Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

And as I explained, that is not really how it works.

No you haven't really explained. You've semantically explained that the information isn't gone but in reality it is because its how people interact with the web. Their ability to index their work and share it with others is eliminated because a court has decided information is 'irrelevant'

And people are fooling themselves if this stops at google. If they follow logic this can apply to facebook searches, twitter, etc.

 

[slit]

There are obviously laws that apply worldwide. If for instance company A wants to buy company B and the EU said no, the buy-out also wouldn't be possible in the US. These companies want to profit from globalisation. They have to take in the consequences. European law is quite clear. If you or your subsidiaries are on European soil, you obey European law. Don't want that? Don't do business here.

And the U.S. has the same law, now what? You seem to be under this delusion that the EU can do whatever it wants without consulting other people and just issue edicts for worldwide laws. I don't think so. The DMCA, that you like to bring up so much was allowed by EU parliament. So if you think it's so unfair that you have to abide by a U.S. law, then you need to take it up with those you elected.

 

[G.Newell]

I see people dont like the idea of let say a politicans tax fraud news being forgotten but what about pople who have had pending criminal cases where there found inoccent. If i where to google them the first article could be about them being arrested. This could negativley affect there career and personal lives.

Why shouldnt they be allowed to get rid of this irrelvant information that can damge there life. I get that this can be abused but if i were to be fasley accused of rape and shown to be innocent alot of the stories would just be on the rape and that would ruin my life.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I see people dont like the idea of let say a politicans tax fraud news being forgotten but what about pople who have had pending criminal cases where there found inoccent. If i where to google them the first article could be about them being arrested. This could negativley affect there career and personal lives.

Why shouldnt they be allowed to get rid of this irrelvant information that can damge there life. I get that this can be abused but if i were to be fasley accused of rape and shown to be innocent alot of the stories would just be on the rape and that would ruin my life.

Should OJ be allowed to scrub his record?
Casey Anthony?
George Zimmerman?
Darren Wilson?

Many jurisdictions you're found not-guilty, not 'innocent'

 

[Somnid]

Or we will find a way to make them stick. And if Google doesn't want to play, something will happen to make it stick. The more Google fights stuff like this, the more likely a future where there are stricter laws puts on them. The current ruling for instance came about because they just didn't remove the information about the guy. Stuff like this can backfire on them. See them losing China for a more extreme example.

You can't anymore than you can pass laws to prevent earthquakes. The only reason this sorta kinda works is that there is a business to intimidate (laws targeting specific businesses are bad laws because they aren't solving a problem just a symptom). The reason they want to reach into international territory is because the law was largely ineffective (no shit). Give it a couple more years until we see people putting together block-chain based search engines. The EU will either be forced to give this issue up or leverage collective punishment on all users of the software.

 

[G.Newell]

Should OJ be allowed to scrub his record?
Casey Anthony?
George Zimmerman?
Darren Wilson?

Many jurisdictions you're found not-guilty, not 'innocent'

A fair point and i dont belive this law is perfect. Dont Google have to look at each request and judge its merits. Why would any of the people you listed get there links removed, There not irrelevant.

But a person found not guilty would have there reputaion tarnished for life since most employers google search people. Why would they even bother to check if someone was cleared if they came up in a story on rape. They would just move onto the next person.

 

[Slavik81]

Will only the EU be allowed to extend their delistings internationally, or will every country be allowed to do so?

I think China has a lot of search results delisted within their boarders that they would love to delist internationally.

 

[slit]

A fair point and i dont belive this law is perfect. Dont Google have to look at each request and judge its merits. Why would any of the people you listed get there links removed, There not irrelevant.

But a person found not guilty would have there reputaion tarnished for life since most employers google search people. Why would they even bother to check if someone was cleared if they came up in a story on rape. They would just move onto the next person.

You're not wrong the problem is that there needs to be a law where everyone's voice is heard, not just some silly band-aid that the EU thinks it can force on everybody. You can't fix this the way the EU thinks it can. Not only will it not work but you've just emboldened people who will now make sure the information the EU doesn't want out is put up in great big neon lights.

 

[Piecake]

Will only the EU be allowed to extend their delistings internationally, or will every country be allowed to do so?

I think China has a lot of search results delisted within their boarders that they would love to delist internationally.

The EU has the morally superior position so that is why they should be allowed to spread their laws throughout the globe and not China.

 

[frankie_baby]

Should OJ be allowed to scrub his record?
Casey Anthony?
George Zimmerman?
Darren Wilson?

Many jurisdictions you're found not-guilty, not 'innocent'

while you've obviously picked some rather distasteful examples I'd say yes, yes they should, people "not-guilty" of a crime shouldn't have links to the crime coming up easily in searches

 

[Piecake]

while you've obviously picked some rather distasteful examples I'd say yes, yes they should, people "not-guilty" of a crime shouldn't have links to the crime coming up easily in searches

Well, that would end or at least damper the debate on police violence in America since cops are never charged or convicted. With this new law, they could simply petition google and have this whole social issue disappear back into the urban city where it previously existed until smartphones brought it to everyone's attention.

 

[brian577]

Screw that. People should not have the right to back track or cover up their stupidity online. Everyone needs to realize what you say on the Internet has consequences. I may not care for social media but it puts all the bigots and morons on display for the whole world to see.

 

[coleco]

Screw that. People should not have the right to back track or cover up their stupidity online. Everyone needs to realize what you say on the Internet has consequences. I may not care for social media but it puts all the bigots and morons on display for the whole world to see.

What about those who have their information/pictures posted online by others and without consent?

 

[not psycho]

The EU has the morally superior position so that is why they should be allowed to spread their laws throughout the globe and not China.

Dumb question here, but why can't the EU use China's method of blocking out sites/results they object to?

Sure, people could probably find ways around it, and in return they'd try to catch and punish those people. However, wouldn't this fix the problem of an employer casually googling a name, finding an accusation that didn't result in a guilty verdict, and throwing away the application? Because why would an employer make the effort to use an illegal workaround for a casual google search?

 

[brian577]

What about those who have their information/pictures posted online by others and without consent?

That is a problem that can be blamed on lax Internet security. Apple and Google need to step their game up and also press users to use stronger passwords.

 

[coleco]

That is a problem that can be blamed on lax Internet security. Apple and Google need to step their game up and also press users to use stronger passwords.

Having your info/pics posted by others does not necessarily have to do with apple, google or passwords, and many times is a crime. Being able to erase it or make it unaccessible should be a right.

 

[frankie_baby]

Well, that would end or at least damper the debate on police violence in America since cops are never charged or convicted. With this new law, they could simply petition google and have this whole social issue disappear back into the urban city where it previously existed until smartphones brought it to everyone's attention.

Well maybe that means America needs to start charging, convicting and locking up its cops then

 

[Piecake]

Dumb question here, but why can't the EU use China's method of blocking out sites/results they object to?

Sure, people could probably find ways around it, and in return they'd try to catch and punish those people. However, wouldn't this fix the problem of an employer casually googling a name, finding an accusation that didn't result in a guilty verdict, and throwing away the application? Because why would an employer make the effort to use an illegal workaround for a casual google search?

I have no problem if the EU does something like this. I have a problem with the EU forcing America and other governments to change their laws to fit the demands of the EU

Well maybe that means America needs to start charging, convicting and locking up its cops then

You make it sound so simple. If this law was enacted in America, that goal would be more difficult since increasing public awareness is what drives reform.

 

[brian577]

Having your info/pics posted by others does not necessarily have to do with apple, google or passwords, and many times is a crime. Being able to erase it or make it unaccessible should be a right.

Perhaps when it is done against ones will. But it has a great potential for abuse, perhaps to the point of outweighing the benefits. How far does this "right to be forgotten" extend anyway. It's fairly difficult to erase something from the Internet once it's out there, especially if it goes viral. Would this force Google to erase the information in question from every system they own in addition to search results? Youtube, Blogger etc? If that is the case we are getting into some scary territory.

 

[not psycho]

I have no problem if the EU does something like this. I have a problem with the EU forcing America and other governments to change their laws to fit the demands of the EU

I agree, I just feel like I'm missing something because this sounds so silly:

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has argued that a ruling in May by the EU’s top court -- in which it ordered search links tied to individuals cut when those people contend the material is irrelevant or outdated -- didn’t need to be extended to the U.S. site.

While Google.com gets fewer than 5 percent of user searches in Europe, according to the European Commission, the May court ruling could change the behavior of Internet users if links are de-listed only from European domain names.

“One of the natural consequences” for implementing the EU court ruling “is that people do use Google more flexibly,” Paul Bernal, a lecturer in law at the University of East Anglia in England, said by phone. If “you can’t find what you want in Google.co.uk, then you use Google.com.”

The EU is afraid that... EU citizens will try to circumvent the law by using a different website? As a pre-response to the imagined actions of EU citizens, they want to censor every search engine site in the world, because they expect their own nefarious citizens to scour all of them for information if the EU site alone is censored?

Wouldn't it make way more sense to try to stop EU citizens from accessing all these other sites?

 

[captmorgan]

Well maybe that means America needs to start charging, convicting and locking up its cops then

Your right I will just Google up some cases to get a movement going and....hmmm link not found.

 

[Piecake]

I agree, I just feel like I'm missing something because this sounds so silly:




The EU is afraid that... EU citizens will try to circumvent the law by using a different website? As a pre-response to the imagined actions of EU citizens, they want to censor every search engine site in the world, because they expect their own nefarious citizens to scour all of them for information if the EU site alone is censored?

Wouldn't it make way more sense to try to stop EU citizens from accessing all these dangerous sites?

That would be censorship though. To get around that, they are trying to force every country to go along with this whole 'right to be forgotten'

 

[The Technomancer]

Well maybe that means America needs to start charging, convicting and locking up its cops then

A cause which might make use of, say, information about how often cops aren't convicted. Which would be harder to access.

 

[d00d3n]

The EU has the morally superior position so that is why they should be allowed to spread their laws throughout the globe and not China.

I hope this is a joke. In that case, good job getting to the core of the issue. The "right to be forgotten" debacle is the EU requiring an American company to implement EU law internationally. The situation is 100% equivalent to if China would require Google to censor stuff internationally to be able to continue doing business on Chinese soil. We should be ashamed of ourselves for sending this demand. The US should laugh in our faces and use sanctions in trade and military cooperation to end the international reach of this laughable EU law.

 

[Somnid]

Having your info/pics posted by others does not necessarily have to do with apple, google or passwords, and many times is a crime. Being able to erase it or make it unaccessible should be a right.

It's already a right in most places, if you have ownership over certain content you can legally have it removed. Of course if your nudie pics end up online and it's instantly replicable with no effort chances of erasing it or not suffering from Streistand effect while doing so are pretty much nil.

You could also say not being struck by lightening should also be a right. It's not and never will be. A government body could say it is, but that doesn't really mean anything because that's not how reality works.

 

[Slavik81]

The EU has the morally superior position so that is why they should be allowed to spread their laws throughout the globe and not China.

People often disagree as to what is moral and what is not. Who gets to make the decision as to which laws are moral and which are not?

 

[Cipherr]

The EU is afraid that... EU citizens will try to circumvent the law by using a different website? As a pre-response to the imagined actions of EU citizens, they want to censor every search engine site in the world, because they expect their own nefarious citizens to scour all of them for information if the EU site alone is censored?

Its so funny when you say it out loud.

 

[Piecake]

People often disagree as to what is moral and what is not. Who gets to make the decision as to which laws are moral and which are not?

I was being sarcastic, but apparently the EU thinks it does

 

[Suikoguy]

What I don't get, why go after Google, when the real problem is the sites that contain the information, not the person linking to the information.

It's a somewhat well intentioned law, that does not understand how the internet works.

I think the problem they run into, is the distributed nature of the internet; how do you make a law that goes after the sites that contain the information, when you may or may not have jurisdiction over the site itself. Instead you go after the only thing you have access too, a corporation at which you can block from doing business in your country.

Then you end up with this:

The EU is afraid that... EU citizens will try to circumvent the law by using a different website? As a pre-response to the imagined actions of EU citizens, they want to censor every search engine site in the world, because they expect their own nefarious citizens to scour all of them for information if the EU site alone is censored?

In a way, it's similar to the U.S. debate over listings of torrents, only additionally vague and fruitless.
The only option left is to filter internet requests like China and hope to catch most of it.

 

[Cipherr]

What I don't get, why go after Google, when the real problem is the sites that contain the information, not the person linking to the information.

It's a somewhat well intentioned law, that does not understand how the internet works.

I think the problem they run into, is the distributed nature of the internet; how do you make a law that goes after the sites that contain the information, when you may or may not have jurisdiction over the site itself. Instead you go after the only thing you have access too, a corporation at which you can block from doing business in your country.

Then you end up with this:


In a way, it's similar to the U.S. debate over listings of torrents, only additionally vague and fruitless.
The only option left is to filter internet requests like China and hope to catch most of it.

Yep, Im sure they aren't stupid, and they realize the problem is the actual sites themselves. But they are either too lazy, or feel it would be fruitless to pursue that, so they swing for the low hanging fruit.

Its all a big joke. Nothing even actually gets erased, its all still there on the internet, and if someone wants to look, they WILL find it.

 

[rpmurphy]

What about those who have their information/pictures posted online by others and without consent?

I hate the fact that a picture posted on Facebook that had me in it has my name tagged to it, because someone else posted it with that description. It's shared to multiple people's timelines, so what is my course of action to have it stricken out? Do I even have that right? Fucking hell if sites are able to scrape it and start matching that picture with all my other personal information. EU is pursuing the right idea, even if the implementation is difficult to work, because unifying user profiles from sources across the web is a very real pursuit. At the very least for the rest of the world, this is going to generate debate.

It's already a right in most places, if you have ownership over certain content you can legally have it removed. Of course if your nudie pics end up online and it's instantly replicable with no effort chances of erasing it or not suffering from Streistand effect while doing so are pretty much nil.

You could also say not being struck by lightening should also be a right. It's not and never will be. A government body could say it is, but that doesn't really mean anything because that's not how reality works.

For sites like pipl, which scrapes and matches personal data from multiple sources, do you have the right to get it scrubbed, even though the information is publicly available through the individual sources? Is it a valid subject of debate of whether public websites should consider what is or is not responsible usage of personal information, even if the information is public?

 

[Slavik81]

I was being sarcastic, but apparently the EU thinks it does

Whoops. Sorry, my sarcasm detector is in the repair shop.

 

[Joni]

I hope this is a joke. In that case, good job getting to the core of the issue. The "right to be forgotten" debacle is the EU requiring an American company to implement EU law internationally. The situation is 100% equivalent to if China would require Google to censor stuff internationally to be able to continue doing business on Chinese soil. We should be ashamed of ourselves for sending this demand. The US should laugh in our faces and use sanctions in trade and military cooperation to end the international reach of this laughable EU law.

Google is for all intents and purposes beholden to the European law. Google isn't an 'American' company. It is a global company. If they want to be considered an American company, they should withdraw from Europe. And the US could threaten economic sanctions if they were willing to sour the worldwide economy for years. Russia would be very glad with such a stupid decision and China would be furious considering they'd have to chose between the US and Europe about halving their reach. Many American companies would lose billions. Military wise, the US is often the first to go to war and requiring help of Europe. We also have some of the world biggest military factories, so our military power wouldn't diminish in the slightest. So what do you think the practicality would be?

Perhaps when it is done against ones will. But it has a great potential for abuse, perhaps to the point of outweighing the benefits. How far does this "right to be forgotten" extend anyway. It's fairly difficult to erase something from the Internet once it's out there, especially if it goes viral. Would this force Google to erase the information in question from every system they own in addition to search results? Youtube, Blogger etc? If that is the case we are getting into some scary territory.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=140835151Most European countries have picture rights. Photos of you can't be spread without your permission. Again, they would need to delete it as the picture would be comparable to a copyright infringement. It is why they had to remove all faces from Google Streetview.

You can't anymore than you can pass laws to prevent earthquakes. The only reason this sorta kinda works is that there is a business to intimidate (laws targeting specific businesses are bad laws because they aren't solving a problem just a symptom). The reason they want to reach into international territory is because the law was largely ineffective (no shit). Give it a couple more years until we see people putting together block-chain based search engines. The EU will either be forced to give this issue up or leverage collective punishment on all users of the software.

Or you know, governments will continue to more strictly regulate ISPs and other big internet companies. The internet isn't outside of the law. And the more people push to one side, the tighter the rope will become around the internet. The internet isn't some free for all institution, it can't be. Illegal stuff companies and people do on the internet should and will have effects.

No you haven't really explained. You've semantically explained that the information isn't gone but in reality it is because its how people interact with the web. Their ability to index their work and share it with others is eliminated because a court has decided information is 'irrelevant'

And people are fooling themselves if this stops at google. If they follow logic this can apply to facebook searches, twitter, etc.

I told how the information is only gone when you search for a specific name.

And something I just remembered. Google is already 'censoring' part of its service worldwide based on European law. They had to remove faces and license plates of European Union residents. They also 'censor' Google Maps where they have to remove satellite images of certain buildings. Again, the US requests a removal and it isn't shown worldwide. Same for Europe. For instance, I can't see the Rio Grande at the US border.

 

[Monocle]

It's not censorship, it's a much needed curtailment of a foreign company's capacity to negatively impact the lives of European citizens by indexing private information of an erroneous or irrelevant nature.

That people here are actually defending google is just bizarre.

That's the way I see it. I'm open to changing my mind given a more convincing alternative, but for now this seems like a reasonable response to Google's creepy info gathering practices.

 

[numble]

I dont know I can see a lot of cases that are going to end with things being legal in one country and illegal in another.

If Google doesnt remove the link to someone they will be fined massively by EU but if they do remove the link they will be fined massively by the USA.

I just dont like the idea of google having to be the one to decide what stays and whats removed. If someone wants "to be forgotten" they should go to the courts, get a court order then contact all the sites that contain that information and have them remove it.

There would be nothing for google to link to if there`s nothing there.

Under what US law or regulation would Google be fined for in the US?