Slashdot Mirror
France Tells Google To Remove "Right To Be Forgotten" Search Results Worldwide
An anonymous reader writes: France's data protection authority rejected Google's appeal to limit how a European privacy ruling may be applied worldwide. Since the European Court ruling last year Google has handled close to 320,000 requests, but only de-lists the links on European versions of its sites. "Contrary to what Google has stated, this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the C.N.I.L. to apply French law extraterritorially," the agency said in a statement.
Another problem I'm having with this is that when you look at the way other countries handle information they don't like (that is, national firewalls) why is it that France doesn't just step up to the plate and create a GFW around their own border routers to prevent their citizens from accessing undesirable Google pages? Why is it Google's responsibility to make sure that French citizens can't see what their government doesn't want them to see?
I'm French and I kind of want google to blackout France for like a month.
That'll teach us.
It's a good thing you Americans aren't arrogant imperialist bastards, cause if you were, some people might take your sentiment the wrong way.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
If removing the results worldwide isn't apply French Law extraterritorially, what is it?
They should absolutely leave France. Individual EU countries have some extremely bizarre and authoritarian rules. If each and every one of them can apply them extra-nationally, then we have an intractable problem.
For example: Sweden forbids communication of the race of criminals in their press. A muslim man rapes a white woman? The race of the attacker is protected by the state.
Can Sweden enforce this anti-free-press ruling extra-nationally? What if they can?
The only answer is to leave said little fiefdoms entirely and let them wallow in isolation and non-standard tech.
You know Muslim is not a race, right?
Who do they think they are? Americans?
To be fair, there is actually some sanity to the French ruling.
Putting aside the argument about whether people like the level of data protection citizens in Europe get or not, the fact is that Google breached European data protection law - that is not in doubt, that is what the original "right to be forgotten" ruling is about - I put right to be forgotten in quotes, because none of this has anything to do with the right to be forgotten, that's a new thing that's being written and not even in law yet, quite why Google and the media are desperate to get that wrong all the fucking time I've no idea, but it is what it is.
Google's breach was purely about the European Data Protection Directive and it's national implementations, given that we know Google breached European law in this area, it's also worth pointing out that Google should not have had this personal data in the first place. Under the Data Protection Directive, simply censoring it in one jurisdiction is not sufficient remedy, the law is clear, if Google is informed that it has data that is incorrect, no longer relevant, and it holds that data under no protective clause (e.g. law enforcement), then it must correct or remove this data - there's no "Oh it's okay, we've moved it offshore to America" - that in itself is illegal if it shouldn't be holding the data in the first place.
This isn't just about Google, ALL companies wishing to operate in Europe and hold personal data fall under the exact same set of rules, it's only Google that seems to have a problem with it for whatever reason. But right or wrong, the fact is that simply censoring search results jurisdiction by jurisdiction was clearly never a valid legal remedy to the problem. It's not surprising that a court has pointed this out to Google - Google needs to understand that if it wants to operate in Europe, then any personal data it holds on Europeans must be protected to the exact same standards as every other company in Europe is expected to and largely does treat it. Oddly, I notice Google puts a blanket note saying some results may be censored on ANY search for a name on Google whether results are censored or not. It's odd that they do that when say, they only list DMCA takedown notices where a search result brings one up.
Honestly, the fact Google is so alone in desperately fighting this one I'm genuinely beginning to wonder if there's some truth in the conspiracy theories about Google being an NSA data harvesting tool. The massively organised propaganda campaign it's creating on this one, whilst every other company operating in Europe manages to deal with the law without any issue is weird to say the least.
the claims should go to the source (ie. the person hosting the resource/info). If they can't get them to remove it, then tough titties
Data protection laws in the EU don't work like that. Google provides a service that allows you to research individuals by typing in their name. Other companies that do that have been regulated for many decades, e.g. credit reference agencies. It was never the case that the source of information had to remove it, e.g. a newspaper that reported on an arrest (which did not produce a conviction) or a bankruptcy. It was always the case that companies who provide a service for collecting and supplying this information were regulated.
It makes sense to do it that way. The other way would require censorship of the media and a great deal of effort on the part of the individual. Just because it's "on the internet" doesn't mean that Google is exempt, or that it's suddenly censorship because it offers what was once a paid service for free.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Because he's not blind to reality?
Except the page is not removed. Only the search engine's index to the page it removed. If there truly is a right to be forgotten, why is the EU not going after the source?
Why should Google be responsible for Geo-locating request sources etc? That gets nasty quickly with things like VPNs etc.
I think Google should just update their TOS to say if you are in Europe you are not permitted to access Googles search services except via one of our EU based domains.
Then if the French come crying that when someone goes to www.google.com and still gets full search results. Google can just say well we never offered that service in the EU. People doing that are violating our terms of use, we are simply declining to pursue any legal action against these violators.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This is probably the sort of topic you should add your usual disclaimer about being a Google employee on.
Anyway:
> (1) They haven't judicially defined what constitutes public interest -- because they can't because it's subjective, and making such a decision would piss everyone off and demonstrate the absurdity of the law. So there's no legal test for yes/no.
It's decided by a court, so yes there is a legal test. The court will weigh up the possible harm to the person whose personal data is being published against the benefits to society at large. So for some random guy with no media exposure who committed fraud 40 years ago, and has been saving puppies, painting rainbows and generally giving up his entire life to make the world a better place ever since, there's no genuine public benefit in publishing that past conviction - it's long expired under law, it's no longer declarable, and there's not the slightest shred of evidence to suggest it's even remotely representative of him today. In contrast, if someone was only found guilty 10 years ago, and has been investigated a couple of times since, and is running for office against someone whose never had such a conviction and has always been financially prudent then there's clear public interest in knowing about the indiscretions of the past fraudster.
> (2) France is still being pissy, and this is retaliation for the whole "media thing" that France had hoped to impose on YouTube and Google Play.
No it's not. Google broke the law and it's as simple as that. Google has no defence under the European Data Protection Directive to hold this data. This is nothing more than the judiciary applying the law correctly. If you disagree you need to tell me which exemption under the data protection directive that Google's apparent need to hold irrelevant and out of date personal data falls under, because I can't see one. Europe isn't America, we still maintain a pretty healthy separation between government and judiciary when it comes to legal decision making.
> (3) They know that they can't win, so they're dragging their feet. It makes the politicians look like they are doing something, without actually having to really do something.
What do you mean they know they can't win? Are you actually saying as a Google employee that your employer's policy is that it intends to persist in breaking the law in the hope that because they have plenty of money they can be above it? Are you sure you don't want to think again about that point. I'd like to hope that's not Google's policy - that if the law doesn't please, them to keep ignoring it in the hope it is invalidated especially for them. If that is what you are saying then that's chilling, that Google's own employees openly admit that they feel Google is above the law and should be able to unilaterally destroy laws created in democratic societies against the will of the populace.
I've no idea what you were on about in 4, 5, and 6. You stopped making sense, it seemed to stray into paranoid conspiracy theory territory at that point.
I often wonder if perhaps the reason the NSA figured it's fine to blanket spy on American citizens is because you guys in the states are so quick to sell your privacy down the drain in defence of corporations violating it to which you owe absolutely nothing. When you have zero respect for things like personal privacy and rehabilitation it's hardly surprising that your government doesn't either. So just like your high school shootings and such, NSA spying is something you should probably stop whining about given that you all rabidly defend the very environment which allows it to happen in the first place.
You are your own worst enemies, don't expect us export your hypocritical idiocy over here.