I asked directly Google a remove request which has not been accepted by Google team. I fully agree that Google disagrees with the CNIL’s assertion of global authority on this issue. But any person in the world should be heard by Google when this person asked for a remove request.
Your argument is a bit skewed.A quick and unimaginative search on google.fr yields the following notice at the bottom of the page:"In response to multiple complaints that we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 3 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at ChillingEffects.org: Complaint, Complaint."Moreover, these complaints refer to sites hosted on various domains outside the US, including EU.Google agrees to enforce the protection of US-based intellectual property, but refuses to enforce the protection of EU citizen. Double standards ?
You deliberately play stupid but you know very well the legal situation. The point is not "Google globally" but google.com (.fr, .es etc.) accessed from a European member state. Neither did the EUGH establish a RTBF, it just ruled that it also applies to Google subsidiaries, nor did the EUGH exempt *.com services."We believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access."Did they do it? No they didn't.
Are you really not able to differentiate between requests to protect the privacy of individual persons and requests which try to suppress political statements?
Wow! You nailed it. I was just thinking that as I read the statement.
You cannot make a serious argument by asking this question, sorry.. especially since at the very core of this ruling is the legitimacy of whether or not people have an expectation and right to privacy when they associate with actions that are reported by the media or in public places (such as the internet). While you might think it's a given I assure you that huge swatches of people, likely more educated than you on the topic, and from a more diverse backgrounds do not consistently agree with your standpoint and yes those people and countries do have a right to decide that for themselves. This is legal overreach by the CNIL and should not be tolerated lest you forget why you hate Americain politics so much.
Your arguments is "others are more educated than me" and "not everyone agrees with me". That's a very weak discussion base.Why do those people, you're talking about, want to decide about the privacy of people living in foreign countries?
Great. does this mean Google has stopped complying with the patriot act? Or is it just that complying to this law hurts Googles business model directly?
Comparing the rights of a individual to be forget in certain circumstances with the right of a country to limit free speech and discriminate minorities is more than inappropriate for a corporation, which labels itself as 'Don't be evil'.
Are the human rights of a person localized to a certain zone in the world.In this case the European Union. As Google seems to be convinced of .Or are they a Universal rigth valid for each human anywhere.It seems that the misunderstanding lies here.
Google MUST respect the decision of CJEU.That's enough of CEOs, shareholders and BOA deciding what they can and can't do ; you must respect our democracies and our laws, that's all.
I hope this is a joke.How can something be forgotten if it is still available?You should abide the law, at least for french citizens.
As you said other versions of google are used by 3% of the French queries. Should we also allow people to be drunk 3% of the time they drive?
I'm cEuropean Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent. As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.onfused by the notice posted on my blog
Dear Peter,A few things: first, the when you state European not global, you might want to take into account that the European market is larger than the American: there are more people living in Europe than in America ! Thus given its 'consumer power', google will have to fall in line or suffer the consequences.Second, google has serious privacy issues and its image has been significantly tarnished by its cooperation with the NSA and other agencies, despite its company motto 'do no evil'. Snowden has revealed the truth: google (among other large US companies) is actively circumventing privacy of millions of people.While google , chrome and android are top brands, currently that is, the issue of privacy is not going away and google will have only a few choices: put its clients back in the driver's seat and give us back our privacy and rights and fully support this vision throughout, or perish. Remember Lycos or Yahoo search ? Once at the top, now only shadows of their former glory. While google as a company has much to offer, its ethics form such a big obstacle that it is already loosing market share on all fronts, if it is unable to see this and realise this predicament, then its glory days have come to an end.The true measure of a man and company is not in the words it utters, but in the actions it takes ...
Google is very deeply wrong in its conception of mankind, No civil rights or liberties are safe in the world of GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple). Major world companies have always overruled democratic government decisions or found deals with non democratic ones... but it's a quite a bit different with GAFA : they are colonizing our cyberspace... All countries, as human organizations, are losing their digital sovereignty to GAFA... but those companies are not democratic organizations. they are totalitarian. deeply. brutally. They pretend to fight for freedom, sure... they only fight for economic power and financial results !
If Google was respectful of its users, it would ask them if they want to be cookied and not just warn them that they are !GAFA has no respect for humans : they're nothing but consumers, worth the next buck they can squeeze out of them...
Quotes:"This is a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web.""We believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access."Question:How do you, Google, deal with the NSA which is only "national", right?
Finally some sensible reasoning. Who do the French think they are? They should not be allowed to screen our search results. I am with Google on this.
Good job guys :)
Shouldn't a country that does not approve of another country's website just block tho sites IP addresses from it DNS servers.Yes, I agree that is censorship but because laws differ in different country's this may be the only way to do it without trying to impose one country's laws on the whole world..For instance some country's age of consent is lower than the US so adult sites in those countries may contain material that is illegal in the US. Wouldn't the US just be better off blocking those sites, than trying to police millions of internet users.Germany also has laws against Nazi memorabilia which are viewed as collectibles in other countries. Is it reasonable to bring internet companies to court when the governments can block sites that are illegal according to their laws?
From a philosophical and moral point of view you are right in your reasoning. The problem is, for similar problems you went the other way. ( Google.de results filtered due to the DMCA http://i.imgur.com/VX9fy8n.png?1 ). How exactly do you reconcile these two positions?
Good for Google. The right to be forgotten. Even the right should be limited. likely the heirs of Hitler would like some of his 'no longer relevant or excessive', actions to be forgotten. I don't think that's a good idea.
In this case, Google is 100% right, the French court is ignorant, stupid, arrogant and wrong.
do no evil
Screening your posts, I see. How ironic. =D
Perhaps Google will have to change its legal structure to a franchise operation so that each country is a completely separate business independent of all the others, so that no matter what legal guns are brought to bear in a particular country there's little impact on the global operation.
So Google, through Google News and its search engine, provides information, true or false, about people. Google users have no way to know, in many instances, whether this personal historical information is true, false or even if legally it was removed from public records through judicial 'sealing' of cases. Google users receive the info, especially decades older information, but recent info as well, and make decisions based on this information. Indeed, Google provides information for government data bases which it then provides as a search result. So false, mis-leading or even decades old news reports containing information otherwise only part of sealed court cases can become revived information, because of Google's businesses that provide anyone with a computer or other device access to its websites.Lives, futures, careers can be damaged, as mine has, with no recourse legally or even a Google-based procedure for stopping the search result from appearing. Only in the most extremely clear cases will Google block search results. Such clear cases are not the problem, for their is so much false and otherwise misleading information now in Google's 'hands', that many people may fall victim to the super-availability Google provides of information that long ago would have otherwise disappeared from public access. This unearthing of up to multiple decades of information may include the bringing to life information about persons when they were under the age of 18, which current media/legal standards now prohibit.The individual hurt by Google's business may never know that the decision not to hire or promote or retain was connected to information provided by the company's search engines. No easy remedy, perhaps no real remedy can exist given that such information about the reasons for decisions by Google users may never be divulged to the person effected. To allow a person to proactively request privacy from Google to protect themselves does not seem such an unreasonable request given the invisible nature leading to sometimes life-altering negative outcomes arising from Google's search results.Bruce Lohmann
The "right to be forgotten" should cover privacy, which means personal circumstances of an individual, not facts about states, governments or enterprises and probably also not about individuals representing such entities. Claiming the introduction of state-censorship through this law is a malintentional twist of the facts. Also, the US quite regularily forces the rest of the world to follow its rules, be it data spying or boycots. Now it is high time that for once "even the US" will follow rules set up by the European Court if US companies want to do further business here.
if you find information about you that you don't agree with why not go after the one who posted it? Would you tell a store not to sell a publication because there's an article about you that you don't like? No, you go after the author of the article and if you can prove his/her actions caused you unnecessary harm then you take action against them. If a site or article is delisted from Google it doesn't cease to exist. It's still there and there can be many other ways to access it because contrary to what some people from the EU seem to believe Google is not the Internet. With all the anti-Google rhetoric and talk about how they should put customers first I have news for you. Competition is just a click away. It doesn't take you 5 seconds so stop complaining and do something about it, switch!
Not a lawyer, otherwise you'd know you can "ask a store to stop selling a publication because there's an article about you that you don't like"
"We believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access."Wow, Google, what a bold statement!As a European, I also believe that no one country should have the authority to force anybody to violate European laws.I hope you guys will also have the guts to stand up for European data privacy rights, next time the NSA fascists demand that you illegally hand them over protected data of European citizens.
Good on you Google - wish you all the best in the fight against European Censorship.
240 years since the revolution and Europeans still think they're in charge. Never give up, Google. Surrendering is for the French.
I particularly approve of the comment "I hope you guys will also have the guts to stand up for European data privacy rights, next time the NSA fascists demand that you illegally hand them over protected data of European citizens."very much this. If Google want to deem their non-French operations to be free of control by France, they must also not allow the NSA, CIA or FBI to try and control their non-US operations unless the US government uses the inter-governmental relationships to raise a warrant or legally binding request in the country where the action is required.At the moment it seems the US government and their agents and minions want it to always work in their favour.
Could you please enforce an "American, not global" DMCA ? Thanks.
The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. This exemption was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. The Copyright Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU.I guess they are following US and European Law. It only took me 5 seconds to do a google search and find this information so I would know what I was talking about
You are welcome to comment here, but your remarks should be relevant to the conversation. To keep the exchanges focused and engaging, we reserve the right to remove off-topic comments, or self-promoting URLs and vacuous messages