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: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 12 2016, @08:34PM
Seconded. The problem is that Big Data makes everything always available to anyone with money to back their questions.
Any reference to the good ol' past is moot, because there used to be a cloud of "ain't worth the effort" on old, public, available information gathering. We don't live in that world anymore.
Some countries did learn about the dangers of having high-tech ways to process population-wide databases, and how private companies could be either eager of coerced into it. It's not so different whether you're making a list of Jews, Asian-Americans, Muslims, new moms, or people going to lesbian bars. You want to target them for something that fits your murder/jail/plots/sales/blackmail objectives. Maybe, just because it's easily done, it shouldn't be.