back to article Google gives ringing endorsement to US VPN providers with 'right to be forgotten' expansion

If you use Google in Europe, your search results will be censored under the Continent's right-to-be-forgotten policy – even if you try to use one of the ad giant's non-European sites. Until now if you used Google.com rather than, say, Google.de, you could still find results that have been removed at someone's request: the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

    Which actually ends up strengthening their positions as data miners. The "forgotten" data is still there, just not visible in the country of the resident affected. The Americans will still have full, unbridled access to that data.

    It's no different than a magicians palm of a foam ball. You no longer see it, but they do.

    Data collected in Europe should remain exclusively in Europe. If someone wants to be forgotten, that data should be erased, not stored in San Fransisco.

    1. PacketPusher
      Devil

      Re: Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

      The data did not leave Europe. The original case was about data on a news papers website. The right to be forgotten applies to search results, not the data itself. I agree that if you have the right to be forgotten, then the data itself should be erased rather than the search results. The search results will sort themselves out once the data is gone.

      1. a_yank_lurker

        Re: Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

        The problem with the "right to be forgotten" is the issue occurs because of either a news report or an official document/action such as a court case or an arrest. With a news story, the problem is that once it is in the media there is no guarantee that there is not a copy somewhere (electronic or paper) that could resurface at any time. The copy could be someone's download, from an archive, etc. There many records that organizations and agencies are required to keep and often these records must be publicly accessible. Again, these records can not be modified as they are part of the public record. Also, if there is online information there is nothing preventing it being passed around in social media.

    2. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

      You can put as much lipstick on the "right to be forgotten" pig as you want, but that does not change the fact that it is merely an Orwellian attempt to rewrite history.

      1. Lucasjkr

        Re: Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

        What's Orwellian is that something you say or do online, which could have broken no laws at all, and could have happened years ago, has the potential to haunt you forever and ever. The right to request removal of that data from search indexes - the newfound "Right to be Forgotten", is a natural offshoot from that. The only sad thing is that Google won't simply mark data as forgotten without regard for the requestors geolocation. But then this right to be forgotten is only a european right, and would surely conflict with Google's First Amendment rights in the US.

        Really, Google should have offered such a service years ago, to people regardless of their citizenship, rather than create half-baked solutions to make a geographically limited solution as they keep trying to do.

        But please, rethink your definition of Orwellian.

      2. edge_e
        Holmes

        Re: Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

        It's not an attempt to rewrite history, the history is still there. It'll still be in the newspaper archive or the court documents.

        It's an attempt to redress the balance that existed before the internet. Being able to find out a person's entire life just by searching their name is, among other things, incompatible with the rehabilitation of offenders act.

        1. nijam Silver badge

          Re: Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

          > It's not an attempt to rewrite history, the history is still there.

          Yes it is. The history may still be there, but the rewrite means you can't look at it.

          1. edge_e
            Holmes

            Re: Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

            but the rewrite means you can't look at it.

            There's no re-write, all there is is a removal of a link from a popular search engine or two.

            Look at it like the hiding of pirate bay, you can still find that if you try hard enough.

            By taking away the easy access, you don't re-write history, you just stop it from being so easy to find the entire history of someone that most people stop bothering to try.

    3. Pseu Donyme

      Re: Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more...

      >Data collected in Europe should remain exclusively in Europe...

      This can be an issue with (Google) search even if the results 'to be forgotten' are not displayed within the EU, but personal information has been exported from the EU to display or otherwise use it elsewhere. Such export is legal only if the receiving jurisdiction has proper data protection in place. Until recently the lack thereof in the US was supposedly covered with 'Safe Harbour', which meant that Google & other US companies taking advantage of it were supposed to honor the EU data protection principles with the exported data, the problem being that they not only don't but can't.

      1. Gordon 10

        bollocks this is not about personal data

        There is no 'personal data' in search results as personal data is currently defined.

        Its about burying unwanted/embarrasing search results.

        Eg reporting on court cases where the accusation comes up but not the acquittal.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Pseu Donyme

          Re: bollocks this is not about personal data

          >There is no 'personal data' in search results as personal data is currently defined.

          The US definition of PII is rather narrow (~data from which an individual can be directly identified such as a name, SSN, phone number ...), however, the EU data protection directive definition of personal data is much wider (~data about a person, even if it doesn't directly identify a person, but can potentially be connected to a person by a third party). Still, I can't see how a search by a person's name could be carried out and the results displayed in the US without exporting the name from a server in the EU at some point, if that is where the information related to the name originally resides.

  2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

    Not like the right to install noscript is it thae data may not be advertised but the bloody webpages come up a lot faster, wouldn't you think the data boffins would realise that you only see the adverts on the tab you are reading and adjust the spam on the website so that some of us get to see it for milliseconds?

    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ah nice to have the computer swinging freely on its danglers again.///////////////////////////////////////////

  3. hk625u

    unacceptable!

    This solution will not be accepted by the EU. The EU ruling is about the privacy of the person who's name is being searched. EU citizens have this right of privacy and it doesn't matter if the person invading their privacy is in the EU or outside the EU. Google is still violating the EU citizen's right to privacy. I expect the EU will not accept this but will do nothing about this until at least next year when they can ramp up the fines to 5% of Google's WW revenue. Ultimately, Google will be required to remove the results completely.

    By the way, it is widely understood that when someone in the US raises a copyright issue with Google related to US copyright law that Google removes the results WW even in countries where there is no copyright issue for the content. So Google clearly just picks which laws it wants to respect based not on any legal/moral principal but simply based on their own commercial interest. The only way to change this will be massive fines and/or sending Google execs to prison

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: unacceptable!

      So if you manage to censor Google then some other search engine will spring up to index ALL results, and not operate inside the EU. Then the EU and their petty censorship has no power over them. There are minor search engines like duckduckgo that have carved out their niche, the censorship free search engine would offer another niche.

      The internet is world wide, you can't apply archaic censorship laws from a single country or group of countries to it. Sorry, but that's just how it is. You can act like China and censor at the border, but you can't stop what I see in the US due to your laws any more than China is able to stop you reading criticism of their party leaders. Do you really want the application of censorship laws worldwide? Good luck with the web after Sharia law gets through with it!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: unacceptable!

        DougS, do be aware that China seems to have taken another page from the US book and practicing extraordinary rendition on citizens and non-citizens alike for publishing thinks the leader doesn't like. Not just in Hong Kong but apparently Phattaya Beach, Thailand.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: unacceptable!

          That China is learning from the bad example set by my country has fuck all to do with whether the EU should have worldwide censorship powers over Google that affect what I can or can't see.

      2. Snowy Silver badge

        Re: unacceptable!

        Aye Doug S every time this story pops up I wonder why it only seems to be your right to be forgotten but only but only Google and not any other search provider.

    2. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: unacceptable!

      I'm not sure why your comment was down voted when it is 100% factually correct. Perhaps people don't like lawless multinationals in theory, but can live with lawless multinationals in practice, so long as they don't suffer the massive inconvenience of having to change their search habits.

      Google is fighting RTBF not out of some altruistic principle, like "internet freedom", but because it wants to reserve the right do to what it wants, where it wants.

      If you allow multinationals to set the law, how are you going to impose privacy regulations, or make them pay taxes? By asking nicely?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: unacceptable!

        It is not at all clear to me why, if an American citizen in the US writes something on an American website, and another American citizen in the US wants to find that information, why a French would be allowed to stop them from finding it.

        Maybe French people have a right to privacy in France, but that right does not exist in the US. If they want to censor the Internet for Americans, they need to convince a US court.

        I'm aware that US copyright laws are applied by Google all over the world, and that is indeed wrong. That doesn't mean the solution is to introduce more wrongness in the system.

        1. ratfox

          Re: unacceptable!

          We all find it funny that it is forbidden in Thailand to insult the king, and we wouldn't dream of censoring our internet to follow that law. From what I can gather, Americans have the same feelings about Europe's right to be forgotten.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: unacceptable!

            From what I can gather, Americans have the same feelings about Europe's right to be forgotten.

            The dwindling percentage of Americans who have yet to be harassed by crazy internet stalkers. Pretty soon everyone will demand the right to be forgotten and anonymous.

            Bankruptcies and criminal convictions in the last ~10 years, that's about all we need to know. Not where you live, phone numbers, email addresses, or old social media postings.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Google and copyright laws

          Google follows US copyright laws because they are an American company and US copyright laws are probably the world's most restrictive so it is the 'safest' choice as they don't have to worry about someone from Ghana coming along and claiming something that is public domain in the US is copyrighted there.

          If you want search engines to follow the more relaxed laws of some other country, you probably need to start a search engine in that other country. US copyright holders may come after you anyway, so make sure it is in a country that is not subject to undue influence from US courts and that your search engine doesn't have any presence in the US (i.e. servers, registrar, etc.)

          1. ratfox
            Alert

            Re: Google and copyright laws

            US copyright laws are probably the world's most restrictive so it is the 'safest' choice as they don't have to worry about someone from Ghana coming along and claiming something that is public domain in the US is copyrighted there.

            That's a terrible argument. By that argument, Google should follow the most restrictive censorship laws on the planet, so that "they don't have to worry about someone from Ghana coming along and claiming something that is [free speech] in the US is [illegal speech] there."

  4. Ole Juul

    Geolocation

    Filtering on supposed location is just plain censorship. Another problem is results are commonly quite wrong and generally only good to country level. Of course country level is what we're talking about here, but it is still censorship. I advocate the use of a VPN at all times in order to help obfuscate information for would-be censors and surveillance creeps, as well as to help discourage such practice.

  5. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    Better solution?

    The original complaint was if you searched for a given person's name, the page it found was for some sort old page showing court action of many years previously. Why can't google deal with this personal privacy by using an algorithm that simply limits the time of a search if it is a personal name, and no other details (e.g. the name of the court, etc)?

    That way if you are looking for a specific case, you still find it, but if you are simply trawling (or trolling) for dirt on someone then old sins are quietly forgotten.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: Better solution?

      Well, your solution may not be the better one, but the idea that there may be a better one is good. The current one certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

  6. noj

    perhaps just not using Google will help

    Walked away from Google search a long time ago, after learning what filter bubbling was through a TED talk. Then walked away from Gmail and started using email aliases instead of my "real" address.

    A couple of times a year I Google search myself and as time goes on see less and less "front page" references to my real name that actually refer to me. This seemed to accelerate as I discovered how to block cookies, ads, and the like.

    I don't doubt there is still information about me on some Google boxcar. But the less I add to it the happier I am.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Down and down the rabbit hole we go

    Interesting comments, interesting move on the part of google.

    If someone wants to be "forgotten" by Google, he can still be "remembered" on search results outside of his geographical jurisdiction. And sordid pasts and deeds remain easily accessible via VPN, alternate search engines and the Wayback Machine.

    Next step: someone builds a website that displays links to copies (or originals) of all the "forgotten information". Lots of fun, coming soon. Streisand effect guaranteed, perhaps monetised

    In the end, we should really ask: what is the point of this bullshit wankfest? An awful lot of trouble for a very weak result that smells like the first forays into WWW censorship. Luckily, I have just finished setting up Internet 2.0 in my remote woodland, fiber-optic connected cabin. I have a mirror node roaming around in a camoflaged camper van with sat dish. Forget that minister......

    Why do we let them spend tax money on this sort of poppycock? Information technology should be made exempt from legislative meddling. If no one is being killed by it, then just leave it alone.

    1. disorder

      Re: Down and down the rabbit hole we go

      Yep because allowing huge and insidious multinationals to rig the game in their favour for now and forever is totally something we should leave alone.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But then...

    Letting huge and insidious, clueless courts and politicians rig the game even further is not going to help. You will just end up being taxed for some ephemeral "right to be forgotten". Follow the money and trust the math. Don't be a mug.

  9. wikkity

    while also upholding

    the rights of people in other countries to access lawfully published information

    I love that line, they took the opportunity to point out how ludicrous this is. Judging by the comments and down votes here I think a few people have forgotten what the "right to be forgotten" is all about. It's not about deleting information from the internet, it's for people who decide they don't like the fact that things they have done have been published on things like news sites and turn up in a google search.

    BBC news have a page where you can view all their articles that google have been made to remove search history for.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like