Slashdot Mirror
Google Expands 'Right To Be Forgotten' To All Global Search Results (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Google has confirmed that it will be updating its 'right to be forgotten' so that any hidden content under the ruling is removed from all versions of its search engine in countries where it has been approved. Until now Google had only been removing results from the originating country and European versions of its search engine, such as google.co.uk and google.de. The EU had previously asked for an extension of the rule to include all versions of Google. Last year, French data protection authority CNIL threatened the tech giant with a sanction should it not remove data from all of its global platforms – such as google.com – in addition to its European sites. Now, Google's new extension of the 'right to be forgotten' is expected to come into force over the next few weeks.
Well first and foremost I'll start this post by saying this whole debacle has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten, that's a different separate thing that isn't even law yet.
The issue is that Google is in breach of Europe's data protection laws in that it's illegal to hold personal data on an individual unless you have legal reason to do so. Legal reason can be a number of things such as being a newspaper dishing dirt on a public figure - the public interest defence - through to being law enforcement, through to being a company whom has received permission to hold the data by the individual in question, i.e. your bank who you allow to know who you are to be a customer.
The problem is that Google doesn't fit under any of these exemptions, it's simply got not legal right to hold much of the personal data it holds, so the issue isn't as much as it's displaying the search results but that it's harvesting and storing data that it has no legal right to store itself.
So to your question about whether this should impact the whole world or not, the answer is, "it depends". You can argue that European data protection law should only cover companies operating in Europe, but here's the thing, given that Google shouldn't have taken a copy of that data from Europe in the first place it begs the question, should Google display it anywhere? This is a broad philosophical question in law, it fits alongside questions such as:
- If the age of consent in a country is 18, but someone visits a country where it's 16 and has sex, should they be prosecuted when they return home?
- If someone engages in tax evasion, but moves the money they were legally obligated to pay to a country overseas where the money wouldn't have been taxed, should the bank return that money to the country it was owed?
There's no right answer as any answer is inherently subjective. The same is true here in Google's case - some may argue that once Google has transferred data out of Europe that it can do what it wants in the country that it's copied the data to. Others will argue that Google should delete the data altogether because it's copy of the data was made illegally in the first place.
Google's argument is that it just harvests all data and that it's too difficult to separate that which it's legal to harvest from that which it's not, but ultimately all businesses face difficult problems resulting from legislation, and difficulty of solving a problem really isn't a valid excuse to break the law.
Of course, the water is muddied even more by the fact that the data isn't even always copied illegally from Europe. If someone from the US posts personal data of a European on a US hosted blog by a company that only operates in the US and Google takes a copy and only makes it searchable in the US then it's all out of Europe's jurisdiction anyway (though the person posting could find themselves in trouble if they ever travel to Europe). If a European did the same using a US blog hosted in the US then it's that European who is responsible. The problem is of course that Google also wants to operate in Europe, and so that creates the additional complication of the fact it's effectively present in Europe, but trying to argue that European law doesn't apply to it's operations abroad even though the victim is in Europe - it's effectively arguing that it's the location of the crime, rather than the location of the victim that matters in determining jurisdiction. If you shoot someone across a national border, then which country's laws apply? I don't think there is one single correct answer to that - again, it's going to be wholly subjective.
Put simply, this isn't a simple problem, and it's a growing pain of increasing globalisation and difference in laws between nations. It's not even just law in this case, it's a difference in culture - Europeans put privacy above absolute free speech, and Americans put absolute free speech above privacy. Each will declare their cause the most just, but really, we know that censorship is a tool of dictatorships, yet we also know that lack of respect for privacy is the tool of the police state and widespread NSA style dragnet surveillance.
My question is why are they not having information that "violate their privacy, or no longer relevant to public interest" removed at the source. Why manipulate search results if the original is removed...
Allow me to chuckle at all those people who claimed Google would never agree to this and simply pull out of France too. I'm glad to see that European privacy laws have real teeth.
And I'm sad to see that they are interfering with free speech.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
These aren't "privacy laws". They are simple censorship. The information on Google is not private.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"Instead of reprogramming your own memories to suit your perceived ideal, erase it ineffectively?"
I didn't get that from the article at all. I don't believe it's trying to change perceived reality but provide some 'privacy'. This is not a 'bad' thing.
Example: My daughter (lets younger than a teenager) was kidnapped a few years ago -- and her name and/or picture were all over the radio/tv/internet before she was recovered. It's taken a few years for the search results of her name to dwindle (with me running around to various news sites asking them to please remove my daughters name and blur her photo). Honestly, most news sites were very helpful with this -- it just took time and a hell of a lot of 'foot work' finding the right people to talk to. Blogs on the other hand were a mixed bag. Some were "no problem" while others were outright hostile (I used the same polite request to all sources -- basically copy-paste).
But now, search for her name and nothing on any search engine comes up page 1 or 2.
THAT info screams to me to be removed. Not the NEWS but instead of a victims real name use something else. Instead of photos, blur them.
What kids dont search their names on the internet -- or their friends names? How is it helpful to have kids re-traumatized with nosy questions (at best) and mean/nasty comments at worst? I believe we have the right to keep some things private -- and we can argue this if you like but I believe very few people would argue about victims privacy and fewer still about children's privacy.