Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Google Privacy The Internet

EU Court to Rule On 'Right to Be Forgotten' Outside Europe (wsj.com) 182

Posted by msmash from the setting-precedent dept.
The European Union's top court is set to decide whether the bloc's "right to be forgotten" policy stretches beyond Europe's borders, a test of how far national laws can -- or should -- stretch when regulating cyberspace. From a report: The case stems from France, where the highest administrative court on Wednesday asked the EU's Court of Justice to weigh in on a dispute between Alphabet's Google and France's privacy regulator over how broadly to apply the right (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternative source), which allows EU residents to ask search engines to remove some links from searches for their own names. At issue: Can France force Google to apply it not just to searches in Europe, but anywhere in the world? The case will set a precedent for how far EU regulators can go in enforcing the bloc's strict new privacy law. It will also help define Europe's position on clashes between governments over how to regulate everything that happens on the internet -- from political debate to online commerce. France's regulator says enforcement of some fundamental rights -- like personal privacy -- is too easily circumvented on the borderless internet, and so must be implemented everywhere. Google argues that allowing any one country to apply its rules globally risks upsetting international law and, when it comes to content, creates a global censorship race among autocrats.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Court to Rule On 'Right to Be Forgotten' Outside Europe More

EU Court to Rule On 'Right to Be Forgotten' Outside Europe

Comments Filter:

  • How can the EU court rule on anything outside of Europe?

    • Re:Ask Slashdot: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @01:45PM (#54841059)

      If the EU laws work outside Europe, won't China'a laws work outside of China? Why pay for the big firewall, they could just demand removal of all "objectionable" content! Be careful what you wish for....

      • Of course there will always be pockets of information that don't forget. But yes, this is the future we are headed for sadly.

      • Re:Ask Slashdot: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jonsmirl ( 114798 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @01:56PM (#54841127) Homepage

        The whole approach to this is screwed up. Why is Google in the middle of it? The correct approach is to bring the person complaining and the website hosting into court and come to a decision. If the decision is to prevent listing in search engines, then modify the site's robot.txt to stop any search engine from indexing the page. In the current messed up situation Google has become judge, jury and executer for the decision. In my opinion that is abdication of governmental responsibility. It is the judicial's responsibility to interpret these laws, not some panel of Google employees. Google on'y responsibility should be to respect the directives in the robot.txt.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          The whole approach to this is screwed up. Why is Google in the middle of it?

          Because Google is the international company they got some jurisdiction over unlike a US web host who would tell the EU to suck it. Because it's okay for countries to have different laws and if France wants some fucked up law for Google France that's their choice. But if they don't like that other countries on have different laws and that the French can access it over the Internet, they should just cut the wire. Not try to force their laws on anyone else.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          The whole approach to this is screwed up. Why is Google in the middle of it? The correct approach is to bring the person complaining and the website hosting into court and come to a decision. If the decision is to prevent listing in search engines, then modify the site's robot.txt to stop any search engine from indexing the page. In the current messed up situation Google has become judge, jury and executer for the decision. In my opinion that is abdication of governmental responsibility. It is the judicial'

          • First off, it only applies to search engines. It doesn't apply to content.

            Why do people always say this as if it's a defense of RTBF? I think it's one of the largest things condemning it.

          • First off, it only applies to search engines. Second off, it will only apply to y next. Then Z. And so forth. Look up "precident".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The rule doesn't apply to the web site hosting the data in most cases. It applies to companies providing information about individuals on request, i.e. Google when someone types in your name or credit reference agencies.

          Things like newspapers are mostly not affected, but it's debatable if having a search box on their web site might create some liability.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • If the EU laws work outside Europe, won't China'a laws work outside of China? Why pay for the big firewall, they could just demand removal of all "objectionable" content! Be careful what you wish for....

        They could. And they can. No matter what the EU does.

      • If the EU laws work outside Europe, won't China'a laws work outside of China? Why pay for the big firewall, they could just demand removal of all "objectionable" content! Be careful what you wish for....

        It's a good question, but I can assure you that they don't care if doing this allows China to do that to them. There's no protected free speech in the EU so the idea is pretty entrenched that speech can and should be restricted/regulated in the EU and France in particular has been pretty keen to insist that its laws apply everywhere. There was a case some years ago where France tried to block Ebay from any listings anywhere in the world for Nazi memorabilia although selling such is and has been perfectly

        • There's no protected free speech in the EU
          Fhat is nonsense. It is ones of thee first paragraphs of ever constitution in the EU.

          • Can I say "Nazis are Great"? If not, you don't have free speech.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        That isn't the argument being made here. The French are saying that because Google has a search business in France, they are covered by French law and thus the parent company to which it is linked must also comply.

        It's similar to how just because a company is incorporated in some tax haven and sets up a subsidiary in France, doesn't mean that the French staff can't be held responsible if the parent company refuses to provide legally required financial information to the French authorities. Especially as the

        • This is very different. This case is about the EU trying to suppress search results on Google's servers located in the USA. Google is already suppressing the results on its EU based servers. In the US the First Amendment specifically stop the government from doing something like this. So the EU is trying to get Google to stop doing something in America which is specifically protected in the US Constitution by punishing the EU subsidiaries.

          China performs similar censorship. They do it via the Great Firewall

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            So the EU is trying to get Google to stop doing something in America which is specifically protected in the US Constitution by punishing the EU subsidiaries.

            That's what I said, you are agreeing with me. The point that the French are making is that just because some other country makes something legal, doesn't mean that some subsidiary in France can say "oh but it's legal over there, and even though we use all the data and services from that country in France we are still exempt from French law". Basically if google.fr used its own search database and services rather than just a localized version of the .com one, they wouldn't be making this argument.

            it won't be long until China starts doing this to foreign companies with Chinese presence.

            It already

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Firewall, remove all objectionable content but some one some where, will always object to any imaginable content. Only one solution, global thermonuclear war, the only way to remove all possible objectionable content is to eliminate all those who could consider it objectionable, now that's a real firewall ;D.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        If the EU laws work outside Europe, won't China'a laws work outside of China? Why pay for the big firewall, they could just demand removal of all "objectionable" content! Be careful what you wish for....

        The fact that powerful nations can put pressure on other nations, even other powerful nations are the reason the US has foisted it's terrible copyright laws on every other country on earth.

        They did this by economic and diplomatic pressure.

        The EU, for all its flaws are relatively benign. The biggest thing you'll have to worry about is having to call Champagne produced in California, "sparkling wine".

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The same way the US does via FATCA and other laws... Either play by their rules overseas, or you will be penalized domestically. Doesn't matter if your domestic subsidiary did anything wrong, we'll penalize you anyway.

      • Yes, they could hurt domestic business, but Europe doesn't have that kind of clout outside its borders. I mean, yeah, Google will cave, but that's only because they have a physical presence they don't want to give up. Doesn't really matter, we won't get unfiltered searches without a distributed search engine [yacy.net] anyway. There's no other way around arbitrary and capricious law written by feudal bureaucrats.

    • The EU is emulating the US court system by making decisions for citizens outside of their borders.

      • making decisions for citizens outside of their borders

        Europe has been doing that for over 500 years. I guess old habits really do die hard

      • Actually we make decissisions about citizens living in our borders, and how they should be treated world wide.
        A small difference :)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kergan ( 780543 )

      Have you been living under a rock? They have been doing so ever since LICRA vs Yahoo.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]!

    • Seems like saying "You have a right" to something is useless if it's foiled by geography of the internet.

      If you have a right to free speech in the US, but your Chinese made computer and phone started automatically censoring you from criticizing the Chinese government or Foxconn, even in the US, I'm guessing we wouldn't be quibbling about issues of borders. You'd chuck your equipment out the window and buy new stuff of course, but if that somehow weren't an option (as it's not here), your next thought sh

      • 'Privacy rights' don't give you the right to censor the internet. And there is no 'right' to be forgotten. The concept is indeed insane. Nobody has a right to erase a memory. I hope any and all circumvention efforts succeed in telling all the governments to blow it out their ass. An indelible, universally accessible internet is a worthy goal.

        • Re:Ask Slashdot: (Score:4, Insightful)

          by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Thursday July 20, 2017 @01:23AM (#54844315)

          And there is no 'right' to be forgotten. The concept is indeed insane. Nobody has a right to erase a memory.

          You're confused on the concepts here because of the poetic license taken with "forgotten." We're not talking about erasing memories from human brains, we're talking about removing personal data from the internet. From computers. Why on earth wouldn't a human have the right to have their data removed from the internet? What's so insane about it? I did it just today by deleting a facebook post.

          You seem to think this is big government doing something evil rather than government trying to protect rights of citizens from big undemocratic greedy corporations. THAT is insane.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        I'm European and I think the EU was nuts to recognize a "right to be forgotten". It should more properly be named the "right to silence", because what it does is compel other people's free speech to go away. Not by gagging it, but by making sure nobody finds it which is underhanded and wrong in more ways I can count. It's like saying you can have your soap box, as long as I can put a glass dome around you so nobody can listen. If there's anything actually illegal published like your medical records or sex p

    • How can the EU court rule on anything outside of Europe?

      1. USACorp is based in the United States. They have done well, and have expanded across the globe.
      2. They notice they can't sell ads or other products as well without local staff managing the language and cultural differences, so they setup a company based in the EU. This also makes it easier for their EU customers to purchase from them.
      3. USACorp does something the people of France don't like. They are told to stop doing it in France, and they comply.
      4. France notices that only stopping it in France doesn'

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        8. Users in USA are suddenly finding that their USACorp products are hobbled by French laws.
        9. USA users leave USACorp for their competitor.

      • USACorp is the best in trying to apply US laws in other countries. That's why we are stuck with FBI (which has no juridiction) on DVDs and DMCA take down notices are being sent across the world.

    • They can ban companies not obeying EU laws from the EU. So short answer, yes.

    • How can the EU court rule on anything outside of Europe?

      I predict that this particular revolutionary French idea will be forgotten by about Primidi de Nivôse.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      Of course.
      As soon they get that neat EU army they want and use it to enforce their thing worldwide.
      They could even use it to get Britain back to EU!

    • Meaningfully? They can't. They can try, but there's no way to enforce their decision. So they probably won't try.

  • All complaints about U.S. websites must be sent in English, with no arrogant condescension, to complaints@usa.gov. Please allow 4 - never weeks for processing of your bullshit whiny complaint.

    • From my experience with French and Russian image websites, they have no problem accepting DMCA complaints in English and replying back in English for emails. Submitting complaints in English won't be a problem. However, they might expect a faster response as they got back to me within 45 minutes to 48 hours..

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ls671 ( 1122017 )

        However, they might expect a faster response as they got back to me within 45 minutes to 48 hours..

        You do you mean "they might expect a faster response"?

        If you complain to them, they are the ones responding to you. They don't expect any response.

        What are trying to say? I am puzzled by your sentences.
        Thanks in advance!

      • wait, you are sending DMCA (a US law) complains to French and Russian web sites?

        • wait, you are sending DMCA (a US law) complains to French and Russian web sites?

          Yes, they accept the DMCA takedown notice at face value with no questions asked. Some of the Russian contact forms have a pull-down menu option that says, "DMCA Complaint".

  • To me Google and others are incorrectly using the TLDs to skirt local laws and it has the potential of biting them and us collectively in the ass. I don't think we'd even have this court case if Google were to follow EU law for queries coming from the EU regardless of TLD.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      If you access a different TLD, then you are connecting to servers in a different country, therefore the location IS very different.

      • If you access a different TLD, then you are connecting to servers in a different country

        The TLD of the domain generally has nothing to do with the location of the servers. Some countries even make a tidy profit letting foreign sites use their TLDs when they happen to be common suffixes. Examples: goo.gl (Greenland), itun.es (Spain), spoti.fi (Finland), buy.me (Montenegro). The servers for those TLDs, and their intended audiences, can be located almost anywhere in the world.

        When the intention of registering a *.uk domain is to cater to users in the UK, it makes sense to host the servers there a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          The TLD of the domain generally has nothing to do with the location of the servers.

          In fact... this is incorrect. Usually they are directly related. Usually companies place the servers that will ultimately
          handle the HTTP request for a given TLD within or near to the geographic area of that TLDS' users.

          Yes, some TLDs are (mis)used in different ways, and some smaller companies put all their servers in one country, and still serve
          out multiple TLD versions of their website from the same datacenter.

          • Usually companies place the servers that will ultimately handle the HTTP request for a given TLD within or near to the geographic area of that TLDS' users.

            Near the users, yes, for performance reasons. However, while it may be common practice for companies catering to users in a particular country to register a site with the corresponding ccTLD, this is not something you can take for granted in the general case. Apart from certain unusually restrictive ccTLDs, the servers (and users) for any domain may be located anywhere in the world. A ccTLD suffix is at best a hint about the intended audience, subject to many exceptions.

            Perhaps "nothing to do with" was a bi

      • But you do know that the TLDs have nothing to so with the location of the server?
        I hosted a .com domain for a decade in Germany, and that is actually nearly ten years ago that I canceled that domain.

        The TLD thing is no argument anyway.
        We are tlsking about EU citizens. They have 'the right to be forgotten'. Can't be so hard to implement it world wide instead of trying to decide by domain or location if you show the 'inapropriated data' or not.

        I actually don't get what the fuss is about this. I you want to li

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          I actually don't get what the fuss is about this. I you want to life in a law less zone that is fine for you.

          Just because you live in a zone with fascist anti-Speech laws for protecting a right to be "forgotten" and erase what was publicized about you don't mean the rest of the world does.

          Your country might grant you the right to be forgotten by restraining companies' free speech, but your country don't have a right
          to restrict what gets stored on and served out to the world by by servers outside your cou

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luthair ( 847766 )
        As others pointed out, that isn't necessarily true - it also isn't important, the company is still doing business in the country. Consider a call centre, if you get an offshore rep can they do things that would be illegal under your countries laws?
  • The whole right to be forgotten thing is asinine to begin with.
    It doesn't remove any of the source information - it just makes it harder to find - and makes the net less useful.
    • What if we start indexing the public information of all these cases and let you precision-search forgotten-web?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jaa101 ( 627731 )

      The whole right to be forgotten thing is asinine to begin with.

      It doesn't remove any of the source information - it just makes it harder to find - and makes the net less useful.

      That's beside the point here. Clearly in Europe many people disagree with you and their laws reflect that. There are always going to be issues that people and countries disagree about around the world. What we're about to find out is how the world-wide internet, and specifically multinational companies, deal with conflicting laws.

      One approach might be for Alphabet to compartmentalise itself so that its search engine operation has no legal presence outside one or a few jurisdictions, possibly just the US.

  • Will the right to be forgotten include the ability to erase other people's literal memories of whatever it was that you did?

    • Nope. Nothing gets erased. Things are barred from showing up on certain searches, which is old hat to Internet search companies.

      A long time ago, records were paper and searchable as paper, so if you did something wrong it wouldn't be associated with you after some time. Credit bureaus, for example, could have legal limits on how far back they could go.

      This is an attempt to return to that long-ago time when you could have a second chance to make good.

  • As an American (Score:2, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

    The right to be forgotten violates my cultural beliefs.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by dunkelfalke ( 91624 )

      And so do nipples. Some cultural beliefs are backwards on that way.

  • What "Right to be Forgotten"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @03:24PM (#54841803) Homepage Journal

    What is this "right to be forgotten"? I don't think, it exists — or ever existed — nor should exists. My memories, what I have seen, heard, and otherwise experienced are mine, however and wherever I recorded it.

    Suppose, technology allowed (wait, it already does [iflscience.com]!) to carefully erase human memories — would it suddenly become your right to demand, for example, your ex submits to wiping out his memories of your time together?

    Would it be Ok for employers to wipe out the memories employees may have associated with the employment upon its termination?

    There is no such "right", we all better stop pretending it exists.

    • My memories, what I have seen, heard, and otherwise experienced are mine

      And as long as you keep *your* memories to *yourself* then you are talking about something very fundamentally different to what is being discussed here.

      But then I don't expect this concept to be universally understood when the world has a very different approach to people's actions:
      e.g.
      USA: Smoke a joint, get charged, go to jail for a short period of time, do your time, end up with a public record, have that fuck up your life as you're unable to get a job because no one wants to hire a criminal.
      NL: Smoke a.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • All fine and dandy but... (Score:3)

    by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2017 @03:44PM (#54841919)

    How is it going to be enforced? Court ruling is useless wihout instruments to make it work.
    I can only see things going one way: ultimately, it's just the same as China's governmental firewall and other countries that demands companies to have special filters and special rules put in place to operate inside the country. And that only affects Internet access inside the country, it cannot and will not be enforced anywhere else by some sheer will and bravado.
    If the data that is supposed to be erased is lying outside France or the EU, they won't be able to do anything without international agreements and a huge ammount of diplomacy.
    This is actually worse than what China demands.
    And if neither the company nor the country's government it's located at decides to comply, then it goes towards sanctions and whatnot...
    which is something I highly doubt any country government would be willing to do for something as controversial as rights of people to demand that content about themselves be erased from servers, or access to it be unlisted from search engines.
    And don't get me wrong, I'm all for a privacy pushback, and privacy protection, but this isn't how it's gonna happen. This is bravado. Politicians and judges all around the world are behaving like spoiled brats these days, and it's starting to look really bad.

    Just think about it. France is telling us to go after Google because it didn't erase information that our citizens requested from servers located in our country. Fuck that shit. What government is going to comply with something like that without asking something in return? Forget US that obviously has a ton of lobbyists there to dissuade politicians from taking any action, imagine other countries that are far more corrupt, that have more important priorities, and/or don't give a shit about what France or EU wants.
    It's quickly becoming too apparent how much inside a magical bubble some politicians and judges seem to live in. Time to wake up, stop wasting time, and put up laws and rulings that have real effects, not just this stream of bullshit that is never going to catch.

  • Everytime these over-reaching verdicts come up, I refer to the Bokki-Wokki Supreme Court ruling, whereas in compliance with Bokki-Wokki accessability and inclusion laws, every world-wide web page reachable from Bokki-Wokki needs to be presented in the Wokki language. Starting January 1st of 2015, non-compliance carries a B 10,000 penalty (USD 25,000) per day, up to a maximum of 999 trillion Bok.

    Ridiculous? Of course. But so is European courts deciding what a Canadian website operator using Canadian infrastr

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close