Google to French data cops: Dot-com RTBF? Baiser ma DERRIERE Google has refused to comply with French data cops' demands to apply the European "right to be forgotten" across the globe. Chocolate Factory privacy counsel Peter Fleischer said in a blog post on Thursday that Google begged to differ with the French data authority CNIL’s interpretation of the so-called right to be forgotten ( …
I think both sides in this have some valid points, but its not like they are going to agree on it anytime soon.
However, what this points out is that google's search is not actually that good, i am always getting old results.. pages from 4 or 5 years ago and when you are searching about IT matters eg. looking up an API or how to use a particular python function, old forum posts and outdated code get really tedious.
Shouldn't google be saying "this is not an issue because we have now factored DATE, into our search" ... something that seemingly has eluded them for years.
Google are right though, why should citizens throughout the world be subject to the EU's laws, they have no ability to vote or be represented in such courts. How would the EU feel about china demanding certain things be removed that the EU would much rather remain for example? Without a worldwide government, such things can not be enforced globally.
Well, hardy ha! I think you understood my point, I forgot that posting on here I had to double check every possible hole less some asshole ignore the point of my post and take issue with a minor point of it. Of course they have to listen to their own country, their own country can close them down. That does't really change the point of my post though does it.
I suspect that copyright gets into rather different territory than RTBF, as it (the 'C' in DMCA) involves a good many treaties where copyright in one country is treated as copyright in others as well. RTBF is unencumbered by such matters and is the law only in the EU. The cases are not at all comparable in scope.
RTBF probably could be extended by treaty to countries outside the EU but not, I think, the US where it appears it would conflict in a pretty straightforward way with the first amendment. As much as some of our progressives, so called, want to cripple it, the first amendment is likely to remain as is due to the difficulty of the constitutional amendment process.
"why should citizens throughout the world be subject to the EU's laws, they have no ability to vote or be represented in such courts"
Funny. Replace "EU" with "America" for a taste of reality.
The pendulum swings both ways and both sides need to get their shit together and understand that what's in another country is in another country...
I think you'll find Google are just grand standing (to use a term from their home country). If they did a geo lookup of the IP and gave French IPs the same results as if they had used google.fr the French government would probably let the matter go.
Instead Google prefer to try and spin some positive publicity out of it.... nice try but doesn't work for me.
What cheek.
So basically Google now thinks that it can do whatever it wants anywhere as long as it is not against "global law".
Care to explain that to the Chinese government ?
Oh, of course not. Try pulling that off in Beijing and you can say goodbye to your Chinese customers for a good, long while. So you only do it where you're confident that your customers will not be subject to such sanctions, smirking all the way.
Assholes.
Well over on our side of 'The Pond," Google is a citizen with rights such as the right to free speech. There is a standard to harm allowed by speech, but that standard is far, far lower than on your side. Now it's (theoretically) possible for France and/or the EU to erect a barrier, to wit the Great Firewall of Europe. It's also (theoretically) possible for France and/or the EU to directly prevent certain packets from crossing into their jurisdiction, as China does. What's not allowed is for France to tell me, or Google for that matter, what I can speak or not speak on the interwebs. Google and the networks they are have transiting their speech are the controllers. Should you declare such authority, all I can say is good fucking luck with our courts, especially our Supreme Court (ref: Citizens United). Ouch.
>Well over on our side of 'The Pond ...
I think that there is a misunderstanding of what is being asked of Google here. Having read the ECJ decision at the time my impression was that as long as the search results are available within the EU the 'right to be forgotten' applies; it is immaterial through which domain the the search was made as long as the user is in the EU. Hence it seems Google could comply by always forcing the redirect from google.com to an EU site or by applying the EU filter to results from google.com when it knows that the search originates from the EU (as it does as it forwards to a national site by default). Of course, Google could also comply by applying the EU filter everywhere, but this is not its only option.
However, if Google were to display search results on EU persons outside EU, there might be an issue of having exported personal information from the EU in the sense of the data protection directive; to qualify for the 'safe harbor' exception making such export legal Google has contractually committed to apply the key principles of the EU data protection law to the information thus exported.
Also, I don't think this is free speech issue in the sense of the US (Constitution as that only limits what the US (or a state) government can do to prevent such speech (and the US (or a state) government is not involved).
> I think that there is a misunderstanding of what is being asked of Google here. Having read the ECJ decision at the time my impression was that as long as the search results are available within the EU the 'right to be forgotten' applies
Honestly, I do not think it's a misunderstanding so much as a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth by the author and editors of this article in order to concoct a sensationalist story or sheer incompetence and comprehension powers well below what should be expected of an aspiring journalist. Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Your impression is correct, btw.
The point is that providing a free search engine to the people of the world... costs a lot of money. Google's investors want that money back, and so Google monetizes its services through things like advertising. French courts certainly can block the ability of Google to sell things to paying customers in France - as long as it does business in France, it is subject to French law.
This can be a problem for businesses with worldwide operations, as each country has its own laws. And so usually countries seek to minimize the extraterritorial impact of their laws to avoid creating insuperable problems for worldwide utilities as useful as Google. Thus, the complaint is that France isn't being reasonable, not so much that it isn't within its rights.
They could just prevent access to all google-owned domains except google.fr in France; I'm pretty sure that would cover the ruling and it would also wake the authorities up to what they're asking once everybody went absolutely mad at them. The Spanish have lost a great many small publishing companies since the introduction of the Google News Tax law led to the closure of Google News in Spain. No doubt that one will be repealed sooner rather than later.
So basically Google now thinks that it can do whatever it wants anywhere as long as it is not against "global law".
Someone forgot to read the part where Google has complied with RTBF for the local domains...
Try pulling that off in Beijing and you can say goodbye to your Chinese customers for a good, long while.
Beijing isn't asinine enough to require Google to censor their .com domain, though. Don't believe me? Do an image search for "Tiananmen square" on google.com...
Unlike "derriere" vs. "cul", I missed this problematic aspect of the translation.
This reminds me of the scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" where Frenchmen atop a castle wall try to swear at King Arthur and his men with hilarious results - apparently, trying to translate swearing in the other direction has the same result.
Heyrick, both approaches are necessary and complementary. May I enquire about your involvement with EU legislation in order to put into perspective your appreciation?
You do know that you can ask your favourite MEP and the EC for whatever explanation you feel is necessary concerning the motivation, intents, and goals of any EU legislative act, right?
Or would you just rather base your opinions on some blog post?
It certainly is true that newspapers probably would be able to mount an impressive case in court - since jurisdictions in the EU also respect free speech rights - against having to delete old news from their database. Although British libel law does categorize defamatory statements that are true, but nobody else's business, as libelous, unlike U.S. libel law.
If this kind of stuff is taken off of Google, though, it becomes effectively impossible to find.
Unless people can find it on Baidu or Yandex... I'm assuming that the European courts haven't forgotten about Bing, for example, but there are search engines in jurisdictions with fewer ties with Western Europe than the United States.
As for blocking Google.com from Europe - I have to admit that's easy enough for Google to do, so they can't really complain that Europe should have to build its own Great Firewall at its own expense. Of course, preventing Europeans from using U.S.-hosted VPNs is something Europe would have to do itself, if it wanted to go there.
From the headline I realise that you do not speak French¹ but the CNIL press release clearly states:
"La CNIL considère, conformément à l’arrêt de la CJUE que le déréférencement, pour être effectif, doit concerner toutes les extensions et que le service proposé via le moteur de recherche « Google search » correspond à un traitement unique."
It says nothing, one way or another, about worldwide delisting². It refers to "all the [domain] extensions that the service offers via the 'Google search' engine".
If you cannot comprehend the difference between a domain extension and a service being provided in a given geographical location, I respectfully suggest tech journalist may not be for you.
¹ I guess you intended to translate the Americanism "kiss my ass" but instead your headline reads, a bit nonsensically and with a grammatical error, "to fuck my behind".
² Although insofar as it concerns a EU citizen and a company subject, by direct jurisdiction or via treaty or another instrument, to EU privacy and personal data rules, worldwide delisting could be legally envisageable.
Google is not a country.
People belongs to a country. Not to Google.
So, when nations are asking for something so simple to protect people from getting hurt (and from Google itself), so politely, so honestly, I believe it would be of Google interest to comply with those countries.
That said. The translation is wrong indeed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
