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.

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'.
Post Comment
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Enter the smallest number of 4, twenty four, 90, 59 or thirty three: