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.

62 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Considering how fast Google ditched China by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With China being a MUCH bigger market and all, I could see Google just outright leaving France if it came down to it. Maybe Jacques Chirac would finally get his wish of a French owned search engine.

    1. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      I don't see a need to leave ALL of Europe. It's just French law that seems to have a problem.

      Think of it like how Google simply closed Google News in Spain last year. They didn't need to close it down for all of Europe.

    2. 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?

    3. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Schmorgluck · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a EU-wide policy that the CNIL is merely spearheading.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    4. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Schmorgluck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because Google has activities and even assets in the EU, and must comply with the EU's data policy.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    5. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm French and I kind of want google to blackout France for like a month.
      That'll teach us.

    6. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by ASDFnz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Citation needed.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      There you go :D .

    7. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      The Right To Be Forgotten is one of those things that just can't be enforced well, which also runs counter to most other countries' ideas about fundamental rights.

      I think it only runs counter to America's ideas about fundamental rights. Every other country seems to be fine about letting the government control what people can and can't see.

    8. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      At the point where government officials abuse the policy and the "watchdogs" nod and grin.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by rioki · · Score: 2

      Google is a search engine, it should not be liable to the content it indexes. The "right to be forgotten" as applies to say Facebook makes sense, if you close your account you have the right that all content about you and of you is deleted. What google is handling is not data about people, it's data about publicly available web sites. If a news outlet reports falsely about you, bring it up to them (slander and libel laws). But articles that are truthful a few years in the past should not be magically delisted.

    11. Re: Considering how fast Google ditched China by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Google could in protest stop indexing all french pages and then we will see the result.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    12. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ridiculous. There is no such law forbidding communication of the race in Sweden. What exist are volontary guidelines in the press to avoid mentioning race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, UNLESS it is relevant.

    13. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Solandri · · Score: 2

      They don't need to leave France. They just need to detect if a French IP is trying to access Google sites other than google.fr, and redirect you to a page that says per French court decision, you are prohibited from using non-France Google services. Sucks for the tourists who are visiting France and want to do Google searches in any language other than French, but that's what VPNs are for.

      If France then wishes to prohibit VPNs, they'll raise the ire of both freedom-loving liberals who use VPNs for anonymity and will begin to compare France to Communist China, and conservative corporatists who use VPNs for security. I'm almost hoping that'll happen just so I can watch the fallout in the elections.

    14. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by unrtst · · Score: 2

      Some details would help your case...

      If the "right to be forgotten" applied to Google's cache of pages when those pages no longer exist, then I could concede to that provision. IE. Google shouldn't be maintaining an archive of (probably copyrighted) pages indefinitely for its own gain, especially once those pages go away, and then, even moreso, once someone specifically asks that those pages go away.

      However, I don't think that's exactly what's happening. IMO, like the RIAA cases, 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 - google gets to keep indexing it cause it's what there is on the web. I'm pretty certain that's NOT how things work, but I wish it were.

      (granted, I have no idea if any of the above is actually what's happening, or if it's what you were motivated by)

    15. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      It seems the French government is only complaining about people within France being able to change too easily from Google.fr to Google.com to get around the censorship.

      In other words, if China were to ask the same thing (and they could since Google has decided to go back there), it would demand that the original Daila Lama be removed from all the googles search results of all the countries (when those other googles are being accessed from a Chinese ip geolocation). Technically, this is feasible, but imagine the additional waste of time this asinine request would create for every internet company out there.

      France is essentially demanding that internet companies region-lock themselves. And of course, there are only two ways they'll be able to region-lock themselves, either they'll filter their results according to geolocation, or the lazier of them will just prevent their users from accessing sister web sites outside of their designated geolocation.

    16. 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?

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

      Who do they think they are? Americans?

    18. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a European who is generally very fond of the European Union, I'm truly ashamed about this "right to be forgotten". Whenever I see a link removed, I use a proxy to switch to Google US and I've seen countless abuses of the system. Many of the search results that are removed are clearly in the public interest.

      I cannot believe that there is no discussion about this at higher levels of the EU. If France got this right world-wide, why not Russia, China, Saudia Arabia, or Nigeria? This regulation makes no sense whatsoever. The judges who decided in favour of it must be mentally retarded.

    19. 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.

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

      Yes but it appears that only the French are bonkers enough to think to apply the law world wide.

      They are actually not trying to apply the law world wide. They are saying that it applies to all the search results Google serve to EU users, regardless of the URL used to access that search result (google.fr, google.com, google.xx). It is perfectly possible for Google to geo-fence this, and many large online services do this on a regular basis.

    21. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You are extrapolating way beyond what is possible. This ruling is only possible for things covered by European data protection rules, not random laws from individual member states.

      In any case, Google is beholden to US laws. If it gets a DMCA request it has to act, even if the site is in the EU and someone is searching for it on an EU TLD. Users in Europe regularly see notices about DMCA take-downs having removed search results when using their local Google sites. So if Google has to obey US law because it does business in the US, it seems reasonable that it should also have to obey EU law because it does business in the EU, and in both cases the law should apply world-wide.

      It wouldn't be enough to leave France, Google would have to get out of the entire EU. Considering that the EU market is bigger than the US I really doubt that they will do that. More likely they will just comply with this limited and reasonable ruling. We are talking about removing some search results when searching for specific individual's names, where it has been determined that the public interest is outweighed by the individual's right to privacy, and where the information is still locatable with different search terms.

      Any arguments about slippery slopes and the like can be made equally against US law. Arguments about freedom depend very much on your definition of freedom: in Europe privacy is a freedom, a human right that is protected by our highest laws. Europe won't accept being less free because the US disagrees.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

      I cannot believe that there is no discussion about this at higher levels of the EU.

      The real problem here is that:

      (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.

      (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.

      (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.

      (4) They are laying the groundwork for a closed-door advisor position, whose job will be to write reports and justify why "it doesn't apply in this case" decisions, and then collect their paycheck.

      (5) As soon as the problem is closed door, it effectively goes away, because there's no longer any public leverage.

      (6) Then the worst that can happen is "an investigation of the department of investigation", which they can pretend takes as long as they want to/can push off the issue, and then conclude that there was no wrongdoing.

      Problem solved. Back to business as usual.

    23. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    24. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by gsslay · · Score: 2

      Many of the search results that are removed are clearly in the public interest

      The thing is that you don't know on whose request a web page has been removed. You could claim a news story about a murderer is in the public interest, and that murderer has no right to be forgotten. But what if that particular page mentions members of the murderer's family, who are completely innocent of his crime? Maybe it is they who have asked to have the page removed.

      So it is not easy to spot obvious abuses of the system, when you don't know the basis for the removal.

    25. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I think it only runs counter to America's ideas about fundamental rights. Every other country seems to be fine about letting the government control what people can and can't see.

      Wrong and wrong. The US government regulates what you can see just like every other government. Some documents are confidential or secret, some images (e.g. child pornography) are illegal to possess or view.

      Other countries have similar laws, but they also recognize that privacy is a freedom. The US is very big on "negative" freedoms, that is freedom from government interference, freedom from things that prevent you doing or saying what you want to. In particular, the almost absolute right to freedom of speech means that privacy is quite weak in the US.

      The EU has a lot more "positive" freedom, that is where the government does something to increase your freedom to enjoy life and prosper. One of those is the right to privacy, where the government enacts laws that protect some of your information that would cause you problems if made public.

      For example, the US prefers a low tax, low welfare system. Lots of negative freedom from taxation and the government interfering with your life. The EU prefers a higher tax system, with more welfare, free healthcare etc. So less negative freedom, but more positive freedom because in practical terms if you get really ill and can't work and need expensive treatment you won't end up bankrupt and maybe untreated. In other words, the US sees being pennyless and on the street with cancer as been more free because at least the government didn't tax you so much or force you into Obamacare, but the EU sees it as a loss of freedom to enjoy life and prosper so tries to correct it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Can you explain why you think Google should be able to violate an individual's privacy for profit? Or why you should have a right to know about things in an individual's past that are either irrelevant to you or have been deemed by law to have been forgiven and forgotten.

      If the EU can impose this world wide, then you are right that other countries may want to as well. That's the nature of doing business in different countries, you have to abide by their laws or leave. I'm not sure why that is surprising to anyone. The US enforces the DMCA world wide on Google search results, for example. When I use the .jp or .co.uk versions of Google I often seen links to ChillingEffects.org and a DMCA notice at the bottom of the page.

      Maybe Google should leave the US, to avoid being oppressed by the mentally retarded people who drafted that law.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by leptechie · · Score: 2

      France is not asking for this right worldwide, merely that there are not loopholes that can be exploited by the covered jurisdiction. As long as Google ensures requests from France (probably via GeoIP) to all of their assets worldwide blocks content France specifies the loophole is closed. It's the trivial nature of the workaround that is at issue. France's jurisdiction to compel a company's foreign operations to comply to their law is interesting, but I don't see this as onerous.
      Yes, the next point someone is going to raise is proxies and VPNs to appear as local GeoIP. Anyone doing this is intentionally violating French law on the reight to be forgotten, and I would then be livid if France ordered universal censorship in response - as long as Google shows good faith, that should be good enough.
      I am not agreeing with this law, but Google is not a sovereign entity - it must comply or exercise the right to not serve those markets. As for the other censorious states, they too would only have the right to censor locally sourced queries while the rest of us can happily discover all the dirt on their protected classes.

    28. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're making many false assumptions. Many of the links that are removed have nothing to do with a person's privacy and are relevant to the public.

      For example, some of the links to articles and posts about possible ties of Anna Ardin to CIA-funded institutions have been removed in Europe. You can easily check this. You might think that her privacy is being violated and that she's the victim of a smear campaign. But even if that is so, she is also clearly a person of public interest and her past political affiliations are important information.

      This is just one example. There are numerous more, even politicians have been caught to remove unwanted links to their past. Just check what is being removed by comparing to the US Google results.

      And yes, Google has been trying to fight DMCA takedowns for many years, and the corresponding laws were also made by mentally retarded people. Nobody seriously doubts that but two wrongs do not make a right.

    29. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by Raumkraut · · Score: 2

      Actually no, as I understand it they are asking for Google to stop misusing other parties' intellectual property, for want of a better phrase.
      In the same manner that US corporations have certain rights over their own creative works, and enforce those rights through the DMCA; EU citizens have certain rights over their own personal information, and can now enforce those rights through this so-called "right to be forgotten".

      If US-based DMCA takedowns affect more than just Google's US-local domains, and they do, why should these EU-based takedowns not be treated similarly?

    30. 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?

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

      It's insightful because America is notorious for applying its own laws extraterritorially, ie inside other countries. American judges truly believe that what they have to say should apply to all people on earth. The French are merely copying the principle. Expect other countries to follow as well. Turnabout is fair play and all that.

    32. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      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?

      You've got it completely backwards. This isn't about keeping people in France from seeing something.

      France is trying to protect their citizens' right to privacy / right to be forgotten / data rights globally instead of just in the EU (where they are protected by EU law).

      Google doesn't want to do this because they want to sell EU people (including French people) data as a product.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    33. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2

      What if a Christian rapes a white woman? Is the race of the attacker still protected?

    34. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is probably the sort of topic you should add your usual disclaimer about being a Google employee on.

      Former Google employee. Also former Apple employee, and former IBM employee, etc..

      It's not really relevant, since I'm not saying anything near my NDA, and just expressing an opinion as a private person with a somewhat deeper than normal interest in the workings of cases involving former employers.

      > (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.

      Sorry, no. The original court decision upholding the validity of the law only said "an overriding public interest". It did not define what constitutes "an overriding public interest", and that was left ambiguous. Just as it became Google's "responsibility" to block the content, it also became Google's "responsibility" to decide what they though a court in each country where the law applies (all of the EU) would likely decide on a particular "forget request".

      Note that the criteria thresholds in the U.K. are based on "public persons", and are derived from English Common Law, which is where the UK gets their ideas of what they believe constitutes "libel" and "slander". In France, there are slight differences, since their legal system is largely based on the Napoleonic code. While both of them can historically be traced (eventually) to the Code of Hammurabi, and thus have common roots, the criteria of what is involved in "an overriding public interest" differs between the two nations.

      Thus the whole thing is ambiguous in interpretation, and left to a third party, because it's a political third rail between the nations which make up the EU.

      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.

      Clearly then, he has redeemed himself in the eyes of society, so bringing it up in polite conversation, since people will recognize that themselves, without the need for a law to enforce that It Is Never To Be Mentioned Again. At worst, the person mentioning it will be considered rude and boorish, right?

      [...]Google's apparent need to hold irrelevant and out of date personal data falls under, because I can't see one.

      Remove it from the original place of publication, or protect it with a robots.txt, and the data will be removed from the next iteration of the index. Good luck with Internet Archive...

      > (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?

      I mean that they are trying to argue with a technology that was engineered and implemented to be resilient to disruption. In the Second Gulf War, the U.S. bombed the crap out of communications infrastructure used for Iraqi command and control systems. And their command and control systems stayed up, despite more than half that infrastructure being bombed to oblivion. Because *that's what it's supposed to do*; that's what it was *designed* to do.

      Some nation's law requiring information destruction is going to be about as effective at removing the information as the

    35. Re: Considering how fast Google ditched China by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Hey look it's our actual Google shill at it again!

      Hey dumbass! I left Google in 2013!

    36. Re: Considering how fast Google ditched China by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's insightful because America is notorious for applying its own laws extraterritorially, ie inside other countries. The French are merely copying the principle.

      Then maybe France should try becoming the world's superpower, before trying to act like one.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    37. Re: Considering how fast Google ditched China by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2

      Kim Dotcom.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    38. Re:Considering how fast Google ditched China by rch7 · · Score: 2

      It is about France and EU laws, not about US. You in the US have some laws and customs that look weird and medieval in the EU. Like allowing to publish underage arrest records, allowing extort money to remove them, and all various kind of medieval crap. In Europe privacy is somewhat more valued than in the US. Now Google being big US corporation is arrogant enough to attempt to push US laws and understanding how things should work in the EU. Sure, judges in France told them to ... off. Typing google.com instead of google.fr while being in the EU doesn't make you immune from EU law, is it so difficult to understand?

    39. Re: Considering how fast Google ditched China by Raenex · · Score: 2

      And yet I doubt you could cite a single incidence of the US applying US law in other countries using the US court system as you have claimed.

      You aren't familiar with the US's war on Internet poker?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  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. Re: Go France!! by queazocotal · · Score: 2

    'France needs Google more than Google needs France'.
    Google makes around a billion dollars a year from French users.
    This is only a percent or so or US profits.

    The question is not if france needs google more than google needs france.
    It's if google needs a billion dollars more than the slight reduction in profit elsewhere due to users boycotting google.

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

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

    1. Re:French Law extraterritorially by Guybrush_T · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up.

      I'm french, and of course I see as a joke the CNIL asking google to remove search result worldwide. But you should be aware that the world knows pretty well US laws for a simple reason : US laws tend to apply worldwide, in a large number of domains (not just technologies).

      So, US people whining about losing "sovereignty" by having a french rule being applied worldwide is quite funny.

      Back to the real subject of that ruling, what CNIL is trying to achieve here is the right to be forgotten. I know this can easily lead to censure, but with our privacy being invaded more and more every day, this may be an interesting point to address, worldwide.

      Also, keep in mind that the CNIL is seen in France as the only pro-citizen entity against the companies which want to track you, spam you, and make your life a nightmare. They may have gone a wrong way here, but they're usually really helpful to protect citizens.

    2. Re:French Law extraterritorially by tlambert · · Score: 2

      It is, nobody is refuting that. However the US is doing the same.

      That's totally bullshit! The U.S. is definitely not applying French Law extraterritorially!

  5. google did it in a wrong way by jarkus4 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google just removed the results from some local domains (fr, co.uk etc), but left it working for com domain. Basically it means they failed at delisting since EU citizen can still easily avoid it. Instead they should comply by doing some kind of geoip delisting as then they would be really compliant within EU jurisdiction.

    1. Re: google did it in a wrong way by oobayly · · Score: 2

      Why should they? People in France are likely to use Google.fr because it's more relevant (and the correct language).
      Should EU courts also be allowed to force companies to filter content when they receive phone calls from within the EU?

      If you don't want your citizens viewing content that is not allowed to be served in your county then block it yourself, don't expect others to do your dirty work for you. Fortunately, the people in charge are slowly waking up to the idea that that isn't even remotely possible.

    2. Re:google did it in a wrong way by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      Google just removed the results from some local domains (fr, co.uk etc), but left it working for com domain. Basically it means they failed at delisting since EU citizen can still easily avoid it. Instead they should comply by doing some kind of geoip delisting as then they would be really compliant within EU jurisdiction.

      No, I am in France using google.com and searching (for example on myself) I get this message at the bottom of the results page:
            Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  6. Story is wrong by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    The story is wrong. The court did not instruct Google to delist worldwide. Rather, the court instructed Google to delist from all Google domains, but Google only needs to delist when the query comes from a European IP address.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Story is wrong by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The critical text here is: "when offering services in Europe" . No compliance with the directive is needed when offering serivces outside of Europe.

      Next stop:

      Google is responsible for policing requests made from VPNs for the French, since it's technologically impossible, but the French really hate VPNs, and are hoping Google will find a way of determining the origin country of a VPN through magic pixie dust...

      Allllllllll aaaaaabbbbboarrrrd! The insanity train is about to leave the station, and gaze into its naval! Fasten your seat belts, and keep your head, arms, and legs inside the technology ignorance train, until it comes to a complete stop!

    2. Re:Story is wrong by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Story is wrong by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Yup, and you are the driver. You extrapolated from a clear, narrow ruling that demonstrates an understanding of how the internet works and what is required to comply with the law, into your own crazy fantasy.

      --The Story so far --

      Insane policy: "Right to be forgotten" is technologically feasible
      Google response: Block default Google property from displaying "forgotten" content for users from France
      French users workaround: Go to a Google property in another country
      French government response: *All* Google properties must not display "forgotten" content for users from France
      [ ... ]
      -- Obvious escalation path --

      Naive idiot suggestion: Use same IPGIS system as a content blocking signal as is used for web site redirect to country specific site
      Proposed *bad* Google response: Implements same system as a content blocking signal
      Technical details: Signal is implemented via additional HTTP header (same as the current IPGIS redirect Google does)
      Repressive government response: Transparent proxy performs same header injection
      Bonus points: Transparent proxy required government cert to use
      Bonus bonus points: All encrypted HTTPS traffic is now monitored as cleartext by the repressive government via MITM
      Chinese government reaction: Cool! Now we can use less equipment and manpower to implement the great firewall of China!
      Turkish government reaction: Cool! Now we can block all external use of Twitter anytime anyone disses Tayyip Erdogan!
      Islamist militants in Bangladesh reaction: Cool! Now it will be even easier to find bloggers like Niloy Neel and hack them to death with machetes, too!
      [...]

      IETF Reaction: WTF?!? Didn't we F'ing *reject* the "trusted proxy" proposal on the grounds that governments will jail or kill dissidents?
      IANA Reaction: WTF?!? Didn't we F'ing *reject* the "trusted proxy" proposal on the grounds that governments will jail or kill dissidents?
      IEEE Reaction: WTF?!? Didn't we F'ing *reject* the "trusted proxy" proposal on the grounds that governments will jail or kill dissidents?
      W3C Reaction: WTF?!? Didn't we F'ing *reject* the "trusted proxy" proposal on the grounds that governments will jail or kill dissidents?
      WHATWG Reaction: WTF?!? Didn't we F'ing *reject* the "trusted proxy" proposal on the grounds that governments will jail or kill dissidents?
      W3C Reaction: Are you idiots still here?!?
      WHATWG Reaction: Shut up! We're still relevant!
      W3C Reaction: No you're not.
      WHATWG Reaction: Am too!
      W3C Reaction: Are not.
      WHATWG Reaction: Am too!
      W3C Reaction: Are not.
      WHATWG Reaction: Am too! Times infinity! Neener neener!
      [...]

      Naive idiot reaction: BWAH HA HA HA! I was a sock puppet for a repressive government all along!

  7. Every other country will ask Google to censor the by eibo · · Score: 2

    Do they even know, what they are asking for? If they are absolutely insisting on enforcing the ludicrous "right to be forgotten" a Great Firewall of Europe it needs to be then, as only that will enable the invention of history, which at its core it is.

  8. Statement is hogwash by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    The French Statement is malarkey. "Finally, contrary to what Google has stated, this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the CNIL to apply French law extraterritorially. It simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe." So we're not applying our laws extraterritorially, we're requiring the company to do so if they want to do business here.

    To be fair, a lot of other countries have some form of that. But it's still ridiculous.

    If they had said you had to geofence the results so they're not accessible in France, it would be more believable.

  9. Typical sensationalist Slashdot subjectline by luvirini · · Score: 4, Informative

    The French do not try to apply them worldwide.

    They want Google to apply them to all searched from France regardless of the domain name. Today you can just type in google.com or any other national domain and bypass the law.

    1. Re:Typical sensationalist Slashdot subjectline by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2

      So what they want is a regioncoded Internet where every company deliver a different internet depending on from which country you come from ?

      Sorry, but IP-adresses and the web protocol don't contain any information about which country someone is from.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    2. Re:Typical sensationalist Slashdot subjectline by pla · · Score: 2

      They want Google to apply them to all searched from France regardless of the domain name. Today you can just type in google.com or any other national domain and bypass the law.

      So the French government blames Google for the fact that their population contains evil, evil lawbreakers actively seeking a way around whatever restraints on free speech the CNIL may, in its infinite wisdom, decide to use to "protect" the French people?

      Ford make it possible for me to exceed the speed limit. That doesn't make Ford liable for my tickets.

  10. Dear France by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Complying with your request in this manner is rather hard due to other laws of other countries we do business in that we actually do have to comply with (unlike, say, yours). Instead we did the next best thing and removed all French results worldwide. We hope this satisfies you.

    --signed, Google.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re: Go France!! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Care to inform us what we need you for? To destabilize countries politically or economically, I'm unsure which function you serve is more important.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Go limp by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd go limp: "We'll comply with your request. Please send us the contact information for the service that you'll accept as authoritative for whether or not a request from a particular IP address originates in France or not. We'll also require a binding agreement that the determination of this service cannot be contested by either Google or the French government, and that if any third party demonstrates that the service made an incorrect determination use of that service will be discontinued and the French government shall not demand compliance from Google until the French government has selected a new authority. Until we are in receipt of this information and agreement, Google will unfortunately be unable to operate the French-localized Google site and will be unable to serve search results for France or any French entity or person. Have a nice day.".

  13. I'm pretty sure the IRS would not give a damn. by tlambert · · Score: 2

    With China being a MUCH bigger market and all, I could see Google just outright leaving France if it came down to it. Maybe Jacques Chirac would finally get his wish of a French owned search engine.

    Yes, Google should just close up Google Ireland and forget about the European Union altogether.

    The IRS would love that.

    I'm pretty sure the IRS would not give a damn.

    Google is in full compliance with the U.S. law, and the laws of other countries.

    While U.S. politicians would like to get their grubby hands on, and spend some of that tasty, tasty money, the IRS merely enforces the U.S. tax code, up to and including the Criminal Investigation division sending special agents out to interview and conduct searches under search warrant, and to participate in arrests with federal law enforcement, should the U.S. Attorney determine that the evidence supports a federal arrest warrant.

    Generally, you'd have to have a lot of criminal wrong-doing, not just tax evasion, and it's a teensy bit hard to arrest a corporation, even if they are technically "people". Typically, they'd seize all assets and shutter the business. However, if you thought some corrupt bankers (who received no jail time) were "too big to fail", you have not seen what "too big to fail" actually means.

    In any case, Google is in compliance with all laws, and even should the money be taxed, it won't be double taxed by the U.S. (nor should it be); they will just open up a real estate business, or start "Google Fiber Europe" or something with the funds, since as long as the funds are earned outside the U.S., they can be spent outside the U.S. without incurring a U.S. tax burden; they only become U.S. income when they are brought back.

    In other words, even if they shuttered their search business entirely within Europe, and used the money to pay back Greece's debt (or buy all of Greece, like Kim Bassinger bought Braselton, Georgia, and then run the country better; or build ghost cities in Latvia and the Czech Republic, etc.), the money would never be realized as U.S. income.

    Also...

    Pulling out of France entirely (by blocking all access to Google properties from within France) would put the Righteous Fear Of God into the rest of the E.U., and the decision would be quickly reversed.

  14. A list of right to be forgotten links .. by nickweller · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How Hidden From Google started.

    List of BBC web pages which have been removed from Google's search results

    "Google .. has not proceeded with delisting on other geographical extensions or on google.com, which any internet user may alternatively visit .. this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the CNIL to apply French law extraterritorially. It simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe." ref