Google Rejects French Order For 'Right To Be Forgotten'

Last month, French data protection agency CNIL ordered Google to comply with the European "right to be forgotten" order by delisting certain search results not just on the European versions of Google's search engine, but on all versions. Google has now publicly rejected that demand. CNIL has promised a response, and it's likely the case will go before local courts. Google says, This is a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web. While the right to be forgotten may now be the law in Europe, it is not the law globally. Moreover, there are innumerable examples around the world where content that is declared illegal under the laws of one country, would be deemed legal in others: Thailand criminalizes some speech that is critical of its King, Turkey criminalizes some speech that is critical of Ataturk, and Russia outlaws some speech that is deemed to be "gay propaganda." If the CNIL's proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place.

Comments

That's how the law usually works.

[Anonymous Coward]

If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England.

The main problem is that laws which protect Google's property - especially IP - are global, mostly thanks to international treaties. I would like to see countries where this is not so, and would be keen to find out how Google would feel about that :-).

Missing the big picture

[Himmy32]

False accusations suck, but that's not even it's primary use. But it would be naive to not consider the ramifications beyond. It could mean that search results for Tienanmen Square or Falun Gong could be missing world wide because Chinese law bans results for those pages in their jurisdiction. Every country wants their laws to apply to everyone else, but doesn't think of the consequences then of having to apply everyone else's laws to themselves.

Even more so, seems silly that the remedy to a false accusation is to delist a page from a search result. Seems that libel statues would apply that you should direct at the content publisher not the search engine.

The world will be a much scarier place if we don't have freedom of speech because some people could tell lies.

Correct me if I'm wrong....

[nj_peeps]

I thought the whole idea behind the 'right to be forgotten' was that google would 'forget' who you were. If they only forget you in the EU(search results come up as 0), but still have all the data on you (serach indexes, etc) then you haven't been forgotten have you?

I think that's what France is trying to point out here.

Re:Didn't realize Ms Streisand was French

[qubex]

Incidentally, this was also why people were so wary of outsiders: because they lacked a known history attesting to their character, and because one always wondered what incentive had caused them to favour the uncertainties of leaving their town to venture elsewhere. It is also the root origin of patronymics.

In several credited (*cough*) theories it is also the origin of money: allowing people deemed to be “credit risks” (which is to say, without a known history nor a certainty of future reciprocation) to engage in transactions.

Just sayin’.

Re:Red Herring

[david_thornley]

The original complaint was a Spaniard who had filed bankruptcy quite a few years earlier. By Spanish law, that information could not be used any more in financial decisions about him, but a Google search brought it up. The court ordered Google to not associate the Spaniard's name with the information. Removing the notice of bankruptcy would have caused worse problems.

In many cases in many European countries, information about certain things is considered no longer usable for decisions. This allows people to have solid second chances at putting their lives together, an idea that seems foreign to the US. It doesn't work if the information in question comes up in a Google search of the person's name.

There is good reasoning behind the "right to be forgotten" requests (although the system is abusable).