Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday December 12 2016, @06:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the please-block-my-myspace-page dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story concerning Google's enforcement of search privacy laws across international borders:

What if links to stories about someone's past—stories about defrauding an international business or about medical tourism malpractice—were removed from Google search in your country, not because of your local laws but because someone was able to use the laws of another country. How would you feel about that?

That question may seem simplistic.  But it goes to the heart of a very important debate that is taking place now in Europe, initially between some Data Protection Authorities and, next year, in court. At stake: whether Europe's right to be forgotten—which allows people in EU countries to request removal of certain links from name search results—should reach beyond the borders of Europe and into countries which have different laws.

Google believes it should not. That's why, for much of the last year, we've been  defending the idea that each country should be able to balance freedom of expression and privacy in the way that it chooses, not in the way that another country chooses.

Can the requirements of different countries be balanced at all?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by BK on Monday December 12 2016, @09:26AM

    by BK (4868) on Monday December 12 2016, @09:26AM (#440283)

    only available to a very small subset of the population

    “Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”

    Remind me again who this small subset would be? People who need the information no doubt.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Monday December 12 2016, @09:50AM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday December 12 2016, @09:50AM (#440291) Journal

    “Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”

    So, can I have your passwords, please?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by tathra on Monday December 12 2016, @05:17PM

      by tathra (3367) on Monday December 12 2016, @05:17PM (#440449)

      dont forget bank logins, credit card numbers, PINs and passwords to access them, etc. oh, lets see some nude pictures too, and videos of you together with your wife. after all, thats all nothing more than information. unless, BK, are you saying you dream yourself our master?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @07:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @07:26PM (#440513)

      Sure!

      It's password1.

    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:29PM

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:29PM (#440818)

      I wonder if passwords are not so much information so much as they are digital keys to digital locks.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:04PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:04PM (#440971) Journal

        Those two are not mutually exclusive. My door key also is both substance and a physical key to a physical lock.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday December 12 2016, @08:09PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @08:09PM (#440529) Journal

    People who need the information no doubt.

    In the UK it is essentially limited to police forces and the judicial system. They have to be able to take previous convictions into account if appropriate for crime detection (e.g. finger prints) and legal sentencing. At some point you have to accept the rule of law or throw it away completely. If you can't trust your police forces then you have a bigger problem than you first thought.