Google Fights "Right to be Forgotten" Ruling

AlphaAtlas

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
Google lawyers are fighting the "right to be forgotten" ruling in the European Court of Justice, the EU's highest court. The 2014 ruling compels providers to remove erroneous, irrelevant or outdated information about EU individuals, should they ask for it to be removed. While Google partially complied with the ruling, the EU thinks Google's localized geo-blocking doesn't go far enough.

"We - and a wide range of human rights and media organizations, and others, like Wikimedia - believe that this runs contrary to the basic principles of international law: No one country should be able to impose its rules on the citizens of another country, especially when it comes to linking to lawful content," wrote Google's Kent Walker, in 2015. "Adopting such a rule would encourage other countries, including less democratic regimes, to try to impose their values on citizens in the rest of the world."
 
Google sings:

We won't, forget about you,
Even if you want us to, baby.

Even if you click on by, we'll sell your name and list what you like.
The EU ain't slowing us down, down, down.
 
The whole thing is gross.
And I hate to say it, but I agree with Google on this one. I don't care about their motives, they are right. The EU can collectively fuck itself if it thinks it can tell others how to conduct business in their own countries.
 
If you read it on the internet, then it MUST be true.......

The old adage of "only post what you don't care about others seeing forever" applies here...remember, the internet never forgets
 
Laowai said:
The whole thing is gross.
And I hate to say it, but I agree with Google on this one. I don't care about their motives, they are right. The EU can collectively fuck itself if it thinks it can tell others how to conduct business in their own countries.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it basically enables censorship. But yes, Google doesn't care about privacy.

Is there a way to make both sides lose?
 
Laowai said:
The whole thing is gross.
And I hate to say it, but I agree with Google on this one. I don't care about their motives, they are right. The EU can collectively fuck itself if it thinks it can tell others how to conduct business in their own countries.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. Imagine what the internet would be like if countries like China could impose their censorship rules on users outside their borders? Google, whatever you personally think of them, is standing on principle here, and it's an important principle. So we should stand with them, but still reserve the right to disagree with them on other issues.
 
I'm generally a strong proponent of privacy regulation, but I'm actually with Google on this one.

Google's search engine is merely a reference tool for data hosted by other people and organizations.

The privacy regulation should focus on requiring the originators of the content to preserve people's privacy, and just let Google go about their work creating an accurate reference of what is out there.

If there is information on the internet that is causing you harm, you have a legitimate gripe, but it is not with Google. It is with the source host.

Holding Google responsible for this is like holding the yellow pages responsible for the crimes of a business listed in them.
 
Last edited:
Consistent remove this erase that to comply with each country forcing their laws globally and we regress down to the least common denominator and end up with an internet like China or North Korea
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm generally a strong proponent of privacy regulation, but I'm actually with Google on this one.

Google's search engine is merely a reference tool for data hosted by other people and organizations.

The privacy regulation should focus on requiring the originators of the content to preserve people's privacy, and just let Google go about their work creating an accurate reference of what is out there.

If there is information on the internet that is causing you harm, you have a legitimate gripe, but it is not with Google. It is with the source host.

Holding Google responsible for this is like holding the yellow pages responsible for the crimes of a business listed in them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Google Update - 1998 Edition.

If only Google was so noble about being the web's 'reference' tool. Google is a global advertising and data mining platform first. Content/Traffic thief second. Web standards bully third. But somewhere, possibly, in the top 50 is this reference tool thing - a search engine created for their targeted advertising goals that blurs the line between search and source host.

While your 2D dumb paper analogy is interesting, when was the last time you had a thousand yellow pages follow you around in a store, cataloging your every action? (college pranks excluded)

I appreciate the concept of source data versus search data. But Google have mushed those once separate things into a grand advertising stew. Doubt even EU regs can separate the ingredients from google's feudal sauce.
 
Laowai said:
The whole thing is gross.
And I hate to say it, but I agree with Google on this one. I don't care about their motives, they are right. The EU can collectively fuck itself if it thinks it can tell others how to conduct business in their own countries.
Click to expand...

So by that logic you’re fine with China and NK censoring content in their country?

I think the EU should absolutely be able to rule on content created by its citizens, on its citizens and collected by companies operating in the EU, particularly when it’s not forced censorship. This is an individual requesting their data get deleted, unless you feel that Google owns your data when they harvest it, at which point we diverge in beliefs that will never be aligned
 
masquap said:
So by that logic you’re fine with China and NK censoring content in their country?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is fine with China and NK censoring content in their country, but we don't have the right to do anything about it. Which is why we are not, in fact, doing anything about it. But we do have the right to do something about it when/if China, NK, the EU, the US, or even Paraguay tries to censor content in our country.

masquap said:
This is an individual requesting their data get deleted, unless you feel that Google owns your data when they harvest it, at which point we diverge in beliefs that will never be aligned
Click to expand...
But it's not about an individual requesting their data get deleted. It's about an individual requesting that every person in the world who owns data that references him or talks about him has to get their data de-listed, regardless of whether it's true or not, regardless of whether or not it is historically important, regardless of whether or not it would be an important political or security issue.
 
masquap said:
So by that logic you’re fine with China and NK censoring content in their country?

I think the EU should absolutely be able to rule on content created by its citizens, on its citizens and collected by companies operating in the EU, particularly when it’s not forced censorship. This is an individual requesting their data get deleted, unless you feel that Google owns your data when they harvest it, at which point we diverge in beliefs that will never be aligned
Click to expand...
It seems you and I have a very different interpretation of what is going on.
No, I'm not OK with censorship and I have no idea how you think it's a logical conclusion that I am.
I agree, the EU can rule on whatever they want. What I disagree with, is the EU trying to force companies to act in accordance with their rules/laws in countries that are not part of the EU.
 
Soon everyone's speeding tickets will be listed forever on Google, all for your benefit... That's not really happening but I'd be cautious siding with a giant corporation pretending to care about rights
 
I despise the Nanny State.
I despise faceless bureaucrats making rules.
I despise the EU slide into mediocrity.

I despise Google even more.

Go EU. Nail 'em.
 
"And so now we’re back in Europe’s top court with Google’s lawyers arguing against making delistings global — contending it would damage free speech,"

Oh, you're going to go there, Google?
 
PaulP said:
My thoughts exactly. Imagine what the internet would be like if countries like China could impose their censorship rules on users outside their borders? Google, whatever you personally think of them, is standing on principle here, and it's an important principle. So we should stand with them, but still reserve the right to disagree with them on other issues.
Click to expand...

Right, but then we find out that Google is working on a censored search engine for China, which shows what their principle is actually worth. Make no mistake, Google is not standing on principle, they’re standing on maximizing profitability. The appearance of standing on principle is just a consequence of it also happening to be their most profitable pathway.
 
HockeyJon said:
Right, but then we find out that Google is working on a censored search engine for China, which shows what their principle is actually worth. Make no mistake, Google is not standing on principle, they’re standing on maximizing profitability. The appearance of standing on principle is just a consequence of it also happening to be their most profitable pathway.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll 100% grant you that Google's motives are financial but that has no bearing on the relevant issues in dispute.
There is no logical comparison to the censored search engine for the Chinese market to be made here. China would have to be asking Google to apply Chinese laws/censorship to its services outside of China. Which it isn't, as far as I know.

If China said that all worldwide Google search results must adhere to Chinese law/censorship because Chinese citizens could otherwise use a VPN to access the information, we'd have a comparison that could be made.
 
Last edited:
BloodyIron said:
I want this to be available elsewhere too, not just the EU. I want the ability to be forgotten.
Click to expand...
I'd rather I had the ability to forget.

As for localized geo-blocking it's not that it doesn't go far enough. It goes in the opposite direction. I can't believe this, am I really getting this right? Someone spreads misinformation about you and their solution is: We'll not allow the person being slandered to see the slander?

Oh, and fuck geo-blocking, and everyone who thinks it is a good idea any place any time.
 
I can't see why you'd be against this.
The whole idea is to stop people digging up dirt on other people
So say at 18 you do the dumbest shit and get in trouble. it makes a local paper and it gets online
15 years later you are going for a role having fuilly gotten your shit together for a lnog time and they find this story and think "fuck this guy hes a troublemaker"
That guy can request the old shit be removed from searches and get on with life as it should go.

Now I presume if you are a kiddi diddler or murderer...well that never goes away and nor should it
 
TheOne&OnlyZeke said:
I can't see why you'd be against this.
The whole idea is to stop people digging up dirt on other people
So say at 18 you do the dumbest shit and get in trouble. it makes a local paper and it gets online
15 years later you are going for a role having fuilly gotten your shit together for a lnog time and they find this story and think "fuck this guy hes a troublemaker"
That guy can request the old shit be removed from searches and get on with life as it should go.

Now I presume if you are a kiddi diddler or murderer...well that never goes away and nor should it
Click to expand...
The other idea is the reverse. You can defend yourself against a slander campaign if you proof of your interactions just as often. What this does, is put investigation in the hands of the professional (corporate) press who are not bastions of fairness and objectivity. They can cherry picks whose skeletons get to fall out of the closet and whose get to stay in.
 
Last edited:
Most people will be forgotten after they die. Show some patience.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Most people will be forgotten after they die. Show some patience.
Click to expand...

not unless they foresaw their deaths and took the time & effort to erase their "digital footprints" prior to passing away...

FYI, anything and everything on the internet is there F.O.R.E.V.E.R, unless we do something to change it N>O>W>.....
 
singe_101 said:
So stage6 is up and running? I can get every video?
Click to expand...

more like stage363.51.48.

I have a video (VHS, BetaMax, Laserdisc, and every other format ever conceived of by man, ghost, or ET) of every video of everyone who has ever downloaded AND/OR watched a video, from the internet or otherwise....................

In other words, ALL YOUR VIDEOS ARE BELONG TO US :D
 
Last edited:
Laowai said:
The whole thing is gross.
And I hate to say it, but I agree with Google on this one. I don't care about their motives, they are right. The EU can collectively fuck itself if it thinks it can tell others how to conduct business in their own countries.
Click to expand...

I disagree. This has nothing to do with conducting business in their own country.
This is basic human right. Everyone should have the right to have their false information removed from a search engine. We live in a digital world where employers often google the names of their employees. Would you like if your employer or family member or whatever found fake information about you and affected you in that way?
Again, this is a part of the basic human right and EU is doing the right thing here.
 
Nebell said:
I disagree. This has nothing to do with conducting business in their own country.
This is basic human right. Everyone should have the right to have their false information removed from a search engine. We live in a digital world where employers often google the names of their employees. Would you like if your employer or family member or whatever found fake information about you and affected you in that way?
Again, this is a part of the basic human right and EU is doing the right thing here.
Click to expand...
A basic human right?
Wow! Seems our list of 'human rights' is getting longer by the minute.
I wonder what new basic human rights people will be going on about next week.
 
Laowai said:
A basic human right?
Wow! Seems our list of 'human rights' is getting longer by the minute.
I wonder what new basic human rights people will be going on about next week.
Click to expand...

It's not a new basic right, it's one of the already established ones.
 
Nebell said:
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-5/8_udhr-abbr.htm

Pick one. It's against quite a few human rights.
Click to expand...
Actually, it would be best if you could go ahead and tell me all of the "quite a few human rights" that are relevant. I see little need to do your work for you.
You made the claim this was about human rights, support it.
Show me where the "right to be forgotten" is. It isn't in that link you posted.
Nor is there the "right for the EU to impose its laws on others".
Or the "right to pretend that removing a link actually does something if the actual site/information is still available online, which it is". I know that last one is a bit wordy.
 
Last edited:
Laowai said:
Actually, it would be best if you could go ahead and tell me all of the "quite a few human rights" that are relevant. I see little need to do your work for you.
You made the claim this was about human rights, support it.
Show me where the "right to be forgotten" is. It isn't in that link you posted.
Nor is there the "right for the EU to impose its laws on others".
Or the "right to pretend that removing a link actually does something if the actual site/information is still available online, which it is". I know that last one is a bit wordy.
Click to expand...

You seem to have been living in China way too long mate.
 
Laowai said:
You seem to fail at supporting your claim.
Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Nah, you're just close-minded. I sense such people from across the world and don't continue discussing with them because it leads nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top