France Gives Google 15-Days To Comply With "Right to be Forgotten," Globally

[engine]

France's data protection regulator has called fore Google to comply with the request for the EU's "right to be forgotten", but on a global basis. The so-called "Right to be Forgotten" was complied with across Europe, but it makes a mockery of it when the material is still readily available by going to any one of google's other properties.

The data protection regulator has issued the deadline for compliance, but has not yet set out what happens if Google does not comply.

Following the assessment of the complaints, the CNIL has requested Google to carry out the delisting of several results. It was expressly requested that the delisting should be effective on whole search engine, irrespective of the extension used (.fr; .uk; .com …).

Although the company has granted some of the requests, delisting was only carried out on European extensions of the search engine and not when searches are made from “google.com” or other non-European extensions.

In accordance with the CJEU judgement, the CNIL considers that in order to be effective, delisting must be carried out on all extensions of the search engine and that the service provided by Google search constitutes a single processing.

In this context, the President of the CNIL has put Google on notice to proceed, within a period of fifteen (15) days, to the requested delisting on the whole data processing and thus on all extensions of the search engine.

France Gives Google 15-Days To Comply With "Right to be Forgotten" In Search World-Wide [cnil.fr]

Previous stories
Google Decides What to Remove in the EU's "Right to be Forgotten" [webmasterworld.com]

EU Court Backs Users' 'Right to be Forgotten' on Google [webmasterworld.com]

[whitespace]

But I don't think it's just a technical issue. I think Google is against the very act of censorship. It doesn't want to be seen to censor information that is otherwise publicly/freely available.

Also, up until now it hasn't "just" been a case of blocking certain results when using a particular search engine (google.whatever). Those results have only been blocked when searching for a "particular search phrase". It has been possible to find the same article on the same search engine using a different search phrase.

[Samizdata]

all we care about is the law itself

Speak for yourself.

The day that one of your publications containing fair, accurate and truthful information is suppressed from the SERPs and disappears down a memory hole you might see it differently.

Or perhaps not - you might be entirely comfortable with the fact that the decision to censor is not made by a court of law (against which you would have a right of appeal) but by a Google/Bing employee.

...

[tangor]

but by a Google/Bing employee.

...acting as quasi-police under color of "law"

(note: above is tongue in cheek... and yet is factual!)

[7_Driver]

Some guy steals a sandwich when he was a kid and decides twenty years later he doesnt want his employers knowing about it, and millions end up being spent all around the world on lawyers and meetings in courts and corporate boardrooms, ha ha.

Actually if you check out some of the stories that the BBC has had removed from Google - which they've helpfully published here:

[bbc.co.uk...]

there's some much more significant stuff being "forgotten" than a sandwich stolen twenty years ago (or equivalent).

[Leosghost]

there's some much more significant stuff being "forgotten" than a sandwich stolen twenty years ago (or equivalent).

Indeed..
Google appear to be making some "unusual" decisions as to what to "remove"..
[theregister.co.uk...]

[fathom]

What happened? ... we are closing in on 30-days.

[RedBar]

Precisely, I was only discussing this yesterday, or has Greece taken centre stage?