Support NeoGAF

[Frodo]

I love how governments are always fighting against a free Internet.




Does that tell you something about those governments?

 

[spekkeh]

We hold the right of free speech above that of the right to be forgotten, and dislike that France is tryng to force this on all of us.

This has almost nothing to do with the right of free speech and almost everything to do with the right to privacy. Try again.

 

[Gallbaro]

This has almost nothing to do with the right of free speech and almost everything to do with the right to privacy. Try again.

Except the rights you are referring to are in the context of a social contract regarding governmental powers and are not explicitly nor implicitly protected in the interactions of private actors.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I thought this one was more fun than the France one

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-polic...ories-about-google-removing-links-to-stories/

 

[spekkeh]

Except the rights you are referring to are in the context of a social contract regarding governmental powers and are not explicitly nor implicitly protected in the interactions of private actors.

That's... partially true. The context states that laws should be made to protect citizens from infringement on their privacy, and not just by the government. Like Article 23 on the free choice of employment and non-discrimination in pay isn't just focused on civil servants.

 

[Apathy]

How could they even think they could enforce something worldwide? Guess what France, your laws stop at your borders. I actually want to see google blacklist France and see how quickly France changes their tune, it would be glorious.

 

[malfcn]

Remove french business results from Google searches.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Fuck France for protecting the rights and privacy of their citizens. How dare they.

I'm all for this. Problem is France will hide anything negative about its country like corruption, theft, any other crazy shit they pull and people won't be able to read said information. That's disturbing.

 

[Busaiku]

I wouldn't mind forgetting France.

 

[Hari Seldon]

So google can just pull out of France entirely and then there is nothing they can do at that point.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

How is it a slippery slope if Google can just cease business in a region whose laws they don't like? I was under the impression France was not enforcing this via international contracts, but local European law.

Many companies already actively censor their services globally, e.g. Facebook or Twitter. Google already generates search results based on criteria none of us can look into. They already remove search results for various reasons, e.g. due to copyright issues. The idea that this is what would bring down global search (or the freedom of internet) is ludicrous.

I think this would be self explanatory, but obviously Google would bend to regulation, even unreasonable regulation, before pulling out of the entire Eurozone.

They are a business first and foremost, their existence depends on an endless stream of ad revenue.

I have a serious problem with the idea that I could perform a search on a corrupt Italian politician, an English child-abusing MP, a FIFA official accused of taking bribes in Zurich, or a French nationalist who wrote some unfortunate editorials about the blight of modern Islam, and come up blank because a European court ruled that these results aren't relevant or are actively harmful to the party who claims they have "moved on".

If a country has a law that blasphemy is not allowed and bans it from search locally, would you then defend Google removing all results internationally just to ensure that country's citizens are forever protected from that content? That's the kind of precedence this sets, it will never just be about rape accusations and nude pictures.


It's not Google's job to curate the internet to make people not feel bad. Giving them that kind of discretion is far more frightening than any potential loss of privacy...which is an illusion in the era where every government is reading everything you put on the web every single day.

 

[Zing]

I love how governments are always fighting against a free Internet

I was hoping that I could click on the last page and see that people had gotten through the FUD and given this some thought. Guess not.

Privacy and a "free internet" are not mutually exclusive. I am studying privacy both from a legal and philisophical perspective, and "the right to be forgotten" is certainly a legitimate demand.

 

[cntr]

I was hoping that I could click on the last page and see that people had gotten through the FUD and given this some thought. Guess not.

Privacy and a "free internet" are not mutually exclusive. I am studying privacy both from a legal and philisophical perspective, and "the right to be forgotten" is certainly a legitimate demand.

And philosophy means nothing if you fail to see the effective or practical result.

 

[FStubbs]

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?

I'm guessing if there a European equivalent to google France would not be pulling this. Call it a hunch.

 

[Beefy]

So for the people saying the right to forget rule is totally bad. How would you feel if you were accused of being a paedo? Loads of news websites had then wrote a article about you being a paedo. But a few weeks/ months later your case was thrown out and you were given a not guilty verdict. Now say it is a year later and you are applying for a job. The interviewer decides to put your name into Google to see if he/she can find anything about you. As soon as he does the articles about you being a paedo would be up the top ( that's face it bad news always gets more hits). They then choose not to employ you. This could go on for the rest of your life.

Do you feel people that have had their lifes destroyed because of false info shouldn't have a right for them articles not to show up?

 

[NullPointer]

Why even target the search engines? If justice dictates that content should be removed because people have a right to be forgotten, then remove the content from where its hosted instead of making every search engine have to keep track of this nonsense.

Now you could say that targeting the hosted content directly would only lead to that content being copied and hosted elsewhere, and I'd agree and say welcome to the internet, followed by something about cats and bags.

 

[Beefy]

Why even target the search engines? If justice dictates that content should be removed because people have a right to be forgotten, then remove the content from where its hosted instead of making every search engine have to keep track of this nonsense.

Now you could say that targeting the hosted content directly would only lead to that content being copied and hosted elsewhere, and I'd agree and say welcome to the internet, followed by something about cats and bags.

Probably easier?

 

[deltatheta]

The problem I have is essentially French courts want the ability to filter the search results worldwide. It's kind of a muddied issue because in this instance you can make an argument that it's for a noble purpose, but the larger issue of a single state imposing their rules on global search results I think is super problematic. What if China or Iran made the same demand? What would be the legal distinction?

 

[NullPointer]

Probably easier?

Seems entirely unfair to place the burden of responsibility on Google or other search engines just because it allows France to avoid the real issue of removing that content directly.

And that's even besides the whole point of France demanding their local laws to be applied to Google worldwide.

This whole thing is nutty.

 

[benjipwns]

You can't own your reputation, it's entirely the creation of others.

The "right to be forgotten" implies a duty on others to not remember. As long as someone remembers in any manner or form, your "right" is being violated. The logical endpoint here is literally to ban others from recalling their memories.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

So for the people saying the right to forget rule is totally bad. How would you feel if you were accused of being a paedo? Loads of news websites had then wrote a article about you being a paedo. But a few weeks/ months later your case was thrown out and you were given a not guilty verdict. Now say it is a year later and you are applying for a job. The interviewer decides to put your name into Google to see if he/she can find anything about you. As soon as he does the articles about you being a paedo would be up the top ( that's face it bad news always gets more hits). They then choose not to employ you. This could go on for the rest of your life.

Do you feel people that have had their lifes destroyed because of false info shouldn't have a right for them articles not to show up?

So in 10 years if there's never a court case, could Bill Cosby campaign to have all articles about the accusations against him expunged from search? Meaning that, for a new generation, it never happened or is strictly confined to rumor?

If your retort is "but Cosby is totally guilty" or "but Cosby is a matter of public interest", well, welcome to the quagmire of enforcing this rule.

 

[benjipwns]

is strictly confined to rumor?

I don't think you should be allowed to post rumors on the internet, doesn't he have a right to be forgotten, even from rumors that we can't tell if are true or not?

My post is safe because I didn't name anyone or what the rumors are.

Actually, it's not because it implies there's rumors about someone, and that someone might come to someones mind and they might remember a rumor they heard before, oh god

 

[Beefy]

So in 10 years if there's never a court case, could Bill Cosby campaign to have all articles about the accusations against him expunged from search? Meaning that, for a new generation, it never happened or is strictly confined to rumor?

If your retort is "but Cosby is totally guilty" or "but Cosby is a matter of public interest", well, welcome to the quagmire of enforcing this rule.

This is why I am not 100% for it, it would be very hard to judge what deserves or doesn't deserve to get erased. It needs to have set rules so it stops people just erasing stuff they did in life they don't want others to remember ( a footballer/ soccer player already did this). Like I said earlier in the thread it's a good rule but it will be abused by the rich. We need to see how countries actually handle it case by case before totally trashing it.

 

[spekkeh]

I have a serious problem with the idea that I could perform a search on a corrupt Italian politician, an English child-abusing MP, a FIFA official accused of taking bribes in Zurich, or a French nationalist who wrote some unfortunate editorials about the blight of modern Islam, and come up blank because a European court ruled that these results aren't relevant or are actively harmful to the party who claims they have "moved on".

And seeing as this likely will never happen because there is such a thing as freedom of press and in these cases entire encyclopedias of precedence that the public has a right to know about such things above the right to privacy, would you argue that the more likely event someone has nude pictures of you, it is their inalienable right to freedom of speech to publish these everywhere tough luck for you?

 

[spekkeh]

So in 10 years if there's never a court case, could Bill Cosby campaign to have all articles about the accusations against him expunged from search? Meaning that, for a new generation, it never happened or is strictly confined to rumor?

If your retort is "but Cosby is totally guilty" or "but Cosby is a matter of public interest", well, welcome to the quagmire of enforcing this rule.

As long as there are allegations it's news. Sites where he is proclaimed guilty could be removed.

 

[benjipwns]

And seeing as this likely will never happen because there is such a thing as freedom of press and in these cases entire encyclopedias of precedence that the public has a right to know about such things above the right to privacy, would you argue that the more likely event someone has nude pictures of you, it is their inalienable right to freedom of speech to publish these everywhere tough luck for you?

So the state will be picking and choosing who has freedom of the press/speech?

As long as there are allegations it's news. Sites where he is proclaimed guilty could be removed.

So no one could opine about his guilt? Or would we wait until if there was a case that decided his guilt or not and then scrub accordingly.

 

[deltatheta]

And seeing as this likely will never happen because there is such a thing as freedom of press and in these cases entire encyclopedias of precedence that the public has a right to know about such things above the right to privacy, would you argue that the more likely event someone has nude pictures of you, it is their inalienable right to freedom of speech to publish these everywhere tough luck for you?

The funny thing is that as the law is implemented, for the most part it's Google making the decision whether the public interest is outweighed by the damage to the requester. Google risks legal action if they refuse to delink something, so it seems like they've got nothing to lose by erring on the side of approving requests. If there's any ambiguity at all, they're going to delist it.

 

[maliedoo]

It's time for...

Freedom Fries
Freedom Toast
Freedom Press
Freedom Dressing
Freedom Fried Onions
Freedom Bread
Freedom Onion Soup

Freedom Manicure
Freedom Kiss
etc...

 

[Scrooged]

I love the implication that if you aren't on Google then you are effectively 'forgotten' online. It's so laughably naive. People use Google as a starting point. You see, other websites also have links that go to other sites. Lots of sites even have a search function! Crazy, right?

 

[benjipwns]

I love the implication that if you aren't on Google then you are effectively 'forgotten' online. It's so laughably naive. People use Google as a starting point. You see, other websites also have links that go to other sites. Lots of sites even have a search function! Crazy, right?

Luckily, the French don't know about this: https://archive.org/web/

 

[Suikoguy]

I love the implication that if you aren't on Google then you are effectively 'forgotten' online. It's so laughably naive. People use Google as a starting point. You see, other websites also have links that go to other sites. Lots of sites even have a search function! Crazy, right?

Yes, the more widespread it gets, the more websites you will see pop up advertising: "Click Here to see the information they forced Google to remove!"

 

[cntr]

I love the implication that if you aren't on Google then you are effectively 'forgotten' online. It's so laughably naive. People use Google as a starting point. You see, other websites also have links that go to other sites. Lots of sites even have a search function! Crazy, right?

Yeah, we should literally force people to share links privately instead of being able to find it themselves! Let people be forced to share precise links instead of being able to find information from multiple websites! You could have indexes of websites that talk about how a certain crime happened that France doesn't want you to talk about, that get shut down like the Pirate Bay gets shut down and comes back. You're a new website that nobody knows about, and got delisted? Well, fuck you!

Are you serious?

 

[Suikoguy]

Yeah, we should literally force people to share links privately instead of being able to find it themselves! Let people be forced to share precise links instead of being able to find information from multiple websites! You could have indexes of websites that talk about how a certain crime happened that France doesn't want you to talk about, that get shut down like the Pirate Bay gets shut down and comes back. You're a new website that nobody knows about, and got delisted? Well, fuck you!

Are you serious?

I.. don't think that was his point at all.

 

[Vermillion]

If I start a smear campaign against you in the newspapers, you can sue the newspaper company and myself for slander and libel. You can force that paper to publish a correction and have the offending materials taken off the distribution market. This is existing law and an application of the principle of individual privacy.

But if in the modern age I do this online, I can distribute all this fake bullshit information that can damage you (and your family) emotionally and financially (imagine a potential employer Googling your name and finding fake articles about you). I can do it anonymously, at low cost and rapidly across the entire internet. The information will always be cached or copied somewhere. Should we just throw our hands up in the air and give up our rights?

I'm sorry, did you just make a comparison to a newspaper?

And I'm pretty sure that libel laws exist online.

 

[Scrooged]

Yeah, we should literally force people to share links privately instead of being able to find it themselves! Let people be forced to share precise links instead of being able to find information from multiple websites! You could have indexes of websites that talk about how a certain crime happened that France doesn't want you to talk about, that get shut down like the Pirate Bay gets shut down and comes back. You're a new website that nobody knows about, and got delisted? Well, fuck you!

Are you serious?

May want to read my post again. It does have a bit of sarcasm and ironic language, so maybe you didn't catch that.

 

[cntr]

I.. don't think that was his point at all.

It's what would actually happen. France will go after website specific searches after Google, because they're also covered by this supposed right to be forgotten.

Information becomes literally "keep passing the tapes" in this future. Your access to information becomes equivalent to whether you can find someone to give it to you, not by accessing a near universal index or indices. You'd get the equivalent of piracy websites to find information about things that the government and corporations don't want you to hear.

Oh, and advertising? You mean that access to information becomes equivalent to who can spend the most money on advertising it?

Yeah, no, fuck that future.

 

[Suikoguy]

It's what would actually happen. France will go after website specific searches after Google, because they're also covered by this supposed right to be forgotten.

Information becomes literally "keep passing the tapes" in this future. Your access to information becomes equivalent to whether you can find someone to give it to you, not by accessing a near universal index or indices. You'd get the equivalent of piracy websites to find information about things that the government and corporations don't want you to hear.

Oh, and advertising? You mean that access to information becomes equivalent to who can spend the most money on advertising it?

Yeah, no, fuck that future.

Edit 2: I'm too tired to figure this crap out today, i'm going to stop before I really screw something up. Edit: Shit, i'm mixing up users, sorry. Yes, that WAS his point, not that it's how it should be.
It's interesting to consider it's implications. Smaller websites will start popping up, and with little financially to lose, and the time it would take for them to be removed the cycle will continue.

Even more amusing, is this will draw additional attention to each removed item.

 

[benjipwns]

It's kinda funny that people don't remember life before Google.

Does Lycos still exist? Can I find dirt on people on there? Or has France already gotten to them? Alta Vista?

 

[NullPointer]

Does Lycos still exist? Can I find dirt on people on there? Or has France already gotten to them? Alta Vista?

I don't know. Did you Ask Jeeves?

Come to think of it, I bet the French got to him first.

 

[cntr]

If I start a smear campaign against you in the newspapers, you can sue the newspaper company and myself for slander and libel. You can force that paper to publish a correction and have the offending materials taken off the distribution market. This is existing law and an application of the principle of individual privacy.

But if in the modern age I do this online, I can distribute all this fake bullshit information that can damage you (and your family) emotionally and financially (imagine a potential employer Googling your name and finding fake articles about you). I can do it anonymously, at low cost and rapidly across the entire internet. The information will always be cached or copied somewhere. Should we just throw our hands up in the air and give up our rights?

Oh, and by the way, if you're advocating accurate information, you should be against this. If someone tells you today that, say, the new leader of the British Labour Party supported Osama bin Ladin and thought his death was a shame, you can cheerfully go look it up and find out that he meant that he was sad that he was killed instead of given a trial. Not in a future where you can't find information anymore.

Unrealistic? In the real world, where David Cameron and the Tories force the BBC to talk positively about them and negatively about Jeremy Corbyn?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes, the more widespread it gets, the more websites you will see pop up advertising: "Click Here to see the information they forced Google to remove!"

All this does is create an index of things people wanted to keep secret.

 

[benjipwns]

There's probably more information that's been lost unintentionally this last month than Google could cut off links to intentionally in a year. News archives put behind paywalls. Companies like ESPN redesigning their site every couple of years breaking all the links to their back archives, them not keeping their own database intact as they let these lapse, and once the links are gone, Google no longer finds the articles. Sites simply shutting down and nobody around to back them up. So on and so on...

 

[cntr]

There's probably more information that's been lost unintentionally this last month than Google could cut off links to intentionally in a year. News archives put behind paywalls. Companies like ESPN redesigning their site every couple of years breaking all the links to their back archives, them not keeping their own database intact as they let these lapse, and once the links are gone, Google no longer finds the articles. Sites simply shutting down and nobody around to back them up. So on and so on...

That's what archive.org is for, though. Another site likely to be crippled by this.

 

[PillarEN]

Man I don't even care for Google that much as a company but I sure would for them to win this time.

 

[hateradio]

I like the concept of the right to be forgotten, but I don't see why it should apply to censorship.

 

[Version 3.0]

This has almost nothing to do with the right of free speech and almost everything to do with the right to privacy. Try again.

You're talking about content on the internet. That's hardly "private". If it was supposed to be, that still doesn't make it Google's responsibility. Google didn't put it on the internet, nor are they hosting it.

I'm sure we all understand potential scenarios, and some laws covering them - with which Google is already compliant, I believe - but I see far more potential for abuse of censoring information on the internet than damage done by putting information on the internet.

 

[witchedwiz]

Is this real life?
France.........

 

[d00d3n]

As a minimal first step, google should fire all personel in France and cease being physically present there, but continue to run their French ad business from other European countries. At that point, it would be up to the French government if they want to block google, youtube or whatever feels like a good response to them. Any such escalation should be treated like the beginnings of a trade war by the USA and met with harsh sanctions.

 

[Joni]

As a minimal first step, google should fire all personel in France and cease being physically present there, but continue to run their French ad business from other European countries.

It would be overlooking the fact the European Commission is saying the same thing as France in this regard: Google needs to delist worldwide.

Tell me what exactly is the difference between destroying information and making you be incapable of accessing it, in terms of end result.

It can be accessed, just not through the channel that is illegally using it. Now, can you tell me why your need of information is higher than my rights to privacy?

Those examples and this do harm freedom on the internet, and just because a bad thing happens already, doesn't mean we should be using that as an excuse to do the same bad thing for a different reason.

Freedom of the internet is pointless if it blocks out your basic rights. The internet is a tool that should follow the same rules as the rest of society.

I love how governments are always fighting against a free Internet.
Does that tell you something about those governments?

Yes, that they are protecting their citizens instead of shouting populist nonsense.

I'm guessing if there a European equivalent to google France would not be pulling this. Call it a hunch.

I have the same hunch with Volkswagen and the USA. if you put your head in the sand, it is completely correct.

Right, like I said, they are going after the library for storing a card catalog of information, as a way of getting around freedom of the press. It's bullshit.

You don't have to 'get' around freedom of the press. The law was written with exceptions for the press since the very beginning.

How is freedom of the press preserved if you can write about something but no one can read it because it's prohibited to index it for search?

It has to have lost relevance in the first place. I hope the press only covers stuff when it is relevant in the first place. I also think you are basing yourself on non-European laws if you're saying freedom of the press. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is what you would call Freedom of press in Europe, only it already states the press is limited by law.

I also wouldn't say Google manages 'quite fine' to block content currently, it still indexes plenty of stuff that is supposedly blocked, and God know s how much gets blocked without any merit, because Google isn't even allowed to say what hase been blocked.

I hope you understand why it would be stupid to say what was blocked, right?

Normal citizens already have access to both records and criminal records, that's why we call it public information. All this law does is make it harder for regular people to access public information (about people who have the resources to get themselves delisted anyway).

It is not public information.Can you get the tax records of your neighbours? In Europe, that is just not the case because we like our privacy.

How is it a positive that corporate directors can use this law to prevent people from having access to mandatory public disclosures? That people can erase history of their crimes if it was 'a long time ago(undefined)'..

Why would it be bad to erase evidence for instance of you being convicted for having taken nude pictures of yourself when you were 17? Why do you think mandatory public disclosures would be allowed to be removed?

This is a law that is almost tailor made for abuse by the powerful to conceal their dirt, and it is another step away from the internet as a medium that is free and open to all people equally, not based on wealth and power.

What is a medium worth if it can't even obey the most basic laws? I'm not ready to give my entire life to Facebook and Google just because these companies want to use me to sell more stuff. You're here protecting the rich and powerful, Google isn't some weak kid on the block. It is made of billionaires dictating the world what they want to do. They're nothing different from the rich guys you are concerned about. It is now open to normal people thanks to this decision.

 

[Zukuu]

And that is why no one likes you France.