-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
France trying to impose global Google censorship
- Thread starter cntr
- Start date
- Status
Now, can you tell me why your need of information is higher than my rights to privacy?
benjipwns
Banned
That's "getting around" it because it's allowing the state to determine who is and isn't granted those "press" exceptions in the first place renders it basically null and void.
Then don't use them.
It's not private, it's on the internet.
How far are you willing to go to protect your "right to be forgotten"? Does it stop at making Google, who didn't post anything, take down search results? Or scrubbing places like the NeoGAF.com forums too?
Because we cannot implement your chosen rights to privacy in such a way that it would not destroy free speech.
The need for information is equivalent to free speech, because even if you can say something, it means nothing if the government prevents people from hearing.
I choose to compromise in favor of free speech and access to information, because that is more important to a free society than the right to be forgotten.
This law is even bigger than information/privacy. France is asserting is ability to impose its regulations on the entire world, without treaty. Any other country could argue the same if Google caves. You might think it's obvious that it should be so with privacy, but it's equally obvious to a theocracy that the world needs to be protected from blasphemy.
I maintain it's an accurate title. Especially in light of the information we've gotten.
But they are using your information, even if you don't use them. Facebook tracks people who aren't members. Google lists people who don't even use the internet.
Free speech isn't absolute. Free speech shouldn't be worth more than all other basic human rights. Europe in general doesn't have this entire absolute free speech mindset.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Medical professionals can't tell what you have to people not related to you. Slander is still illegal.
And I think free speech is a worthless concept if it means throwing away all the other rights we have.
For its citizens.
Gemüsepizza
Member
No, they are not. They just think that serving the people is more important than serving corporations. I know this concept is hard to understand for the average US citizen, who often thinks that "limitless freedom" is a good idea, even if it bites him in the ass - but that's how we do things in Europe. Deal with it.
It is not nationalism, a government has to make sure their citizens are protected and make sure they enjoy the benefit of their laws.
And we just think that giving people the information to fight corporations and governments is more important than exploiting human rights to deprive human rights.Gemüsepizza;179691836 said:
Your right to privacy is meaningless if you lose control of your government and the corporations you so despise.
Tony Benn said:
And if that involves shitting on everybody else in the world, and in fact most of the people in your own country, or shitting on anybody because they're not "your" people, then no. I'll never agree with that.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Gemüsepizza;179691836 said:
The people want Google, so they can fuck off.
I bet if Europe loses Google, their internet business will completely collapse without all their services.
Accurate but incomplete and suggestive of a motive other than a morale conflict or dilemma.
They're still salty about this, right?
Google actually had nothing to do with that. Someone made a fake site that you'd go to with "I'm Feeling Lucky".
I have zero doubt it's not a method of getting around free speech and imposing global censorship.
benjipwns
Banned
Yes, you can. Please never use this example.
But this isn't the case here. You'd rather have large corporations, the government and the connected elite with the power to whitewash any incriminating material against them or merely anything they don't like off the internet, and probably go farther considering what a truly enforced "right to be forgotten" would mean, because you might someday have something posted publicly you want to take back?Gemüsepizza;179691836 said:
Should the French Government, should Google, should Timothy Dalton, etc. be able to force Evilore to delete posts on NeoGAF.com you want "forgotten"? What should be the punishment for him or Google if they refuse? (Evilore, not Timothy Dalton)
I mean you're literally talking about erasing the freedom of the press and speech here.
We're rolling back the Liberal Enlightenment so corrupt officials, corporate executives, celebrities, etc. can force others to clean up their dirty laundry? Are we going to eliminate anything that mentions it? Or mentions the deletions? Or mentions the mentions of the deletions? When do we stop whitewashing?
The "right to be forgotten" is simply an absurd concept on its face. Like I said, the logical endpoint of protecting this "right" is to ban the recall of certain memories lest someone remind someone else about something you wanted forgotten. God forbid they show them the shameful material in person instead of using the internet.
Gemüsepizza
Member
You can't honestly believe that. If Google abandons Europe, they will simply cease to exist.
The "right to be forgotten" includes restrictions for people of public interest, and does not apply to corporations.
Gemüsepizza
Member
How?
Gemüsepizza
Member
Sorry but I don't understand your argument? They are already deciding what they want to show us. And the "right to be forgotten" does not give people of public interest, for example the corrupt officials, corporate executives or celebrities you have mentioned, a way to hide their offenses.
Google will be given more direct powers to do it. And more importantly, you won't be able to use Google alternatives etiher, since they'll be subject to the same law.Gemüsepizza;179692913 said:
Either governments or Google have to decide what to erase, likely both. And private citizens can request it as well, and Google will have to comply or be subject to countless court lawsuits debating whether to allow it.
Even if it doesn't apply to executives or politicians, how would you know, if it's been erased? There isn't even any clear wording that this wouldn't happen, and I don't trust your government, likely bribed by the companies you disdain, to do it fairly.
TheRedSnifit
Member
It's almost comical watching these logical gymnastics as people try to twist giving the elite more power into standing up for the little guy or some bullshit.
My opinion on the matter has been shifting a bit after reading some posts, especially one of ShoNuff's. Though I stand by my earlier posts that as it is and with some judicial review, the "right to be forgotten" could be a logical extension of privacy rights online.
But it's not going to work when I don't trust that court or country. There is indeed a legitimate concern that e.g. a non-EU dictatorship would use this as a precedent to expand its own censorship rules. Something like "Delete all references to pornography from your search engine results or we will block Google in our glorious republic of Val Verde". I mean, that's actually already going on in some countries. If this global application of a "right to be forgotten" would then set an international precedent for that dictatorship to say "Delete all links across the world", then we have a big fucking problem.
Then it's going to be up to Google et al. to do the cost/benefit analysis of pulling out of the country or complying with the censorship.
So, I guess, the practical compromise would have to stick with national application (as in, do the search from a French IP and you get the censored results), even though that severely limits its effectiveness. Whether or not I then agree with what results are being filtered is an issue for the French people as it would be in line with their existing and established privacy rights/constitution/etc.
PS: For what it's worth, the original source of this right is from a EU Court of Justice ruling. The CoJ is really not a tool of the corrupt government overlords, so I would lay low on the accusations that this is some kind of evil censorship monster. Just a very difficult application of offline principles to the online/global world.
But it's not going to work when I don't trust that court or country. There is indeed a legitimate concern that e.g. a non-EU dictatorship would use this as a precedent to expand its own censorship rules. Something like "Delete all references to pornography from your search engine results or we will block Google in our glorious republic of Val Verde". I mean, that's actually already going on in some countries. If this global application of a "right to be forgotten" would then set an international precedent for that dictatorship to say "Delete all links across the world", then we have a big fucking problem.
Then it's going to be up to Google et al. to do the cost/benefit analysis of pulling out of the country or complying with the censorship.
So, I guess, the practical compromise would have to stick with national application (as in, do the search from a French IP and you get the censored results), even though that severely limits its effectiveness. Whether or not I then agree with what results are being filtered is an issue for the French people as it would be in line with their existing and established privacy rights/constitution/etc.
PS: For what it's worth, the original source of this right is from a EU Court of Justice ruling. The CoJ is really not a tool of the corrupt government overlords, so I would lay low on the accusations that this is some kind of evil censorship monster. Just a very difficult application of offline principles to the online/global world.
Basic human right because people said so?
benjipwns
Banned
LeeRoyBrown
Banned
Another example of how governments fuck everything.
Give businesses more control of their own freedoms and life will be better for everyone.
I seriously don't understand the role of government anymore. Other that to be corrupt and absorb our money.
Give businesses more control of their own freedoms and life will be better for everyone.
I seriously don't understand the role of government anymore. Other that to be corrupt and absorb our money.
benjipwns
Banned
Fuck France. And fuck that you can't spend 2 minutes of your time to realise that France has NOT your best interest in mind when doing this, and how that can come back and bite you in the butt later, or the precedents being set by this, and how you should be fighting for a free, uncensored internet instead of defending a country doing stupid stuff just because "it's law". Fuck the law when it is stupid.
And just so we are clear: Fuck France.
I live in France , and this has nothing to do with the "citizens best interests" lol.
It's only a mean for the politics to control the information on the internet (aka supress anything that paints them in a non-favorable way).
That's exactly how a local politic of my area did. "Law to be forgotten" so that any research on his name couldn't be linked to one particular successful local blog that criticizes him.
But keep fooling yourselves into thinking Google is the big baddy here.
It's only a mean for the politics to control the information on the internet (aka supress anything that paints them in a non-favorable way).
That's exactly how a local politic of my area did. "Law to be forgotten" so that any research on his name couldn't be linked to one particular successful local blog that criticizes him.
But keep fooling yourselves into thinking Google is the big baddy here.
BlitzerRadic
Member
Exactly this. If this right to be forgotten thing came to pass and spread to other euro nations then stuff like the VW scandal could be covered up.
About your local politic, here's what the president of the CNIL says:
source: http://www.cnil.fr/english/news-and...to-delisting-google-informal-appeal-rejected/
Yeah, but as this politic is in a place of power and is tied to the present government, it was done nothertheless.
It doesn't help that the current president of the CNIL was already involved in some shady stuff doing harm to the "forum des droits des internets".
Gemüsepizza
Member
Jesus Christ, no it could not be "covered up". Do you guys understand this law at all?
Poe's law? If you are serious, I feel sad for you.
You can write "Fuck France" a thousand times, but this will not bother them at all. Your fears of censorship make no sense, because Google already censors search results, in compliance with the law. And surprise, we are still alive.
Do you have a link to this blog story?
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Well, it's certainly nice of them to say, even nicer for you to believe.
Or the other way around, the Volkswagen scandal shows it pays for government to have control over big business. It was discovered by a government division in the USA, while a big business run environment centers never found a problem with the Volkswagen. Also, to my knowledge, no advance has been made to hide previous recalls of Volkswagens, least not at all in France where there were some recalls on them as recently as April. Or the big one that was done worldwide in 2013.
Gemüsepizza;179700116 said:
http://www.bondamanjak.com/serge-le...simplement-un-souriant-dictateur-a-demasquer/
Coffee Dog
Banned
"The right to be forgotten" is being applied on a wider scale.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Uhh that's a pretty poor article in my opinion.
First of all this seems to be just an assumption, because his blog is not listed on the first few pages when you search on Google for the politicians name.
Second, he claimed that there are no links to his blog on Google search when you type "Letchimy Bondamanjak". But I do get plenty of results, even on google.fr.
European Court of Justice said search engines and web portals should apply a sort of "right to be forgotten" when it involves private personal data. There's a duty of care on the search engine to just de-list any search results, but the applicant needs to submit reasons and there is a balance of public right to information and press freedom. The goal is to have an easier way to "delete" data about yourself that is incorrect or irrelevant. If you are a public figure, this condition is more difficult to achieve. It is not intended to be a blanket way to get any info on you deleted, especially if it is public relevant like criminal activity or a scandal (provided it's not fake or slander).
France is now asking Google to comply with this judgment on an international level. It feels that it makes no sense to only de-list this information from Google.fr, since people can just use the .com version and see the results after all.
People are now concerned that this would set a precedent for international application of "censorship".
Issues are:
- How does Google (and others) perform this balance of private/public info? What if it just deletes any information without due dilligence? How often would it happen that e.g. a corrupt politician or pedophile manages to get info on him/herself deleted with nobody noticing?
- Is it even right for a country to apply this kind of provision and ask for international compliance? Sites already comply on a national level (e.g. censorship in China to blocking piracy and child porn websites in Europe), but what if this sets a precedent: Delete whatever I tell you to delete and make it inaccessible from anywhere, to anyone?
- If we allow this "right to be forgotten", what is the level of "trust" we give to the involved courts, governments and rights? What if some data is still relevant in one country but not in another?
- If we don't allow it, then are we not giving up our ability to effectively act against incorrect or slanderous or malicious information online, whereas this was much easier to do offline?
Let's also keep in mind that search engines already to censorship and ranking of results in non-transparent ways. This, at least the EU-version, would likely not be a huge change.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Gemüsepizza;179691836 said:
Your government literally sided with the French taxi monopoly to prevent uber from creating cheaper competition. "Serving the people."
*disclaimer - I am a part time uber driver
Gemüsepizza
Member
So it could have been anything, but the blog owner said it must have been because of this law? And you believe that without hesitation? That sounds convincing. But I don't expect much else from this guy who thinks that intelligence agencies have hacked his blog and that politicians have him under surveillance. All without any proof of course.
Cheaper competition which is achieved by exploiting their own employees.
Quite frankly this is Google's fault then for giving in to de-listing requests too hastily. This is why we would need judicial review and monitoring by civil rights bodies, in case of an application of this ruling. Though that still would not be ideal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked