3 ms·

I would like to add a few points to the discussion: * from my experience with the Dutch cookie law, the interpretation is that if you serve or target a Dutch a

I would like to add a few points to the discussion: * from my experience with the Dutch cookie law, the interpretation is that if you serve or target a Dutch audience, you need to comply; it would only make sense if the same metric is used for the Right to Be Forgotten; * one interesting moral dilemma I have is whether this right to be forgotten should also apply to the audience in a different country (USA, for example). In other words, when someone from France requests a removal of a search result which was found on a US server, would this still be visible to people from the USA ? I think the answer to this should be yes, according to the laws that currently exist, but would allow someone who really wants to have "unfiltered" results (say, a recruiter) to simply use a VPN or proxy server to circumvent the law. All in all, an important but difficult topic to discuss.

daurnimator 11y ago
> * from my experience with the Dutch cookie law, the interpretation is that if you serve or target a Dutch audience, you need to comply; it would only make sense if the same metric is used for the Right to Be Forgotten; The first question is going to be "or else what?". Outside of the USA, Ireland and the UK, firms are going to simply choose not to operate there; but due to the nature non-discriminatory nature of the internet, their services will be available there anyway. There's not much that (e.g.) the Dutch government can do, and trying to fight it with blocking will just end up turning themselves into some sort of internet backwater; which I don't think anyone wants.
- stingraycharles 11y ago
  You're missing the point I was trying to make: Google wanted to implement the Right to be Forgotten only on the .fr domain, which seems like a cheap trick. The way legislation works around this is by simply saying "if you serve people from our country, you obey our laws", which makes sense. Also, both this law and the cookie law are EU-wide laws, and I don't think Google will be retreating from all EU countries any time soon. That's how these things work when you're a small country, you work together with others and suddenly they take you seriously.

daurnimator 11y ago

> * from my experience with the Dutch cookie law, the interpretation is that if you serve or target a Dutch audience, you need to comply; it would only make sense if the same metric is used for the Right to Be Forgotten; The first question is going to be "or else what?". Outside of the USA, Ireland and the UK, firms are going to simply choose not to operate there; but due to the nature non-discriminatory nature of the internet, their services will be available there anyway. There's not much that (e.g.) the Dutch government can do, and trying to fight it with blocking will just end up turning themselves into some sort of internet backwater; which I don't think anyone wants.

stingraycharles 11y ago
You're missing the point I was trying to make: Google wanted to implement the Right to be Forgotten only on the .fr domain, which seems like a cheap trick. The way legislation works around this is by simply saying "if you serve people from our country, you obey our laws", which makes sense. Also, both this law and the cookie law are EU-wide laws, and I don't think Google will be retreating from all EU countries any time soon. That's how these things work when you're a small country, you work together with others and suddenly they take you seriously.