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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @04:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @04:03PM (#440410)

    I've ran into a similar problem, but from the opposite side.

    I heard of a case of scientific misconduct and wanted to check for sources that would detail what actually happened so I could separate the truth from rumors. Wikipedia mentions nothing and the first couple pages of search results are useless. After I keep digging, I eventually find reputable sources on the investigation and update Wikipedia since I have them on hand.

    Within two weeks the Wikipedia contribution is removed. In the article's history, removal of references to scientific misconduct (by unregistered user) has happened multiple times within a month of their addition for the past six years.

    The situation is likely a case of university-sponsored "reputation management" that pays people to use SEO and, apparently, edits Wikipedia to bury negative press.