometime give the impression of English.

A 401(k) is a retirement savings account. I put money in mine, and it gets invested as part of a fund. I couldn't withdraw the money without penalty until I turned fifty-nine and a half, if I understand correctly. I pay no taxes on the contribution* or the dividends until I actually pull the money out. In the US, it's a popular way to save for retirement, and many companies offer some level of matching contributions. This is generally a replacement for pensions; the company kicks in its contribution, and doesn't have to worry about the employee afterwards.

An IRA, on this side of the pond, has very little to do with explosives, but is an independent retirement fund that works similarly. I've got one, which is from a 401(k) with a previous employer. (Either my financial adviser at the time was lying, or a 401(k) had to be converted to an IRA some time after leaving that employment. As I found out later, either is possible. I get my financial advice from different people nowadays.)

*Naturally, it's more complicated than that. I have a Roth 401(k), meaning my contributions are from taxed money, and I don't pay taxes on the proceeds. However, I suspect you have very little interest in the details.

Re:hum

[david_thornley]

I've had precisely one home that would have been good for solar power. My various apartments didn't have shares of the roof, and my current home is aligned badly for solar. (I could still look into it, but I'm at the age where I'm less interested in long-term investments.)

Re:hum

[david_thornley]

It isn't a matter of total inability, it's a matter of practicality. Presumably GP could get lots of jobs, but they may all where he pretty much has to drive to work. (I haven't gotten a good job outside the western suburbs of the Twin Cities in many years, and my wife works to the east of our house. Somebody's going to have to drive.) Presumably GP could move elsewhere, with no assurance that things would be any better.

The issue with monopolies is not that they send agents out to assassinate people (that's more of a Nineteenth Century thing), but that they degrade the quality of living. Presumably GP's meat is of reasonable quality, but it may be more expensive than it would be without a monopoly. It will likely be possible to buy meat from elsewhere, but that may be more expensive, or sold in more expensive small stores.

Telling somebody who is complaining about monopolies having a bad effect on their quality of life to do things that further degrade said quality is stupid.

Re:hum

[Crashmarik]

Being at the same point in my life I understand the concept much better than I ever hoped to. Anyway I was mocking the poster. There's always choices, sometimes you have to sacrifice if you want to live up to your principles. The poster didn't want to do business with the oil business because of "reasons", that's fine with me. I personally appreciate the job they do, he doesn't. The part that is worthy of mockery, is his expectations that his prejudices should be easy, or the rest of the world has to bend over to make them easy for him.

Funny how fast Google can react

[Plumpaquatsch]

The Google "Google" on Egyptian Google mishap was fixed in no time. But that was costing them money, so no wonder.