4 ms·

I wonder how EU regulators are going to react when, for example, Russian regulators demand that Google remove all links to "inaccurate" (i.e. not Russian propag

by fpgeek 12y ago

I wonder how EU regulators are going to react when, for example, Russian regulators demand that Google remove all links to "inaccurate" (i.e. not Russian propaganda) stories about MH17, worldwide.

jacquesm 12y ago
It's a fairly natural privacy issue. The EU DPD has some fairly clear rules about automated gathering of information about people, the rules under which you are required to honor requests for reports about that data, to update it if so required and to be deleted at the first request. Google is side-stepping the reach of the EU by keeping the data on servers outside of the EU but this goes against the spirit of those laws, it is about the citizens not about where the data resides.
- shakethemonkey 12y ago
  It's not so much against the spirit of those laws, but an attempt by the EU to apply its laws outside the jurisdiction of the sphere of absurdity that is the EU. This is not at all about "where the data resides", as you claim, because the EU is not attacking the data where it resides -- it leaves that alone, on their original servers -- but instead where the data is indexed.
- jim-greer 12y ago
  Thailand can just as easily say that laws banning criticism of the king are about the king, not where the data resides.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    They could indeed. And if Google had a Thai presence (I don't know if they do) and plan on keeping it then they should probably comply. Pesky problem, nation states that claim they trump corporations.
    - jim-greer 12y ago
      Here's a partial list of removal requests Google has gotten from governments. Are you saying Google should remove all of this worldwide? http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government... Or maybe you think it should only honor requests from these countries, where it has an office? http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/ http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Those requests have nothing to do with the right to be forgotten under the DPD. Really, censorship and privacy are two totally different issues and the mixture here is not conducive to progress.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        jacquesm 12y ago
        > thefreeman > It is EXACTLY the same thing. Of course it isn't. Let me spell it out: Censorship: A nation-state determining what its own populace can read about general world affairs and affairs concerning that governments own actions, inspection and possible redaction of communications between citizens and their access to media (such as books). Privacy: The right of an individual to govern the whereabouts of the data concerning that particular individual. You can't possibly confuse the two.
        fpgeek 12y ago
        This is nonsense. Google isn't making policy decisions about censorship and privacy, nor should they be. Instead, they're assessing when it is and isn't legally risky / expensive to return search result X to a user in country Y. At that level, privacy requirements and censorship requirements are functionally identical. Just because the EU's legal restrictions are grounded in privacy doesn't mean another jurisdiction's won't be grounded in censorship. Which is one thing if those restrictions apply to search results intended for that jurisdiction and quite another if those restrictions are applied worldwide.
- fpgeek 12y ago
  Yes, keeping the information available where the EU's jurisdiction doesn't reach subverts the spirit of the EU's laws, but what alternative is there? By that standard, even delivering censored results to all EU IP addresses isn't enough - that's trivially circumvented with a VPN. And if the EU gets to have the spirit of their laws reach worldwide, then so does every other government. But that way lies madness. Once Google is done censoring every search result that any government objects to (including results governments let their citizens object to), what will be left?
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    The alternative is pretty simple: google should honour the requests of EU citizens to be forgotten by google, not a limited subset of google. It's like the copyright battles in reverse, only this time the rights holders are citizens, and it is google playing shell games rather than say allofmp3.
- ASneakyFox 12y ago
  The issue is not data location. Its that their localized domain for europe does but their international domain does not. Googles argument is their international domain doesn't fall under european jurisdiction.

by fpgeek 12y ago

I wonder how EU regulators are going to react when, for example, Russian regulators demand that Google remove all links to "inaccurate" (i.e. not Russian propaganda) stories about MH17, worldwide.

jacquesm 12y ago

It's a fairly natural privacy issue. The EU DPD has some fairly clear rules about automated gathering of information about people, the rules under which you are required to honor requests for reports about that data, to update it if so required and to be deleted at the first request. Google is side-stepping the reach of the EU by keeping the data on servers outside of the EU but this goes against the spirit of those laws, it is about the citizens not about where the data resides.

shakethemonkey 12y ago
It's not so much against the spirit of those laws, but an attempt by the EU to apply its laws outside the jurisdiction of the sphere of absurdity that is the EU. This is not at all about "where the data resides", as you claim, because the EU is not attacking the data where it resides -- it leaves that alone, on their original servers -- but instead where the data is indexed.
jim-greer 12y ago
Thailand can just as easily say that laws banning criticism of the king are about the king, not where the data resides.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  They could indeed. And if Google had a Thai presence (I don't know if they do) and plan on keeping it then they should probably comply. Pesky problem, nation states that claim they trump corporations.
  - jim-greer 12y ago
    Here's a partial list of removal requests Google has gotten from governments. Are you saying Google should remove all of this worldwide? http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government... Or maybe you think it should only honor requests from these countries, where it has an office? http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/ http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Those requests have nothing to do with the right to be forgotten under the DPD. Really, censorship and privacy are two totally different issues and the mixture here is not conducive to progress.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        jacquesm 12y ago
        > thefreeman > It is EXACTLY the same thing. Of course it isn't. Let me spell it out: Censorship: A nation-state determining what its own populace can read about general world affairs and affairs concerning that governments own actions, inspection and possible redaction of communications between citizens and their access to media (such as books). Privacy: The right of an individual to govern the whereabouts of the data concerning that particular individual. You can't possibly confuse the two.
      - fpgeek 12y ago
        This is nonsense. Google isn't making policy decisions about censorship and privacy, nor should they be. Instead, they're assessing when it is and isn't legally risky / expensive to return search result X to a user in country Y. At that level, privacy requirements and censorship requirements are functionally identical. Just because the EU's legal restrictions are grounded in privacy doesn't mean another jurisdiction's won't be grounded in censorship. Which is one thing if those restrictions apply to search results intended for that jurisdiction and quite another if those restrictions are applied worldwide.
fpgeek 12y ago
Yes, keeping the information available where the EU's jurisdiction doesn't reach subverts the spirit of the EU's laws, but what alternative is there? By that standard, even delivering censored results to all EU IP addresses isn't enough - that's trivially circumvented with a VPN. And if the EU gets to have the spirit of their laws reach worldwide, then so does every other government. But that way lies madness. Once Google is done censoring every search result that any government objects to (including results governments let their citizens object to), what will be left?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  The alternative is pretty simple: google should honour the requests of EU citizens to be forgotten by google, not a limited subset of google. It's like the copyright battles in reverse, only this time the rights holders are citizens, and it is google playing shell games rather than say allofmp3.
ASneakyFox 12y ago
The issue is not data location. Its that their localized domain for europe does but their international domain does not. Googles argument is their international domain doesn't fall under european jurisdiction.