Keep your court orders to YOURSELF – human rights chief slaps US A European human rights watchdog says companies are being pressured into acting as the internet’s unofficial cops. Nils Muižnieks – the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights – has published an "issue paper", raising alarm bells about “privatised law enforcement, suspicion-less mass data retention, cross-border …
Then what exactly have the EUC and various European courts been doing demanding that Google (a US based company) do this or that to "forget" a particular search that a person or company would like removed from Google's search index as a result of an order from a European Court?
"Muižnieks said there “should be limits on the extraterritorial exercise of national jurisdiction in relation to transnational cybercrimes”. In other words, the US shouldn’t be able to access your private data in Europe just because it wants to."
To paraphrase "In other words, the EUC (or any other entity) shouldn’t be able to access your private data in (wherever) just because it wants to."
Could you people please make up your minds and figure out what you want?
"Yesh I've been reading this since 1997 and the comments get less technical everyday. Before you type engage your brian."
Actually, comments on The Reg are among the few that (usually) get intelligent critiques instead of mere trollbait vitriol. Unless we're talking Microsoft, Apple, Google, and, oh nevermind.
No,
You are incorrect as the latest EUC punative fiasco will likely now have Google having to edit the records for dot com URLs because anyone could just type in dot com instead of .co.uk etc and find the results that Googe "de-indexed" on the European Domains.
All in the name of the same anti-competitive BS that you Euros are reknowned for. If you can't cut it, must be a monopoly.
Oh, btw BRAIN is not brian. YES is not YESH. Learn to spell.
Different issues. The 'right to be forgotten' decision was about preventing Google from disclosing certain kinds of information as a part of a commercial service provided to the public. Microsoft is currently trying to argue against being compelled to disclose a third party's information to the state as a part of a criminal investigation. There is a unifying, consistent theme of protecting privacy though.
"Then what exactly have the EUC and various European courts been doing demanding that Google (a US based company) do this or that to "forget" a particular search that a person or company would like removed from Google's search index as a result of an order from a European Court?"
The opposite of what is being discussed.
""Muižnieks said there “should be limits on the extraterritorial exercise of national jurisdiction in relation to transnational cybercrimes”. In other words, the US shouldn’t be able to access your private data in Europe just because it wants to.""
Correct.
And Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to access what ever it wants in Columbia, and China should not be allowed to access what ever it wants in Russia.
But specifically..
Courts should not be allowed to break through jurisdiction limits by ordering companies registered within their jurisdiction to hand over information on their servers in entirely different jurisdictions. Asking a company to break local laws is a bit of a nono.
"To paraphrase "In other words, the EUC (or any other entity) shouldn’t be able to access your private data in (wherever) just because it wants to."
Correct.
"Could you people please make up your minds and figure out what you want?"
We have.
Your inability to understand it however is out of our jurisdiction.
Might I suggest acquiring some Sesame Street episodes. I believe they had a song about telling things apart that you might find instructive. They use puppets and bright colours, so I'm sure the idea will eventually sink in.
Let me see if I have this right ... (admitting that lag times might get a bit annoying) ... but it sounds like a fairly simple, albeit droll, exercise to repartition my data so that different fields and pointers are stored on servers in different countries ... thereby insuring that, legally, I never have to give any data to anyone? <runs quickly off to the patent office />
No, John Bailey
This is simply a continuation of the same crap you people ALWAYS spout before you cry real tears and take your ball home. If you can't compete with a company, you just get a Eurocrat to stack the deck against them. One way or another you try to put roadblocks in front of ANY US company to make your own SEEM better. That's called Tortious Interference:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference
I AM quite able to understand exactly that, it is out of your (LEGAL) jurisdiction to make Google Ireland pay British Taxes or Google US comply with British ( OOPS I forgot) spurious, anti-competitive European demands.
A little word substitution covers the rest of your "arguments". Substitute data for the word index and you could possibly understand if you weren't busy recommending the latest Sesame Street you were watching.
I am SO sorry I interrupted your preferred viewing.
The Council of Europe is concerned with human rights, it is not a part of the European Union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
The Council of Europe has no power over individuals, only the governments that are supposed to be upholding, and occasionally abusing, their citizens' human rights.
One Eurocrat feeds another, The Council of Europe will recommend that the EUC do something that is clearly outside their jurisdiction. The so called European "Union" still can't figure it's way out of a wet paper bag.
As the article title says, Keep Your Court Orders to Yourself
OK, so to what extent is this:
(1) grandstanding for domestic political consumption (US-bashing, always popular)
(2) a serious attempt to start a debate about jurisdictional ground rules
(3) reflexive anti-American Eurocratic wankery?
Having read up on Nils Muižnieks, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and say something like 30/60/10%, but I may be being too generous.
Unfortunately, the affected parties in the US will have no difficulty portraying it as more like 40/10/50, which will give them all the justification they need to ignore it. (And Nils Muižnieks must know that, he's not an idiot. Which is why I didn't give him more credit in the first place.)
The analysis plays into the American's hands - talking about motivation not action.
Fine the companies who don't comply with the local laws and make it worthwhile for whistle-blowers.
Breaking local law is not "a new thing" which needs to be discussed and debated. Only the level and method of punishment needs discussion.
Oi, American politicians, if you try to overrule/bypass our legal system through corporates, we'll keep taking their/your money until they lobby you for a different policy.
“privatised law enforcement, suspicion-less mass data retention, cross-border pulling of data by law enforcement and global surveillance”.
When he's done with Uncle Sam, he's going to need a shipping container full of handcuffs to slap onto government types in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, etc.
I don't know, at least this posturing makes a difference from David Blunket's idea of a fair deal with the US; a completely lop sided extradition treaty.
We have such lovely politicians here in the UK.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
