SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @03:27PM
That's not what the law is used for and you know it. If it was limited to things you did before 18 well then maybe, but it's used to suppress fraud and corruption claims so those people can go defraud and cheat more people. I seem to remember it being advertised as a way to remove false information about you and its certainly been abused. Society only needs to grow up a little bit and not count the stupid things you did 20 years ago against you. No laws needed, just some basic logic and compassion. Or you could make it illegal to hold those events against someone. Even with that there's still no need to delete records. Does this law require all libraries and newspaper companies to go through all past editions of their papers and cut out any microfilm or whatever records of the story that is being suppressed? No? Then it shouldn't be happening on the internet. This isn't even removing the content from the net, it's removing the search results to the content.
The law is bullshit, mostly used to hide corruption. There are better ways of dealing with old crimes that don't include methods to hide corruption.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @03:43PM
That's not what the law is used for and you know it. If it was limited to things you did before 18 well then maybe, but it's used to suppress fraud and corruption claims so those people can go defraud and cheat more people.
Do you have evidence that such use of the law is the typical case and not the exception?
Because the law in the EU explicitly forbids that kind of use since its clearly in the public interest for evidence of fraud and corruption to be in the public eye.
In the US we already have a law that wipes the record of bankruptcies older than 7 years. Does google deserve an exception just because they are google?
. Society only needs to grow up a little bit and not count the stupid things you did 20 years ago against you.
"Only" You trivialize what is essentially impossible.
And remember - this is not about wiping the info from websites. Its about wiping the info from search engines. None of the right-to-be-forgotten laws require that public records be censored. Only that major search engines do what they have been doing for things like stolen credit card numbers and links to pirated material. If the search engines are going to block stuff for their big corps then us little guys ought to get the same protections too.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:52AM
Agreed, which is precisely why I wrote the following:
You are criticising the implementation of the law rather than the law itself.
Again, I answered your concern. The law is quite specific on what can be expunged from one's record and what cannot. Fraud and serious criminality are not covered by this law as I clearly stated here :
And then you wander off into this marvellous example of illogical thinking...
We have made such a law - this is it. You want to replace our existing law with one of your choosing that meets your own view of the world.
Please read all of my comments before you go making future statements.