SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Google is going to Europe's top court in its legal fight against an order requiring it to extend "right to be forgotten" rules to its search engines globally.
The technology giant is set for a showdown at the European Union Court of Justice in Luxembourg on Tuesday with France's data privacy regulator over an order to remove search results worldwide upon request.
The dispute pits data privacy concerns against the public's right to know, while also raising thorny questions about how to enforce differing legal jurisdictions when it comes to the borderless internet.
Source: Original source
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google Case Set to Examine if EU Data Rules Extend Globally
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Krogt, n. (chemical symbol: Kr):
The metallic silver coating found on fast-food game cards.
-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday September 13 2018, @01:12PM (2 children)
As Runaway says, there are a lot of sides to this issue.
- The Internet does, in fact, forget. But the forgetfulness is a bit random: some important things can no longer be found, whereas trivia about the Kardashians may live on forever. Even Archive.org is kind of useless, since anyone, anywhere can say "don't archive my site". Not much of an archive, in that sense...
- This "right to be forgotten" is bizarre. It doesn't require information to be expunged from the Internet. It only requires search engines to skip indexing for certain documents. The original case [wikipedia.org] was brought by a Spanish businessman who had once gone bankrupt. The local paper wrote articles about him, and Google indexed those articles. No one ever talked about requiring the newspaper to remove articles from their archive; they only required Google to remove them.
- The decision as to what is relevant is left to the search engine. The main criterion is "the data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected". Taking the original case as an example: It seems to me that newspaper articles will always remain relevant: they document events that happened, as they happened.
- Search engines are not supposed to notify the content owners of delisting. So some of your content may be removed from the search engine, and you'll never know. Great.
- Finally, I understand the EU perspective that the "right to be forgotten" is only really effective if it is global. However, typical short-sighted politicians: If every country enforced their restrictions world-wide, everything would be censored.
The beauty and dream of the Internet is its (potential) independence from national governments. Of course governments don't want to become irrelevant, and politicians don't want something outside their power. As with the recent copyright legislation in the EU: it looks like the Internet is losing...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday September 13 2018, @03:18PM (1 child)
That's the most important point. Does the EU want the governments of China, Myanmar or any other repressive nation deciding what EU citizens can see on the Internet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 13 2018, @06:48PM
The anti-democratic, corporatist and expansionist EU? Has current legislation given you the impression the EU is busy modelling itself after repressive regimes or something?