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.

8 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  2. Re: The world needs the U.S. more... by presidenteloco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  3. French Law extraterritorially by jader3rd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If removing the results worldwide isn't apply French Law extraterritorially, what is it?

  4. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A muslim man rapes a white woman? The race of the attacker is protected by the state.

    You know Muslim is not a race, right?

  6. Re: Considering how fast Google ditched China by cyber-vandal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who do they think they are? Americans?

  7. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by beanpoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?