Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.58.177

Forum Moderators: goodroi

Featured Home Page Discussion

European Court Advisor Backs Google Over Limiting Right to be Forgotten

     
6:47 pm on Jan 10, 2019 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:25787
votes: 834


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...]
9:11 pm on Jan 10, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lucy24 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 9, 2011
posts:15381
votes: 727


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.
11:40 pm on Jan 10, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 18, 2005
posts:1839
votes: 76


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.
3:51 am on Jan 11, 2019 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member from US 

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 10, 2004
posts:459
votes: 46


Most democratic governments create laws with the best of intentions, and most have unintended negative consequences for someone.
4:19 am on Jan 11, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tangor is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 29, 2005
posts:8890
votes: 729


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.
4:32 pm on Jan 11, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 11, 2008
posts:1708
votes: 260


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.
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members