9 ms·
'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs
- NedIsakoff 8y agoCanada has already had court ruling forcing Google to delete pages globally (not just the Canada domain). So why not Europe?
- curt15 8y agoThe fight over that isn't over yet. https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/11/03/canadas-top-court-overstepped-cant-enforce-google-to-delist-search-results-in-us-judge-rules.html https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/11/03/canadas-top-cour...
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoThis is still an insane ruling by the U.S. that has no reasonable force of law. The top court of Canada, the highest judiciary entity, has said that the results must be delisted. Nobody can overrule the Canadian court's ruling on this, especially not an American court. In order to be in compliance with Canadian law, the results must be delisted, and as a company operating in Canada, Google must comply with Canadian law. A U.S. judge can claim all they want that Google doesn't need to comply, but it still leaves Google violating the Canadian court's orders. It's entirely within Canada's purview to begin fining Google and potentially seizing and shutting down their assets in Canada until they comply with the law. The ideal that a Northern California court has some sort of authority over the matter is literally laughable.
- true_religion 8y agoI think you may be missing something. Google is arguing that the Canadian ruling cannot be applied in the US. They will censor whatever they need to on their canadian assets, but if you connect to a US google server from Canada, they shouldnt be obliged to censor.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoI'm not "missing" that. A country can set any criteria it wants upon a company that wishes to operate within it's borders. Including criteria that demands how that company behaves in other countries. The U.S. does the same, and expects the same. In the scenario of this case, Canada is demanding that Google remove infringement of a Canadian citizen's copyright from Google's server. Similarly, the U.S. is well-known for aggressively pursuing entities in other country's for violating U.S. copyright protections. Google is not the good guy here, they're trying to protect their ability to distribute pirated content. And they have no legal basis for their refusal to comply. Note that Canada has not stated that data on a US server must be censored "when a Canadian connects to it". Canada has stated that Google must remove the data from all of their servers, regardless of where it is accessed. Aka, it is not okay to pirate a Canadian citizen's content even when it's on a US server and being accessed by a US citizen.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- true_religion 8y agoThis really ought to be a concern of national export policy, as negotiated by governments. Google got the injuction for US services so they can hide behind US government policy and law as is appropriate. If the US wants its companies to comply with the standards of Canada, thats a topic for legislation... not something that ought to given by default.
- lifeisstillgood 8y agoI guess I had not realised that Google.com is basically exporting - i think that despite everything, forcing the internet into the box of nation states is a bad thing. The current laws do not fix the problem - but it is hard to see which ones will
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoNothing is "forcing" the internet into a "box of nation states". It already is and always was. The Internet is not above or outside the law, and it's not above or outside nations. Every piece of the Internet, every server, computer, router, and switch, is in one country or another (barring the few floating out in international waters), and every single one of them is subject to the law in the country where it is. And every individual or business entity operating them is subject to the laws in the countries they are or operate in. This has always been this way. The Internet is not any different than any other communication medium. We don't perceive a phone call as being something above or outside the law of the nation it takes place in. We don't see mail as being above or outside the law of the nations it traverses. The Internet is just another medium of communication between people and businesses like any other.
- guelo 8y agoImagine Europe's high court says Google must not do what the Canadian court told them to do. Now what?
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoPresumably they would comply with one, and not with the other. And they'd in turn, face any punishment determined by the one they failed to uphold, up to, and including cessation of all of their business and seizure of their assets in the country they did not uphold the law.
- asr 8y agoNote that this is not merely theoretical, or unique to the internet: https://m.dw.com/en/eu-to-reactivate-blocking-statute-against-us-sanctions-on-iran-for-european-firms/a-43826992 https://m.dw.com/en/eu-to-reactivate-blocking-statute-agains...
- pc86 8y agoSerious question, how can Canada force Google to do something globally?
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoGoogle operates in Canada (including having offices and employees), and must obey Canadian law if it would like to continue to do so. While those who are fans of international corporations (for some reason), seem to think that these global megacorps should be above the law, having to answer to no country's authority, the reality is, a global corporation is beholden to follow the law of every country it operates in. And hence, if Canada tells Google to do something internationally, Google can either choose to comply, or not do business in Canada. You can see a similar effect in how the US imposes bans on operating in some countries. If a company wants to do business in the US, it has to obey the US's bans on doing business with North Korea or Iran or what have you. Since so much global business includes US products or needs the US market, our bans have to be followed by more than just folks who live here in the US. If you recall the whole issue with ZTE being effectively shut down over a US ban because they dealt with Iran, you can see how a US law can shut down a Chinese company for doing business with a completely different country. A country can define the conditions for doing business there as whatever it wants, and can impose any level of punishment that it can manage to enforce on a company that doesn't comply. That's sovereignty, and all countries have it.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y agoBut if the data isn't stored in Canada, not viewable from Canada, does Canada really have jurisdiction? Of course this is government, they can do whatever the hell they want. If they want to tell Google they have to delete it globally or they'll be blocked, there's not much anyone else can do about it. Though Google is probably close enough to universal to call their bluff. I know I'd be pissed and writing to my congressman.
- pixl97 8y agoI have a gun, I can force you to do whatever I want. That said, the Canadian government can only 'kill' Google in Canada. Since Google wants those Canadian dollars, they will comply. This is a serious danger with multinational companies. More and more sovereign nations will force these corporations to comply with demands that conflict with the desires of peoples in other nations. Would Google give the information on select US users that have visited China to the Chinese government? Would Google give the information on select US users that have visited China to the Chinese government if it meant getting kicked out of a $50 billion market? When business interests dictate that money comes first, and ideals like freedom come later, money always wins.
- curt15 8y agoWhat prevents China from similarly demanding Apple to de-list apps from non-Chinese app stores that mention Tiananmen Square?
- adventured 8y agoNothing prevents that now, other than corporations having a backbone and or China thinking it's outside of their influence to demand (for now). China is already getting pretty busy at exerting its influence on foreign entities to do things like that. Things that relate to its perceived national interest and identity, censorship, etc. Such as the demands placed on airlines as it relates to Taiwan (which isn't a Chinese territory and is a free nation). You won't see any Winnie the Pooh baby blimps floating over London on Xi's next visit. Iran isn't going to refuse to sell oil to China over Xinjiang. Germany isn't going to refuse a natural gas pipeline with Putin's Russia. All countries, and most corporations, compromise their supposed morals on a routine basis when it suits them. Nike, they of vast sweatshop labor, feel free to simultaneously run ads promoting moral enlightenment.
- interfixus 8y agoNor would you, a few years back, see any demonstrators waving Tibetan flags and suchlike in Copenhagen during a Chinese state visit. Danish police saw to that, legal niceties be damned.
- amarkov 8y agoSure. But if European countries can insist on globally de-indexing truthful information because they feel its continued propagation is harmful, that seriously undercuts any moral high ground available when China tries to do the same.
- quickben 8y agoChina is a nation. The particular instance of the law is designed to help (non-public important) individuals. Various companies that built fortunes on easily collectible data, argue against the law with the "limiting free speech" line because they don't want to spend money on the data cleanup side. The rest is propaganda.
- Tomte 8y agoGood. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world, it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment. Both notions are related, but clearly not the same.
- ng12 8y agoI always like to remind people that China has constitutionally protected "free speech". Saying you guarantee your citizens freedom of speech doesn't mean that freedom of speech is actually meaningful.
- Tomte 8y agoSure, but the fact remains that Germany, France and The Netherlands have Free Speech. A fact that American 1A fans usually deny.
- ng12 8y agoFree speech (as law, not as a concept) comes in gradients. Each restriction you place on free speech weakens it. China, the UK, Germany, and the US all have some form of free speech but each has a stronger implementation than the last. The question is where it stops being meaningful.
- otakucode 8y agoFree speech isn't something that can be given or provided to anyone, it's something which everyone has by nature of being human. You can speak. It requires the action of another person or groups of people to actively change that. It can only be infringed. Of course, when infringed to any degree short of actual afixment of a physical gag, the infringer can smile and say that you retain 'free speech'... but they can no longer claim to respect the notion that it is wrong for one person to infringe on the speech of another.
- danShumway 8y agoIf the NGOs had come out and said, "we believe Chinese monitoring of citizens threatens civil rights", it wouldn't be a slam-dunk defense for China to jump up and say, "well, we have civil rights! They're just different from yours!" Of course they're different. Them being different is the entire point of the criticism. We understand that civil rights aren't a binary category, and that different people and different nations guarantee them to different degrees and in different ways. The same is true of free speech. What NGO is saying is that Europe's definition of free speech, to the extent that it does not block Right to be Forgotten, is not expansive enough. It is meaningless to talk about whether or not "technically" Europe has free speech, in the same way that it is meaningless to talk about whether or not technically China has a right to privacy. When Americans say that European nations don't have real 1A rights, they're saying that Europe does not guarantee those rights strongly enough, based on an idea that these rights are intrinsic and are protected by the state, not granted or defined by the state.
- zeveb 8y agoCould? By its very nature the soi-disant 'right' to be forgotten does threaten free speech, since governments use it to silence people telling truthful information. This isn't about libel: it's about criminals and wrongdoers wanting the Internet to be wiped clean of evidence of their crimes or wrongdoing.
- mattmanser 8y agoThat's sort of the point of rehabilitation, and the end of a prison sentence being the end of society's punishment. If you have a legitimate reason to find out a criminal past you can request a criminal background check. And that's not even including all the other legitimate reasons, like any one who did something stupid as a teenager, has a vicious stalker, did something embarrassing once, has changed their views, has changed themselves, etc. People change. Computers can't comprehend that.
- curt15 8y ago>That judgment allowed European citizens to ask search engines to remove links to “inadequate, irrelevant or ... excessive” content The critical terms "inadequate", "irrelevant" are dangerously subjective. What's irrelevant to one person may be of great interest to another.
- megous 8y agoIt is obvious that people have conflictng desires, but so what? What's your conclusion from that? "Unrestricted" freedom of speech favours just one side.
- panzagl 8y agoThere is a fine line between 'right to be forgotten' and 'ability to be disappeared'.
- conception 8y agoI haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official or celebrity on the internet" and "I rather not have websites like mylife.com, doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse." Curious if HN has any ideas how to approach that issue?
- swebs 8y ago>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly impossible to stop them from getting the others. The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes with a threat of violence from ideological opponents. I think what many people should be fighting for is the right to anonymity. For your identity to never be revealed in the first place. Free speech can't truly be expressed if having the "wrong" opinion leads to some wingnut smashing your head with a bike lock.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- conception 8y agoI feel like your second point answers your first. The difference between information sharing in the past and today is obviously the problem of scale. Looking up your neighborhood used to be useful and small chance of people bike locking you. Now, the scale has increased a thousand fold. What was .01% of a crazy hunting you down maybe is 1%? 10%? Maybe a right to anonymity with the efficiency losses you get there is worth it? Tough issue.
- derefr 8y agoYou're assuming that people know your (true) identity, rather than only knowing a false identity you've created for your public persona.
- 8y ago
- yifanl 8y agoMy personal issue with unilateral free speech is that it's kind of self-defeating. To my understanding, the essential value of free speech is that it protects the unpopular voices... but because of how the system works, the ones without power have substantially more difficulty having their ideas heard. Unilateral free speech makes it impossible for anything except the popular opinions to be voiced without being drowned out. I can't think of a solution to this, unfortunately.
- saghm 8y agoSorry if this is an ignorant question, but "NGOs" just means "non-governmental organizations"; would it be accurate refer to any arbitrary group of companies (that are unaffiliated with any government) as "NGOs"? While the article does specify that it is a "British-led alliance of NGOs", it seems to me like one could call a group consisting of Google, Facebook, and other similar companies as "NGOs"; what's to say that these NGOs aren't just companies that profit off of the lack of a "right to be forgotten"?
- detaro 8y agoThe term isn't 100 % clearly defined, but generally only refers to non-profits and similar entities, not traditional companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization
- saghm 8y agoAh, thanks! I guess I should have googled instead of just relying on my knowledge of the definitions of the individual words
- badrabbit 8y agoNGOs are typically aid companies like oxfam or the redcross. They're not always humanitarian but they're typically western orgs working in non-western countries for some cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization