Support NeoGAF

[cntr]

there's a thread for this, but I feel it wasn't clear on what this means

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-polic...ve-search-results-globally-or-face-big-fines/

tl;dr: France orders Google to censor websites on every Google website around the world, or it will fine Google up to $2.5 billion dollars. Google will almost certainly take this to the French supreme court. [EDIT: And to be explicit, if Google backs down, it gives any country, even the worst dictatorships, the right to consor the global internet, via (not legal!) precedent.

EDIT: More information has been revealed, confirming that France intends to block it worldwide. See updates below.

Google's informal appeal against a French order to apply the so-called "right to be forgotten" to all of its global Internet services and domains, not just those in Europe, has been rejected. The president of the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), France's data protection authority, gave a number of reasons for the rejection, including the fact that European orders to de-list information from search results could be easily circumvented if links were still available on Google's other domains.

CNIL's president also claimed that "this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the CNIL to apply French law extraterritorially. It simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe."

As you've probably gathered, Google disagrees with CNIL's stance. In a July blog post regarding the case, the company's global privacy chief, Peter Fleischer, wrote: "If the CNIL’s proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world’s least free place. We believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access."

As far as CNIL is concerned, Google must now comply with its order. "Otherwise, the President of the CNIL may designate a Rapporteur who may refer to the CNIL’s sanctions committee with a view of obtaining a ruling on this matter." Those sanctions could be severe. According to The Guardian: "CNIL will likely begin to apply sanctions including the possibility of a fine in the region of €300,000 against Google, should the company refuse to comply with the order. Under incoming French regulation the fine could increase to between 2% and 5% of global operating costs." For 2014, Google's total operating costs were just under $50 billion, so potentially the fine could be from $1 billion to $2.5 billion (€900 million to €2.2 billion).

If Google is fined by CNIL in this way, it can then make a formal appeal to the French supreme court for administrative justice and argue its case in detail. Since important issues are at stake for both the company and the Internet itself, and the French government is unlikely to back down in its threat to impose fines, it seems likely that Google will end up taking this route.

UPDATE:

Rereading the article and CNIL's statement, the global censorship bit seems overstated.
CNIL are not asking that no one in the rest of the world should be able to see the delisted results, they're asking that when someone in France uses google with a non-European extension, like .com instead of .fr for example, they shouldn't see the delisted results either.
I don't know search engines well enough to know how feasible this is, but wouldn't some kind of IP filter solve it?

UPDATE 2:

EDIT: Yeah, they definitely want to apply this globally

What is the scope of a delisting decision?

Delisting must be implemented on all relevant extensions of the search engines, including .com, for two reasons:

- Geographical extensions (.fr, .es, etc.) are only paths giving access to the same processing operation. The right to delisting is exercised with respect to the search Engine, regardless of the way the query is made.

- “Partial” delisting would mean ineffective delisting: any internet user could still find the search result using a non European domain name.

How can the French data protection law have effects outside the French territory?

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union gives a number of fundamental rights to European residents, including the respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. If these rights cannot lead to a protection of non-European residents, they apply however to companies processing data about European residents. In order to be effective, the protection granted to a European citizen must apply to the search engine as a whole, even if this has one-off effects outside of this territory.

http://www.cnil.fr/linstitution/actualite/article/article/questions-on-the-right-to-delisting/

UPDATE 3:

Ah, as I expected this is France pushing too much

http://www.wsj.com/articles/french-...le-to-expand-right-to-be-forgotten-1434098033

"For delisting to be effective, it must be world-wide,” said Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, the head of the CNIL. “It is a question of principle. Google must respect the rights of European citizens.”

Some data-protection experts and regulators, including a top official at the UK’s data-protection authority, have suggested Google could use geolocation to remove links from google.com only for searches conducted within the EU. That would mean results could be removed from google.com when accessed in Paris, but not when viewed from New York.

But such a solution wouldn't be sufficient for the CNIL, Ms. Falque-Pierrotin said.

“This is about Europe’s ability to say that if you come here, you must respect our laws,” Ms. Falque-Pierrotin said. “Either they will comply, or there will be legal action and a judge will decide.”

 

[Blackstarhat]

Fuck france

 

[Hip Hop]

What the fuck lol

 

[ramuh]

Ewww. What the fuck is this?

 

[red731]

Someone slip and fell on a baguette?

 

[Cagey]

France doing some fundraising.

 

[El Topo]

They're legally obligated to follow European law if they're operating in Europe. It's not surprising.

 

[entremet]

France doing some fundraising.

Correct.

 

[7aged]

Can we have the right to forget France?

 

[cntr]

They're legally obligated to follow European law if they're operating in Europe.

It essentially gives countries the right to censor the global internet if Google backs down. Even the worst dictatorships could censor the entire internet. Legal precedent is a dangerous thing.

 

[Syriel]

If EU countries want US citizens to abide by EU law, does that mean the US can enforce US law in the EU?

Google should just pull out of France entirely.

"Capitol of France"
"No results returned."

 

[Interfectum]

Gross.

 

[Lagamorph]

If EU countries want US citizens to abide by EU law, does that mean the US can enforce US law in the EU?

You mean like they're trying to do with Microsoft?

 

[HawksWinStanley]

Well this is pathetic...

 

[NoblesseOblige]

What can France do if Google just says nope to the whole thing (including paying the fines)? Block Google?

 

[MartyStu]

They're legally obligated to follow European law if they're operating in Europe. It's not surprising.

Sure, but if the law in question is shitty, then they should fight it.

This 'right to be forgotten' business is not Google's problem and should not be.

 

[Somnid]

What can France do if Google just says nope to the whole thing (including paying the fines)? Block Google?

They impose large fines on them until Google pulls out of the country entirely. China basically did the same thing.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Sure, but if the law in question is shitty, then they should fight it.

This 'right to be forgotten' business is not Google's problem and should not be.

Seriously, I still don't get why Google is involved in this. It are the websites themselves that are responsible for their content and should have stuff taken down. As far as I know, it will then disappear from Google after some time anyway.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Time to start calling them freedom fries!!

 

[santi_yo]

If EU countries want US citizens to abide by EU law, does that mean the US can enforce US law in the EU?

Google should just pull out of France entirely.

"Capitol of France"
"No results returned."

Actually

 

[strikeselect]

The whole "right to be forgotten" law is nonsense.

 

[FStop7]

This is a shakedown.

 

[Hexa]

The whole "right to be forgotten" law is nonsense.

Agreed 100%.

 

[SimleuqiR]

What can France do if Google just says nope to the whole thing (including paying the fines)? Block Google?

A France without Google would feel it financially. So many companies run on the backbone of Google services.

 

[LQX]

I remember years ago Google trolled France. I wonder if this is retaliation.

 

[Kurita]

France is stupid when it comes to Internet-related things. See Hadopi or the Anti-Amazon law.

 

[perfectchaos007]

What's the leading European based search engine that they could switch over to? Is it any good?

 

[cdyhybrid]

Enjoy Yahoo/Bing, French-GAF.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

Whoever wins, we all lose.

 

[Red Mage]

They're still salty about this, right?

 

[Mael]

The right to be forgotten is part of the law?
In France and in the EU?
The 'Conseil d'Etat' (or State Council) stroke down 2 times CNIL tried to fine companies for doing something it found unethical.
There's no supreme court in France, although you could argue that the 'Conseil Constitutionel' (Constitutional Council) is close to that.
The fastest way for Google out of it would be applying pressure to French politicians or face the Constituational Council or lawyer up to the EU.

What's the leading European based search engine that they could switch over to? Is it any good?

Not so easy, think of cloud computing and assorted services Google provides.
France cannot really do business without a hitch in banning everything Google.

 

[El Topo]

It essentially gives countries the right to censor the global internet if Google backs down. Even the worst dictatorships could censor the entire internet. Legal precedent is a dangerous thing.

If Google wants to do business in a country, they have to follow local law. I don't think there would be any legal problem if they ceased business in Europe and made their services unavailable there. One of the core problems here is that Google allows ridiculously easy circumvention of the blocked results, which is why they're asking for global removal now.

 

[Dicer]

Good luck France, not gonna happen...

 

[Patryn]

Couldn't Google just block any request from a French IP for all their sites?

Or is it that the EU believes that it's also illegal for, say, US citizens to access information that's been "forgotten"?

 

[ThreePiMatt]

They impose large fines on them until Google pulls out of the country entirely. China basically did the same thing.

If I was Google I'd play that game of chicken. France has a long honored tradition of capitulating.

 

[cntr]

If Google wants to do business in a country, they have to follow local law. I don't think there would be any legal problem if they ceased business in Europe and made their services unavailable there. One of the core problems here is that Google allows ridiculously easy circumvention of the blocked results, which is why they're asking for global removal now.

And if Google complies, then it establishes that governments have jurisdiction against the entire global internet, not just stuff hosted or used in their country.

 

[OminoMichelin]

[EDIT: And to be explicit, if Google backs down, it gives any country, even the worst dictatorships, the right to consor the global internet, via legal precedent.][/B]

That's not how it works. Different countries have different laws. Some governments can imitate France, but the outcome could be different.

 

[Dr.Acula]

"Right to be forgotten" is such a sham. Yeah, the results will be taken off google, maybe even google's cache itself, but it will still exist on bookface or whatever service, it will still exist in government databases, it will still be on whatever telecommunications network the traffic went over. All this means is that the average person will lose access to this data. It still can be seen by all levels of government and several private corporations.

 

[cntr]

That's not how it works. Different countries have different laws. Some governments can imitate France, but the outcome could be different.

Unfortunatly, it doesn't matter if some countries don't do it, if the worst countries do.

 

[Palette Swap]

It's so dumb to try and enforce it to the whole world, just because CNIL have a very liberal interpretation of a European ruling. Textbook example of a slippery slope.

For what it's worth, it does look like fearmongering though: CNIL is pretty toothless in reality, and that 2.5B fine is pretty theoretical right now considering the law is nowhere to be seen and its max penalty remains to be confirmed, not to mention applied.

Still, it hurts to see an unelected body of seventeen dudes reflecting so poorly on the country.

The right to be forgotten is part of the law?
In France and in the EU?
The 'Conseil d'Etat' (or State Council) stroke down 2 times CNIL tried to fine companies for doing something it found unethical.
There's no supreme court in France, although you could argue that the 'Conseil Constitutionel' (Constitutional Council) is close to that.
The fastest way for Google out of it would be applying pressure to French politicians or face the Constituational Council or lawyer up to the EU.

This is on point.

 

[Coriolanus]

It essentially gives countries the right to censor the global internet if Google backs down. Even the worst dictatorships could censor the entire internet. Legal precedent is a dangerous thing.

Legal precedent means very little to nearly nothing internationally. No dictator is sitting around going "god damn that google, if only some first world country did it too..".

 

[spons]

I seriously wonder why there isn't any European-based search engine (that doesn't just pull data from Google like ixquick). Too lazy to innovate? Expecting the state to step in with subsidies?

 

[Patryn]

Legal precedent means very little to nearly nothing internationally. No dictator is sitting around going "god damn that google, if only some first world country did it too..".

I believe he just means precedent. If Google is willing to back down for these fines, what's to stop another nation from imposing their will on Google for fines as well?

 

[Dr.Acula]

I seriously wonder why there isn't any European-based search engine (that doesn't just pull data from Google like ixquick). Too lazy to innovate? Expecting the state to step in with subsidies?

They should start using Baidu.

 

[cjp]

If EU countries want US citizens to abide by EU law, does that mean the US can enforce US law in the EU?

Google should just pull out of France entirely.

"Capitol of France"
"No results returned."

The US already tries to.

 

[Spladam]

Google should just pull out of France, then de-list everything French, including France.

I seriously wonder why there isn't any European-based search engine (that doesn't just pull data from Google like ixquick). Too lazy to innovate? Expecting the state to step in with subsidies?

Ouch.

 

[Ape Gone Insane]

And to be explicit, if Google backs down, it gives any country, even the worst dictatorships, the right to consor the global internet, via legal precedent.][/B]

That's not what it means at all. Where are you pulling that from?

That's not how legal precedent works and the 'right to be forgotten' isn't a universal legal rule. If Google were to go above the French supreme court to the ECJ and they agreed with the interpretation, then it would apply to all the countries in the European Union.

 

[Iceternal]

If I was Google I'd play that game of chicken. France has a long honored tradition of capitulating.

Of course we get this kind of shit posts ...

 

[LegalEagleMike]

Time to bring back the freedom fries

damn beat lol, FREEDOM TOAST FOR BREAKFAST!

 

[massivekettle]

If Google wants to operate in France or anywhere else for that matter, it has to abide by local laws.

Simple, isn't it?