Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France Claims Right To Censor Search Results Globally

Posted by timothy on from the most-dangerous-superstition dept.

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.

45 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Good Luck by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Good Luck by retchdog · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    4. Re:Good Luck by koan · · Score: 4, Informative

      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".

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    5. Re:Good Luck by jbolden · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Good Luck by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Good Luck by Altrag · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:Good Luck by Altrag · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Good Luck by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:Good Luck by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Looks like by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    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.)

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  3. Hideous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Hideous? Speak for yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. Re:Hideous? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

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

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

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

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

      --

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

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Hideous? by vakuona · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Hideous? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  4. Good for the Goose.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Good for the Goose.... by TWX · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Good for the Goose.... by alci63 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

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

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

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

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  6. Too young by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Too young by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    2. Re:Too young by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  7. And I have the right by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

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

  8. Is there a little bias in the article? by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  10. Google's response by JimDarkmagic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  11. Clarification Required by Luthair · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

  12. Re:Time to forget France by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    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...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:hum by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  14. Re:Lauren Weinstein - bias much? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    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.

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  17. Re:hum by KGIII · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  18. Re:hum by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  19. I can't reach US google anyway by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!

  20. "Worldwide"? by Kludge · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    That is not what it sounds like to me:

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

  21. Re:Dancing Monkeys and Lawyers by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    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.