Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wins Round in Fight Against Global Right To Be Forgotten (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the bigger-picture dept.

Google shouldn't have to apply the so-called right to be forgotten globally, an adviser to the EU's top court said in a boost for the U.S. giant's fight with a French privacy regulator over where to draw the line between privacy and freedom of speech. From a report: While backing Google's stance, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar of the EU Court of Justice said that search engine operators must take every measure available to remove access to links to outdated or irrelevant information about a person on request. The Luxembourg-based court follows such advice in a majority of its final rulings, which normally come a few months after the opinions.

Google has been fighting efforts led by France's privacy watchdog to globalize the right to be forgotten, which was created by the EU court in a landmark ruling in 2014, without defining how, when and where search engine operators should remove links. This has triggered a wave of legal challenges. The Alphabet unit currently removes such links EU-wide and since 2016 it also restricts access to such information on non-EU Google sites when accessed from the EU country where the person concerned by the information is located -- referred to as geo-blocking. This approach was backed by Szpunar.

6 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. The Right to Rewrite History by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only the wealthy can afford to employ the right to be forgotten, because it's a game of whack-a-mole. Consequently people with money will wind up looking "cleaner" than everyone else, and we won't move society forward by taking an honest look at our actual behavior and adjusting our perceptions of norms accordingly.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by Shaitan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh I support the idea we should take an honest look at ourselves and adjust our behavior but I don't agree that we should be looking at each others behavior. Society is also ruthless and unforgiving, it will always be true that many things are indefensible to those who weren't there. The only saving grace is that society has a short memory. Technology is transforming a thankfully short memory into an eternal one.

    2. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One solution to the sex offender registry is MORE information, rather than less. One guy may be on the list for raping a four year old. Another guy may be on it for urinating in a public park. Perhaps we should distinguish between these.

      A man in my neighborhood is on the list for having sex with his wife. At the time he was 18 and she was 15. Her parents disapproved of the relationship, and called the police. He accepted a plea bargain without understanding the consequences. They got married when she turned 18. Their son and my son are best friends. He must stay 300 yards from any school, can't go to PTA meetings, and has never met his son's teachers. Branding this guy for life is idiotic, since he is no danger to anyone, but that doesn't mean that the registry should be abolished for real predators.

  2. One of the dumbest laws by jwymanm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you have the right to be forgotten in books? In movies? In news stories? In schools? In songs? Since the history of man.. What the hell is EU thinking. This shouldn't even be a thing.

    1. Re:One of the dumbest laws by SysPig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We do not live in a binary world. Shades of grey exist everywhere, and this is no exception. The debate should be over where to draw the line, and who gets to draw it - not whether it should exist at all.

      Let's take the examples you provide. Which of them allows millions of devices, operated by billions of people or with complete autonomy, to access everything associated with your name in seconds? Even this information is not equal to your examples. The source of much of it is near impossible to determine, the accuracy far more suspect and in many cases it's impossible to change that which is in error.

      You know what else has existed in nearly the entire history of man? Privacy by obscurity. The fact that information could have been accessed doesn't mean it was. There was never a need to codify such things, as the level of current intrusion couldn't possibly have been predicted by anyone until relatively recent times - after which, it was too late.

  3. Legislation with unintended side effects by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "right to be forgotten" is typical of legislation where no one thought about the side effects.

    First, it only applies to particular search engines. There is no general applicability. In particular, the source information remains online - it just can't be found through Google or Bing.

    Second, in attempting to have this right applied globally, EU courts are setting an excellent precedent to have other countries determine what content EU citizens can see. After all, if censorship flows in one direction, it will flow in the other. Does the EU really want Saudia Arabia determining what web content is allowable in the EU?

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.