4 ms·

The crux of the ruling > [...] that operator is not required to carry out that de-referencing on all versions of its search engine, but on the versions of that

The crux of the ruling > [...] that operator is not required to carry out that de-referencing on all versions of its search engine, but on the versions of that search engine corresponding to all the Member States, using, where necessary, measures which, while meeting the legal requirements, effectively prevent or, at the very least, seriously discourage an internet user conducting a search from one of the Member States on the basis of a data subject’s name from gaining access, via the list of results displayed following that search, to the links which are the subject of that request.

hnarn 7y ago
I'm curious what "seriously discourage" would mean in this context, just bury the search result and that's fine?
- m12k 7y ago
  I think practically speaking it means a VPN will be able to bypass it and that's ok.
- gdhbcc 7y ago
  It means large companies and organizations will be able to do it, but you won't.
hugoroy 7y ago
This "crux" misses point 72 of the ruling which states that EU law does not prohibit national law from (a) finding a different balance between privacy and freedom of expression and, thus, from (b) requiring the de-listing of the relevant name-search result on all versions of the search engine (i.e. globally). This ruling is not the end of the case -- this is the EU law's top court ruling -- the case now goes back to the French court, to decide.
- nicholsonpk 7y ago
  >requiring the de-listing of the relevant name-search result on all versions of the search engine (i.e. globally). I sure hope this gets turned down. I'm not ready for international law where courts ruling over 65 million people (French population) can enforce their laws worldwide. If a single nation has that power, what's stopping China from making Tienanmen Square unsearchable worldwide?
  - hugoroy 7y ago
    I don't really think France's judges power really has an influence on what's stopping, or not stopping, China. China is not waiting for this ruling to try to do just that. It's up to operators like Google to decide whether they want to do business in China or whether they prioritise human rights.
    - eloff 7y ago
      China could probably pull that off if they wanted to. The same way they made international companies rename Taiwan, including Air Canada, they could force search engines to erase Tiananmen Massacre references if they want to continue doing business in China. However, last I heard Google is blocked in China, so the company is one of very few to resist Chinese pressure. Is that still true?
    - nicholsonpk 7y ago
      If this were a ruling that said the results cannot be shown in France or in the EU then I would be okay with that. I think that individual countries should be able to apply laws in their jurisdiction. My problem is that they want to enforce this law worldwide. Hypothetically, if EU law says their ruling applies worldwide and Google stops doing business in the EU, does that mean they would be exempted? Can they then show all results or does the EU still try to charge them with breaking their law? Obviously that's a lot of ifs. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how this ruling would even work if they decide that it does apply to everyone.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago

hnarn 7y ago

I'm curious what "seriously discourage" would mean in this context, just bury the search result and that's fine?

m12k 7y ago
I think practically speaking it means a VPN will be able to bypass it and that's ok.
gdhbcc 7y ago
It means large companies and organizations will be able to do it, but you won't.

hugoroy 7y ago

This "crux" misses point 72 of the ruling which states that EU law does not prohibit national law from (a) finding a different balance between privacy and freedom of expression and, thus, from (b) requiring the de-listing of the relevant name-search result on all versions of the search engine (i.e. globally). This ruling is not the end of the case -- this is the EU law's top court ruling -- the case now goes back to the French court, to decide.

nicholsonpk 7y ago
>requiring the de-listing of the relevant name-search result on all versions of the search engine (i.e. globally). I sure hope this gets turned down. I'm not ready for international law where courts ruling over 65 million people (French population) can enforce their laws worldwide. If a single nation has that power, what's stopping China from making Tienanmen Square unsearchable worldwide?
- hugoroy 7y ago
  I don't really think France's judges power really has an influence on what's stopping, or not stopping, China. China is not waiting for this ruling to try to do just that. It's up to operators like Google to decide whether they want to do business in China or whether they prioritise human rights.
  - eloff 7y ago
    China could probably pull that off if they wanted to. The same way they made international companies rename Taiwan, including Air Canada, they could force search engines to erase Tiananmen Massacre references if they want to continue doing business in China. However, last I heard Google is blocked in China, so the company is one of very few to resist Chinese pressure. Is that still true?
  - nicholsonpk 7y ago
    If this were a ruling that said the results cannot be shown in France or in the EU then I would be okay with that. I think that individual countries should be able to apply laws in their jurisdiction. My problem is that they want to enforce this law worldwide. Hypothetically, if EU law says their ruling applies worldwide and Google stops doing business in the EU, does that mean they would be exempted? Can they then show all results or does the EU still try to charge them with breaking their law? Obviously that's a lot of ifs. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how this ruling would even work if they decide that it does apply to everyone.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago