France rules Google must remove offending search results worldwide

by
in legal on (#PJH8)
France's data privacy regulator rejected Google's appeal of an order to remove search results worldwide upon request, saying Monday that companies that operate in Europe need to abide by the prevailing laws. If a French citizen files a request under the "right to be forgotten," CNIL said Google must comply with the order worldwide -- not just on European extensions of its search engine, such as .fr, .es, or .de for example -- or face possible sanctions. The agency denied that it was trying to apply French law on the "right to be forgotten" globally, as Google had accused the watchdog of doing.

Its latest order came in response to the May 2014 ruling from Europe's highest court that people have the right to control what appears when their name is searched online. Google says it has received 318,269 requests for removal, and delisted about 40 percent of the URLs that it evaluated as part of the requests.

Google has argued the precedent would leave it vulnerable to similar orders from any government, democratic or totalitarian. "The Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place," the company wrote in July on its Europe policy blog.
Reply 16 comments

World's least free place (Score: 3, Insightful)

by seriously@pipedot.org on 2015-10-06 07:47 (#PKC0)

I'm not saying that I agree with France's regulator point of view, but Google's argument ought to be:
The Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place in which we operate
They stopped their operations in China for reasons if I remember correctly. But sure Google, feel free to operate in North Korea to make your point and see how that goes.

Article is incorrect (Score: 2, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-06 15:50 (#PMXS)

What the court determined is not that Google needs to apply the 'right to be forgotten' globally, it is that Google needs to apply it to all domains (.fr/.com/.gl) to visitors within the EU.

Google's current implementation, removes the search results on searches on google.fr which is of course easy to bypass by simply changing the domain tld. Since a lot of netizens already use google.com by default instead of their local tld, it ends up being of useless.

Of course Google is aware of this, so they are not trying to be freedom fighters, they are just being in contempt of the courts.

If Google is really against the law, they can either actually challenge it (instead of implementing a lame attempt at trying to bypass the law) or withdraw from the EU market like they did in China at a time. Having that said money usually trumps 'do no evil' (or is it now 'do the right thing'?).

Re: Article is incorrect (Score: 0)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-10-06 18:59 (#PN70)

Oh, only in the EU. Then it is not a problem. Ok, the Germans, the Britons, the Italians, the Spanish... and many more have to forget, too, because a French court says so... But hey, their own fault that the live in Europe.

Other search engines? (Score: 1, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-06 16:44 (#PN3S)

It makes me wonder how closely other search engines are being monitored. Personally I stop using Google long ago.

Additionally I have mixed feelings about this anyway. Forgetting is part of time healing all wounds and helps people change their ways. However what "right to be forgotten" does someone like Richard Nixon (or his heirs now) have for everyone to forget his poor choices? It's infused in history and describes certain parts of society that endure.

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-06 18:52 (#PNGS)

Regardless of what you think of Edward Snowden, what would happen if you applied for "the right to be forgotten"? Does that mean that no one in Europe would be able to search for information on him?

Stupid French laws.

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-07 10:59 (#PQKZ)

It's not a French law, it's an european one.

And no, Edward Snowden wouldn't qualify for it since he is a public figure.

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-07 15:37 (#PRHW)

A public figure? If what you do can be written about on a web page then you qualify as a public figure.

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 1, Informative)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-07 15:53 (#PRKH)

It's not that simple, there are clear laws in E.U. countries in order to determine if you qualify as a public figure.

Why do you think that in order to be 'forgotten', you need to have both the approval of a judge and also of the CNIL?

In other words, it's not as simple as people try to claim it is. Why do people who haven't actually read the law so opinionated about it?

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-07 16:39 (#PRR0)

Maybe because it's wrong and evil?

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 2, Interesting)

by wilson@pipedot.org on 2015-10-07 17:10 (#PRVD)

It's completely fine to disagree with something or campaign against something, as long as you are are able to articulate why you disagree with it.

I would like the EU to avoid ending up like the US, where people aimlessly shout out every inane thought that entered their heads.

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-08 06:16 (#PTK3)

I would like the EU to avoid ending up like the US, where people aimlessly shout out every inane thought that entered their heads.
I think European countries beat the U.S. by several centuries.

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-06 21:46 (#PNZ7)

Go go duck duck go!

Re: Other search engines? (Score: 3, Informative)

by seriously@pipedot.org on 2015-10-07 08:10 (#PQ61)

from the ruling:
Par ailleurs, ce droit n'est pas absolu : il doit iªtre concilii© avec le droit i  l'information du public, notamment lorsque la personne concerni©e est une personne publique, sous le double contri´le de la CNIL et du juge.
which loosely translates to:
The right [to be forgotten] is not absolute: it must respect the right to inform, especially when the person [asking to be forgotten] is a public person. The decision must be made under control of the CNIL and a judge.
So, no, we likely cannot forget all about Nixon.

Why not go against the original sites? (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-10-07 17:45 (#PRY6)

To forbid Google to show certain search results is like ripping the table of contents from a book. Google does not make the content it just indexes it. And how far goes Google's obligation to remove search results? I create a website, which claims rightfully 'x stole y'. If this is the truth, no one can forbid me to put this on my page. But Google might get a court order to remove my page from all search results. Ok... Now I create a second, a third , a fourth page, which says the same. Who will hinder me as long as I break no law? Does Google have to hide them immediately or can it wait for further court orders? One for each site? Or must Google proof read every single page before it can make it available? Automatic text recognition? 'x stole y', 'y was stolen by x'.... There is more than one way to express a fact. Do we have to accept false positives? Each page is hidden, which contains 'x' and any variation of thievery?

Perhaps soon there will be a new business? People who help to avoid accidental delistings? "No, you cannot use those three words within your webpage... these three word are also in a page, which was delisted because of the right to be forgotten". This information cost you $2000. There are three more dangerous word combinations... Do you want to buy another advice?

I don't know, but honest censorship and good old book burning sounds like much less trouble to me and would feel far more ... erm.....yes... 'honest'.

. . . offending seach [sic] results (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-10-08 06:09 (#PTJN)

I'm already offended by the seach [sic] results. Please remove "seach" and replace it with "search"!