Support NeoGAF

[Sölf]

France y u do dis?

 

[IdreamofHIME]

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

MPAA already has European governments handing out fines for downloading Hollywood movies illegally.

 

[cntr]

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.

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?

Oh, fair enough.

 

[helloresolven]

MPAA already has European governments handing out fines for downloading Hollywood movies illegally.

It's almost like European countries also have copyright laws.

 

[Coriolanus]

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?

Respect for the rule of law (aka pretty much nothing).
Same as always.

To make it clear, this isn't France going "MU HU HU, WHER MA MONEY, HONEY" on google. This is a state apparatus going to the judiciary branch, arguing its case, and the judiciary finding that their claim has merit, given the current legislation. Twice. So do as told or pay up.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

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?

There is. It's called Exalead and has some experimental features that Google doesn't have yet, such as facial recognition, search within search results, and video indexation through speech recognition. The problem is, no one uses it because they were way too ambitious (they wanted to rival Google... lol).

 

[Palette Swap]

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?

Too late to the party: there's a high barrier of entry with a high potential for failure. Any tech company faced with the choice will choose a venture with a better outlook.
No idea what laziness has to do with anything, that's an odd explanation.

 

[Spladam]

There is. It's called Exalead and has some experimental features that Google doesn't have yet, such as facial recognition, search within search results, and video searches. The problem is, no one uses it because they were way too ambitious (they wanted to rival Google... lol).

Not many could pronounce it either.

 

[cntr]

AFAIK, the only major website with Google levels of penetration is the Chinese Baidu, which is because the Chinese government promoted it and prevented Google from doing much. Bing/Yahoo are also notable.

On a much smaller scale is DuckDuckGo, which is mostly used by privacy and open source advocates. Not big, but notable enough. Has a few useful features.

 

[Mimosa97]

So many people piling up on the CNIL here without even understanding the issue. And I won't even talk about the 12yo COD players " Muuh muuuh France shud juss surrender LOLOLOLOL " comments

This a complex matter. The CNIL is trying to do a good thing here but as always they're a bit delusional. But again what would you expect from irrelevant old dudes who really need a reality check ?

Anyway they'll never win and Google will keep on doing whatever they want so no need to overreact guys. Your favorite mega-corporation that pays almost no taxes in France doesn't need your outrage.

 

[Ganhyun]

Man, France hates Google huh?

 

[Palette Swap]

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?

 

[The Llama]

And I won't even talk about the 12yo COD players " Muuh muuuh France shud juss surrender LOLOLOLOL " comments

Location: Paris

 

[GrandHarrier]

What's the legal basis France feels it has to censor my search results despite not being a citizen of their country?

 

[Funky Papa]

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?

What is this, common sense?

 

[xptoxyz]

What's the legal basis France feels it has to censor my search results despite not being a citizen of their country?

I think their point might be that you having those results might infringe on the rights of their citizens.

edit: nevermind, read actual CNIL statement, nothing of the sort of what people are saying here seems to be what's being asked.

 

[Maninthemirror]

First Uber, now Google. Is France technophobic?

 

[AcademicSaucer]

The right to be forgotten is a good idea , it could be abused tho.

 

[Kyuur]

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?

Given that's easy enough to circumvent with VPN and circumvention is one of their main problem areas, I doubt that would be enough. The only way would be to pull the results from everywhere and prevent everyone from seeing them.

 

[cntr]

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?

oh, interesting

updated first post

 

[Mimosa97]

What's the legal basis France feels it has to censor my search results despite not being a citizen of their country?

The right to privacy. France is only applying European law.

It's still a silly ruling though.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The right to be forgotten is a good idea , it could be abused tho.

its never a good idea.

 

[Noshino]

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?

eh

Google received several tens of thousands of requests from French citizens. It delisted some results on the European extensions of the search engine (.fr; .es; .co.uk; etc.). However, it has not proceeded with delisting on other geographical extensions or on google.com, which any internet user may alternatively visit.

In May 2015, the President of the CNIL therefore put Google on notice to proceed with delisting on all of the search engine’s domain names. At the end of July, Google filed an informal appeal asking the President to withdraw this public formal notice. Google argued in particular that it would impede the public’s right to information and would be a form of censorship

That sounds to me like they want the "right to be forgotten" to be applied globally, and not specifically to EU IPs


EDIT: Yeah, they definitely want to apply this globally

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

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.

 

[Palette Swap]

Given that's easy enough to circumvent with VPN and circumvention is one of their main problem areas, I doubt that would be enough. The only way would be to pull the results from everywhere and prevent everyone from seeing them.

I think that's where the tradeoff between applying local laws and worldwide censorship comes into play: there are already a number of banned pirate, neo-nazi and jihadi sites in France but according to Google, they can apparently be accessed through VPNs and various proxies. (*)
Given this precedent, I don't think our lawmaker would go that far in this case either and at no point does CNIL write it wants to.


(* I'm going to end on a watch list for the Google search I just did to confirm it lol)

eh



That sounds to me like they want the "right to be forgotten" to be applied globally, and not specifically to EU IPs

They want to see it applied on all domains, yes, that doesn't mean they want everyone accessing these domains worldwide to have delisted results.
I can see where they're coming from: according to CNIL, if I connect to google.com from my French Internet access point right now and type a delisted person's name, I will get unfiltered results, while the results I get when using Google.fr wI'll be filtered. That's a very easy way to circumvent the law.

 

[cntr]

probably won't check this thread too often by the way, poke me if any major updates happen that I should put in the OP

 

[NullPointer]

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

Simple, isn't it?

Not when those "local" laws seek to regulate Google behavior in every other country in the world.

 

[Somnid]

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?

The problem is that this law was unenforceable from the outset. IP geofilters are easy to defeat. The web is global. I could easily spin-up "Somnid's big list of naughty links that EU wants forgotten" and people would be able to get at it. Ultimately this is pretty much par the course in a long line of European laws trying to reign in things that they can't control by overreaching because they don't understand how these things work.

 

[Noshino]

They want to see it applied on all domains, yes, that doesn't mean they want everyone accessing these domains worldwide to have delisted results.
I can see where they're coming from: according to CNIL, if I connect to google.com from my French Internet access point right now and type a delisted person's name, I will get unfiltered results, while the results I get when using Google.fr wI'll be filtered. That's a very easy way to circumvent the law.

But that isn't what they are saying.

They could've very well said that this law had to be applied just to EU IPs, they did not. Instead they doubled down and further specified that (if the request for delisting is approved) it has to be applied to the engine as a whole regardless of its effects outside of EU. Look at my edit of the post you quoted

 

[Syriel]

They want to see it applied on all domains, yes, that doesn't mean they want everyone accessing these domains worldwide to have delisted results.
I can see where they're coming from: according to CNIL, if I connect to google.com from my French Internet access point right now and type a delisted person's name, I will get unfiltered results, while the results I get when using Google.fr wI'll be filtered. That's a very easy way to circumvent the law.

Maybe France should just buy a license for the Great Firewall from China and set it up so that French citizens can only access .FR domains.

Problem solved.

 

[Mimosa97]

Location: Paris

DId you get my PM ?

 

[1871]

Did you even try to understand the issue about the right to be forgotten, OP? Reading your post, it comes off as "France is trying to help dictators impose censorship".

Almost all of the following reactions in the thread are equally as primitive.

 

[cntr]

updated again

 

[The Albatross]

This is another reason why I can't stand this "right to be forgotten" stuff. How far does it go? If one country has a right for a person to "be forgotten" does another country? Can I then just connect to Google.es instead of Google.de and find that person? Does Google.de's right to be forgotten extend to .com, to .es, to .au?

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

Simple, isn't it?

Can't tell if joking or just didn't read the thread at all. Why should local law in one country supercede local law in another country?

 

[NullPointer]

Google should just pull out of France entirely.

#TheRightToForgetFrance

 

[Noshino]

Did you even try to understand the issue about the right to be forgotten, OP? Reading your post, it comes off as "France is trying to help dictators impose censorship".

Almost all of the following reactions in the thread are equally as primitive.

Primitive is the idea that one's information can be "forgotten" from the internet by simply delisting you from search engines.

 

[Palette Swap]

The problem is that this law was unenforceable from the outset. IP geofilters are easy to defeat. The web is global. I could easily spin-up "Somnid's big list of naughty links that EU wants forgotten" and people would be able to get at it. Ultimately this is pretty much par the course in a long line of European laws trying to reign in things that they can't control by overreaching because they don't understand how these things work.

Oh yeah, I absolutely agree about the enforceability of all these Internet laws and rights, they're rarely 100% effective. When they ban stormfront for example, they're preventing your regular teenager from going there to feel edgy, but that will do jackshit to prevent a white supremacist from using a foreign proxy.

But that isn't what they are saying.

They could've very well said that this law had to be applied just to EU IPs, they did not. Instead they doubled down and further specified that (if the request for delisting is approved) it has to be applied to the engine as a whole regardless of its effects outside of EU. Look at my edit of the post you quoted

You're right, I had missed your edit and that last part is ambiguous as hell. They never outright state that no one anywhere shouldn't see delisted results, they go for some oblique hand washing "tough shit if this affects other countries". On such technical matters, and regardless of how it plays out in the end, it's poor form to not be very explicit about your expectations when you're the body formulating them.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I remember all the Europeans praising this decisions when the euro courts decided censorship was great.

 

[Dyson Industries]

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

I came for this and wasn't disappointed.

 

[Beefy]

I remember all the Europeans praising this decisions when the euro courts decided censorship was great.

What?

 

[FStop7]

First Uber, now Google. Is France technophobic?

Far from it. But they are protectionist.

 

[Jon Armdog]

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

I agree. There is no such right. It's like me declaring I have a right to free pizza.

 

[Robot Carnival]

"France just shot itself in the foot..." etc, etc.

this is some seriously stupid thing to bring up. are there any other EU countries on France's side on this matter? or is France just all of a sudden decided that they'll represent the whole EU and "enforce" these laws?

 

[iamblades]

Oh yeah, I absolutely agree about the enforceability of all these Internet laws and rights, they're rarely 100% effective. When they ban stormfront for example, they're preventing your regular teenager from going there to feel edgy, but that will do jackshit to prevent a white supremacist from using a foreign proxy.


You're right, I had missed your edit and that last part is ambiguous as hell. They never outright state that no one anywhere shouldn't see delisted results, they go for some oblique hand washing "tough shit if this affects other countries". On such technical matters, and regardless of how it plays out in the end, it's poor form to not be very explicit about your expectations when you're the body formulating them.

If anything they are making it more likely for a teenager to go there to 'feel edgy', since it's supposed to be off limits. Its not like VPNs are some obscure technology that would be unknown to a teenager.

Anyway as for the OP, this was a bad, unenforcable law from the very beginning, but now it is clear it is one of the top existential threats to the free and open internet.

The people who wrote this law have no understanding of the technology, and it seems the people interpreting it have even less. It will be a total disaster if this ruling is not overturned.

 

[gcubed]

Far from it. But they are protectionist.

then there is an easy way to solve their problem... create their own firewall.

If they want to protect their citizens from what the rest of the world actually knows, then they should be blocking the rest of the world from their citizens. Maybe they can ask the Chinese for help

 

[Zero²]

If anything they are making it more likely for a teenager to go there to 'feel edgy', since it's supposed to be off limits. Its not like VPNs are some obscure technology that would be unknown to a teenager.

Yeah, and you can go deeper with TOR and it's just as if not more easy to set up than using vpn.
You can't regulate what people see on the internet, it's like trying to regulate what people should or not be thinking. What you can do is regulate the effects of it, but that's what already been done.

 

[Beefy]

The right to forget is a good idea (people exposed as paedos etc that turned out not to be), but you know it will get abused by the rich.

 

[FStop7]

then there is an easy way to solve their problem... create their own firewall.

If they want to protect their citizens from what the rest of the world actually knows, then they should be blocking the rest of the world from their citizens. Maybe they can ask the Chinese for help

Protectionist is more in reference to business... they don't like foreign businesses becoming ingrained.

This is why I said earlier that this is a shakedown. They want money.

 

[The Faceless Master]

i don't understand why they target search results instead of the actual articles. if there truly is a problem, go at the root.

 

[gcubed]

i don't understand why they target search results instead of the actual articles. if there truly is a problem, go at the root.

i anticipate its easier to go to 1 or 2 places then to a lot, combined with the fact that there are deeper pockets therefore more reasons to comply

 

[L4DANathan]

Well, this is thoroughly disgusting, Google should just shut down their service in France, so they're technically not operating in the country and aren't liable. And then everyone in France would do exactly what their government doesn't want them to do, use external domains.