On Forgetting the Facts: Questions From the EU For Google, Other Search Engines 186
The Wall Street Journal lists 26 questions that Google and other search providers have been asked (in a meeting in Brussels earlier this week) to answer for EU regulators, to pin down what the search engine companies have done to comply with European demands to implement a "right to be forgotten." Some questions were asked directly of representatives of Microsoft, Yahoo and Google, while the regulators want answers to the others in short order. From the article:
Regulators touched on some hot-button issues in six oral questions and another 26 written ones, with answers due by next Thursday. They asked Google to describe the “legal basis” of its decision to notify publishers when it approves right-to-be-forgotten requests, something that has led to requesters’ being publicly identified in some cases. They also asked search engines to explain where they take down the results, after complaints from some regulators that Google does not filter results on google.com. That means that anyone in Europe can switch from, say, google.co.uk to Google.com to see any removed links. Among the questions: "2. Do you filter out some requests based on the location, nationality, or place of residence of the data subject? If so, what is the legal basis for excluding such requests?" and "16. Does your company refuse requests when the data subject was the author of the information he/she posted himself/herself on the web? If so, what is the basis for refusing such requests?"
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
But no information is being removed, just the search results to that information are removed.
In an information database as vast as the internet, what is the difference? There's enough people who will happily believe that if it doesn't exist on Google then it doesn't exist.
Not a Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a slippery slope, this is simply a cliff. There is no right to be forgotten, because it would mean I don't have a right to remember and thus share that memory.
Think about it, if I printed a memoir in the 1960s, and have, perhaps negative, anecdotes of various people, would that book have had to be recalled from the shelves a few years later just because the right to forget kicked in? Oh right, internet. Changes everything.
The human species is going to have to grow up a little. First as an audience and consumer of the net, and realize that just because it's on the internet (or even wikipedia) doesn't mean it's true. It also has to realize what people said in the past doesn't always pose a true reflection of their current selves - that people change and evolve. Especially from a younger age like 13.
Second, it will have to grow up as individuals and realize, when you put it out there, you put it out there. And no nanny state can fix it.
They can only provide the illusion of fixing it. Because search engines outside the EU are going to ignore this. And savvy people inside the EU will be able to access those with ease, while the heavy handed censorship will only provide the drones with comfort they are taken care of.
Guess what a person's right to be forgotten would turn into in the US? Corporations, who are people, would jump in it.
Why is this being pushed so hard now anyway? Well, Germany got it's hand caught in the cookie jar along with the NSA. It's BundesNachrichtenDienst (BND) works alongside with and is just as if not more invasive than the NSA.
Of course, Merkel gets to put on her show and dance about being outraged her phone is tapped, but she says nothing about how complicit she is in tapping everyone elses phones in her country.
And don't think the EU countries are any more innocent in this.
So instead of really protecting the right to privacy, by people who want privacy in the here and now, by pushing bulletproof encryption standards without backdoors and other actual net positives for their citizens, they just put up this debate of this none-issue that feels really good but does nothing except what government is typically good at - banning certain behaviors from private entities and censoring hot potatoes from public eyes. Ony it's third speciality, making a tax for this, is missing and probably coming. Perhaps an ISP tax that will "help monitor and enforce your privacy online", which is code for another 1000 workers at the BND trading people's naked selfies.
So putting this as some slippery slope is unhelpful. It implies that this is an actual issue that needs to be hammered out. No. It's just bullshit sand-in-the-face for those who don't see what's really going on.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:2, Insightful)
Or how about you stop trying to control what data is on their servers, no matter where the servers actually are? I live in the US, and I see people from other countries bitching all the time about how the US likes to play world police, and how they abuse companies and try to take information that isn't even in the US. But suddenly, when Europe does the same shit, it's okay? No, it's not okay, no matter who does it.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:4, Insightful)
""Meanwhile, someone who isn't Google and doesn't have offices in the EU will surely make up a page of links to this information. If the page generates traffic, someone will pay for add space there.""
This is my biggest question about this whole thing. Why is it Google's job? If they want to be 'forgotten' or 'taken off the internet' then they have to be taken off the internet, not the search engines. The most Google would be affected is by making sure they don't show up as 'cached' results. However, if the original article still exists, that's hardly Google's fault.
It the EU wants to make an unenforceable decision about a stupid request, I think they should at least be forced to deal with the consequences, and not just harangue search engines (i.e easy targets.)