9 ms·

To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling. But its implementation of it looks odd, perhaps clumsy. I find it incredible that Google is held at

by personZ 12y ago

To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling. But its implementation of it looks odd, perhaps clumsy. I find it incredible that Google is held at fault in this case because they don't choose whether it is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" in a way that fits the author's view. Such an analysis is so absurdly subjective, and it is impossible for Google to satisfy both sides. The European Court ruling is pure absurdity, and this article could more accurately be titled "European Court Rules That Past Must Be Wiped. Much Comedy As Result." There is no possible way that Google can implement it that won't endlessly earn them criticism, such as this piece.

cwyers 12y ago
Unless Google wants to treat the EU like they did China and redirect all searches to a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms, they're doing all they can here.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Perhaps they should.
- lclarkmichalek 12y ago
  Ah, contempt of court. Always a solid tactic
  - cwyers 12y ago
    I don't really see how it would be contempt of court for Google to shut down its European servers and redirect all its European domains to go to Google.com. It would be a lot of other things, but I don't think it would be contempt of court.
    - brador 12y ago
      In Europe they're more serious about the concept of "spirit of the law". Particularly when circumvention is used as a route around a ruling.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - eli 12y ago
      The court ordered Google Inc to remove certain listings. They did not specify "only on certain TLDs" or "only from certain servers." Including them in search results is violating the court order. I guess if Google pulled out of the EU entirely, closing all European subsidiaries, relocating employees and removing all assets, then they could make a case that the court no longer has jurisdiction... that seems like it'd be difficult. IANAL.
      - magicalist 12y ago
        They still show the results on non-EU TLDs.
        eli 12y ago
        Why do you say that? The court's authority AFAIK had nothing to do with the TLD being used, but because Google Spain is within their jurisdiction.
        magicalist 12y ago
        Check out the Guardian story, which has screenshots of the two side by side (or try their example directly by searching for "Dougie McDonald Guardian" on google.com vs google.co.uk. Ignore the news articles, just look at the missing top stories).
        jonknee 12y ago
        The EU court has no authority outside of the EU.
        eli 12y ago
        And Google is in the EU, no?
        jonknee 12y ago
        Which is why the EU version of Google has complied with the EU court.
    - seszett 12y ago
      > I don't really see how it would be contempt of court Well I do, and I can guarantee you that courts would see it too. In Europe, laws generally aren't to be interpreted by the letter. You can't game them with technicalities (well it depends, but in this case it's quite clear).
      - cwyers 12y ago
        Well then explain it to me. Google.com still shows the listings. Is that contempt of court?
        seszett 12y ago
        It's not, as long as the European sites don't show them, because the court is well aware that it doesn't have jurisdiction outside the EU. It's really not complicated.
        cwyers 12y ago
        Well that was my entire point: that Google was doing everything it could to fight the EU's "right to be forgotten" short of simply deciding (like they did with China) to stop operating a search engine in EU's jurisdiction.
        seszett 12y ago
        My point is that stopping operating their search engine in the EU, while redirecting European domains to Google.com, and keeping headquarters there, would be contempt of court. Because it's very obviously not following the court's decision. Whereas obeying the court order in Europe but not in the rest of the world is completely normal. Of course, stopping all operations in EU altogether would be fine too, but they're not going to do that.
      - gnerd 12y ago
        > In Europe, laws generally aren't to be interpreted by the letter. That's a very general statement and generally untrue (although you are in this case, partially correct). Acts and statutes are always interpreted by the letter, you are perhaps confusing this by making a comparison of these EU statutes with common law or jus commune as that is interpreted by "the spirit of the law" (usually informed by case-law, constitutions etc. depending on the country). Acts and statutes are not common law (or natural law), and these EU measures are enabled by acts and statutes in each separate EU member state. So they are indeed interpreted to the letter as these acts must be implemented in states with codified constitutions (where one court has supreme interpretation of a constitution and must apply EU law with direct effect, although the big ones haven't done this till recently) and ones without (where there is an indirect effect of law). This is known as the Supremacy Doctrine[1]. The only exception is when the interpretation comes from the European Court of Justice. The part you are absolutely right about, is that in this specific case, interpretation will not be up to each member state as this amendment was straight from the European Court of Justice. Generally, however, as far as "European law" goes, until we have an actual constitution or become an actual federation, your general statement is untrue most of the time (lets not forget the EU is enabled by treaties and if you don't think the letter matters in a treaty then I have come contracts I'd love you to sign...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_%28European_Union_law%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_%28European_Union_la...
  - outside1234 12y ago
    So you are saying you'd be ok with Google censoring searches in China?
- ulfw 12y ago
  "a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms" And where would that be?
  - andrewfong 12y ago
    So long as you're not reporting on matters of "national security", the U.S. actually has a decent track record with that ...
    - lisper 12y ago
      Yes, but the problem is that what is a "matter of national security" in practice is whatever the government says it is. So this exception is enough to effectively eviscerate the freedom of the press.
      - ewillbefull 12y ago
        Nobody got in trouble in the U.S. for reporting on/distributing the Snowden leaks. There weren't any newspaper raids. Nobody was asked to "keep quiet". Anyone who did censor did so out of mutual interest. Press freedoms have not been eviscerated here. It's a trendy narrative, but in reality you have enormous freedom to distribute content which was illegally obtained as per the Pentagon Papers cases and others. The worst thing we have here is cozy relationships between the media and the government, but alternative news sources are available everywhere and Americans are relying on them more than ever.
        jacalata 12y ago
        Greenwald doesn't seem to think so. James Risen probably doesn't agree.
        lisper 12y ago
        > Nobody was asked to "keep quiet" Given the existence of NSL's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter) there is no way of knowing who has been "asked" to keep quiet. And when Glenn Greenwald visited the U.S. recently it was far from clear that he would not be taken into custody.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
marti221 12y ago
Couldn't of said it better myself.
- jrlocke 12y ago
  It's "couldn't have" or perhaps "couldn't've" but it's certainly not "couldn't of". Interesting error born of an incorrect interpretation of phonetics.
kjjw 12y ago
Interesting to think that it is in Google's interest to create a clumsy system that does not properly check requested deletions. Too many deletions that have no merit under the scheme will likely create a backlash, placing a negative highlight on the scheme to the average person on the street who will now start to read news article after news article about erroneous deletions. What the EU is trying to do is likely impossible. But I can't help but think that their intentions are sound. For example, I fully expect a modern society to give a second chance to a difficult teenager that receives a criminal record. Many governments would hide such a record after a certain time.
- personZ 12y ago
  How does this request not have merit? What makes it "clumsy"? Because the linked author says it is? Recall that the original action that yielded the right to be forgotten clause was a gentleman who wanted a debt confiscation and sale removed from the public record. The actual national agency told him to get lost -- the data was valid and unchallenged, and is a part of the recognized past, and is fully available and robust if you search them -- but the European Court decided that search engines must, for some reason, erase this past. Merrill Lynch was absorbed into Bank of America: It no longer exists as an organization. This gentleman has moved on and no longer serves as Chairman or CEO, effectively retired and sitting on apparently a single board. Is a newspaper article slandering him really relevant (the pertinent demand of the court ruling) to anyone anymore? Why, if the search engines have to pretend that a man didn't really have property confiscated and sold for debts, do they not have to also pretend that he wasn't a CEO? Note that European courts really like giving out big fines (especially, it seems, to American companies), so this impossible to judge subjective basis by which items must be deleted is a no-win situation for Google, and of course they must lean to the side of erring to delete. Erring to retain is a legal quagmire.
  - kjjw 12y ago
    I didn't say this case is or isn't 'clumsy', nor that it is or isn't 'meritful'. But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics of this case.
happyscrappy 12y ago
The internet routes around foolishness like this, thankfully. The only thing the EU court is doing here is damaging their own credibility.
- SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
  No, it doesn't. Try getting any visitors to your site if you don't have name recognition and get de-indexed by Google.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    It's not about any one individual site. It's about information being removed altogether. The point is that's essentially impossible - there is no way the information about Dougie MacDonald (and the rest) is going to be suppressed - if anything, this will make it more widely available.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Google in Europe will be known to be censored, there will be Google results to blogs about censored data that will be visible in a plain Google search, even in Europe.

by personZ 12y ago

cwyers 12y ago

Unless Google wants to treat the EU like they did China and redirect all searches to a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms, they're doing all they can here.

bitJericho 12y ago
Perhaps they should.
lclarkmichalek 12y ago
Ah, contempt of court. Always a solid tactic
- cwyers 12y ago
  I don't really see how it would be contempt of court for Google to shut down its European servers and redirect all its European domains to go to Google.com. It would be a lot of other things, but I don't think it would be contempt of court.
  - brador 12y ago
    In Europe they're more serious about the concept of "spirit of the law". Particularly when circumvention is used as a route around a ruling.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - eli 12y ago
    The court ordered Google Inc to remove certain listings. They did not specify "only on certain TLDs" or "only from certain servers." Including them in search results is violating the court order. I guess if Google pulled out of the EU entirely, closing all European subsidiaries, relocating employees and removing all assets, then they could make a case that the court no longer has jurisdiction... that seems like it'd be difficult. IANAL.
    - magicalist 12y ago
      They still show the results on non-EU TLDs.
      - eli 12y ago
        Why do you say that? The court's authority AFAIK had nothing to do with the TLD being used, but because Google Spain is within their jurisdiction.
        magicalist 12y ago
        Check out the Guardian story, which has screenshots of the two side by side (or try their example directly by searching for "Dougie McDonald Guardian" on google.com vs google.co.uk. Ignore the news articles, just look at the missing top stories).
        jonknee 12y ago
        The EU court has no authority outside of the EU.
        eli 12y ago
        And Google is in the EU, no?
        jonknee 12y ago
        Which is why the EU version of Google has complied with the EU court.
  - seszett 12y ago
    > I don't really see how it would be contempt of court Well I do, and I can guarantee you that courts would see it too. In Europe, laws generally aren't to be interpreted by the letter. You can't game them with technicalities (well it depends, but in this case it's quite clear).
    - cwyers 12y ago
      Well then explain it to me. Google.com still shows the listings. Is that contempt of court?
      - seszett 12y ago
        It's not, as long as the European sites don't show them, because the court is well aware that it doesn't have jurisdiction outside the EU. It's really not complicated.
        cwyers 12y ago
        Well that was my entire point: that Google was doing everything it could to fight the EU's "right to be forgotten" short of simply deciding (like they did with China) to stop operating a search engine in EU's jurisdiction.
        seszett 12y ago
        My point is that stopping operating their search engine in the EU, while redirecting European domains to Google.com, and keeping headquarters there, would be contempt of court. Because it's very obviously not following the court's decision. Whereas obeying the court order in Europe but not in the rest of the world is completely normal. Of course, stopping all operations in EU altogether would be fine too, but they're not going to do that.
    - gnerd 12y ago
      > In Europe, laws generally aren't to be interpreted by the letter. That's a very general statement and generally untrue (although you are in this case, partially correct). Acts and statutes are always interpreted by the letter, you are perhaps confusing this by making a comparison of these EU statutes with common law or jus commune as that is interpreted by "the spirit of the law" (usually informed by case-law, constitutions etc. depending on the country). Acts and statutes are not common law (or natural law), and these EU measures are enabled by acts and statutes in each separate EU member state. So they are indeed interpreted to the letter as these acts must be implemented in states with codified constitutions (where one court has supreme interpretation of a constitution and must apply EU law with direct effect, although the big ones haven't done this till recently) and ones without (where there is an indirect effect of law). This is known as the Supremacy Doctrine[1]. The only exception is when the interpretation comes from the European Court of Justice. The part you are absolutely right about, is that in this specific case, interpretation will not be up to each member state as this amendment was straight from the European Court of Justice. Generally, however, as far as "European law" goes, until we have an actual constitution or become an actual federation, your general statement is untrue most of the time (lets not forget the EU is enabled by treaties and if you don't think the letter matters in a treaty then I have come contracts I'd love you to sign...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_%28European_Union_law%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_%28European_Union_la...
- outside1234 12y ago
  So you are saying you'd be ok with Google censoring searches in China?
ulfw 12y ago
"a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms" And where would that be?
- andrewfong 12y ago
  So long as you're not reporting on matters of "national security", the U.S. actually has a decent track record with that ...
  - lisper 12y ago
    Yes, but the problem is that what is a "matter of national security" in practice is whatever the government says it is. So this exception is enough to effectively eviscerate the freedom of the press.
    - ewillbefull 12y ago
      Nobody got in trouble in the U.S. for reporting on/distributing the Snowden leaks. There weren't any newspaper raids. Nobody was asked to "keep quiet". Anyone who did censor did so out of mutual interest. Press freedoms have not been eviscerated here. It's a trendy narrative, but in reality you have enormous freedom to distribute content which was illegally obtained as per the Pentagon Papers cases and others. The worst thing we have here is cozy relationships between the media and the government, but alternative news sources are available everywhere and Americans are relying on them more than ever.
      - jacalata 12y ago
        Greenwald doesn't seem to think so. James Risen probably doesn't agree.
      - lisper 12y ago
        > Nobody was asked to "keep quiet" Given the existence of NSL's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter) there is no way of knowing who has been "asked" to keep quiet. And when Glenn Greenwald visited the U.S. recently it was far from clear that he would not be taken into custody.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

marti221 12y ago

Couldn't of said it better myself.

jrlocke 12y ago
It's "couldn't have" or perhaps "couldn't've" but it's certainly not "couldn't of". Interesting error born of an incorrect interpretation of phonetics.

kjjw 12y ago

Interesting to think that it is in Google's interest to create a clumsy system that does not properly check requested deletions. Too many deletions that have no merit under the scheme will likely create a backlash, placing a negative highlight on the scheme to the average person on the street who will now start to read news article after news article about erroneous deletions. What the EU is trying to do is likely impossible. But I can't help but think that their intentions are sound. For example, I fully expect a modern society to give a second chance to a difficult teenager that receives a criminal record. Many governments would hide such a record after a certain time.

personZ 12y ago
How does this request not have merit? What makes it "clumsy"? Because the linked author says it is? Recall that the original action that yielded the right to be forgotten clause was a gentleman who wanted a debt confiscation and sale removed from the public record. The actual national agency told him to get lost -- the data was valid and unchallenged, and is a part of the recognized past, and is fully available and robust if you search them -- but the European Court decided that search engines must, for some reason, erase this past. Merrill Lynch was absorbed into Bank of America: It no longer exists as an organization. This gentleman has moved on and no longer serves as Chairman or CEO, effectively retired and sitting on apparently a single board. Is a newspaper article slandering him really relevant (the pertinent demand of the court ruling) to anyone anymore? Why, if the search engines have to pretend that a man didn't really have property confiscated and sold for debts, do they not have to also pretend that he wasn't a CEO? Note that European courts really like giving out big fines (especially, it seems, to American companies), so this impossible to judge subjective basis by which items must be deleted is a no-win situation for Google, and of course they must lean to the side of erring to delete. Erring to retain is a legal quagmire.
- kjjw 12y ago
  I didn't say this case is or isn't 'clumsy', nor that it is or isn't 'meritful'. But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics of this case.

happyscrappy 12y ago

The internet routes around foolishness like this, thankfully. The only thing the EU court is doing here is damaging their own credibility.

SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago
No, it doesn't. Try getting any visitors to your site if you don't have name recognition and get de-indexed by Google.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  It's not about any one individual site. It's about information being removed altogether. The point is that's essentially impossible - there is no way the information about Dougie MacDonald (and the rest) is going to be suppressed - if anything, this will make it more widely available.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Google in Europe will be known to be censored, there will be Google results to blogs about censored data that will be visible in a plain Google search, even in Europe.