European Court Advisor Backs Google Over Limiting Right to be Forgotten

[engine]

France wanted Google to extend the right to be forgotten beyond the E.U. to globally, but Google did not want that extended.

A senior advisor to the European Court has backed Google and it's likely that the Court will follow the advice of the advisor, meaning that the right to be forgotten is unlikely to be extended globally.

[bbc.co.uk...]

[lucy24]

A timely reminder that the US is not the only country in the world to think that what we want is what everyone should do.

Heh, heh, snrk.

[koan]

I remember reading an article that the right to be forgotten was mostly used by politicians and businessmen to remove reports of unflattering things they said or done in the past, so essentially more a PR tool than a tool to help actual victims. That's the thing in Europe, they create a lot of laws with the best intentions but it either does more damage than good out of ignorance or get twisted by the powerful.

[motorhaven]

Most democratic governments create laws with the best of intentions, and most have unintended negative consequences for someone.

[tangor]

The secondary is that if G had lost ... the likely result would have been NATIONS challenging the EUs attempt to enforce laws their countries ... I suspect that was one fight undesired.

[Shaddows]

Also, the EU probably did not want to be responsible for the principle that if, say, China wanted to unperson someone, they could force the world to unperson them.

Large jurisdictions can, in practice, force 3rd country companies to comply with their laws, if they have sufficient clout.

Both EU and USA can ban companies from doing something on pain of losing market access. Witness the US / Iran sanction situation. EU companies are on the whole open to trading with Iran, but will not do so for fear of losing access to US Markets.

The EU could have told Google that their law was to be applied everywhere or Google would be given large daily fines. Google could then comply, pay the daily fine, or withdraw from the EU. Technically, the law would only be applied in the EU, but the consequence (i.e. the suppression of data) would have been global.

Which brings us back to the China question. If someone wanted the world to forget about student protests in a certain Square in 1989, it's difficult to argue from a legal standpoint why that should not be enforced worldwide, when the EU insists it's own edicts should be so enforced.

At which point, no Western company could operate in China, unless they enforced the ban worldwide.

Not a good precedent to set.