Google faces deluge of requests to wipe details from search index

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...gle-wipe-details-search-index-right-forgotten

 

So would Google indices used for searches from EU IPs be redacted, and those used for searches from non-EU IPs be left unredacted? Are all current Google redactions global? Unless they are, Tor and VPNs render this decision somewhat moot. And if they are global, what stops Saudi Arabia and China from mandating their own global redactions?

 

I believe the ruling would have the effect of being global. The European Data Protection Directive applies to entities that hold the data who must comply with certain standards and the rights of person to whom the data pertains.. The ruling would effect the data and the way it is held and protected and the rights of those to whom the data pertains. The geo- location of where the request for the data originates appears to be irrelevant.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Handbook_data_protection_ENG.pdf

 

Just wait for the Saudi and Chinese "moral protection directives"

Also, if Google divested all business and ownership in the EU, would the Data Protection Directive still apply? Recall that Google left China rather than comply with its censorship requirements.

 

At the time the law was being considered there existed an Article 32 which would answer yes to your question. I do not know if Article 32 was included in the final Directive.

The final directive does provide for the prevention of the transmission of data to a nation which is found not to have adequate data protection. I don't think this answers your question as it applies to data sent to a foreign nation from a data processor located within a European Nation.

{My understanding is that the going rate for international communications lawyers is around $450/hr. If I can't find the answer to your question in my spare time I would be happy to do so at that rate. I estimate that for a person with my current knowledge of the subject it might take as long as 10,000 hours to find the correct answer. If you are agreeable to these terms please let me know For answers related to possible Chinese and Saudi Arabian Directives a modest translation fee would be added as I know less of the Chinese and Saudi Arabian languages than I do about the actual correct answer to your question. }

"
CHAPTER IV TRANSFER OF PERSONAL DATA TO THIRD COUNTRIES
Article 25 - Principles

1. Member States shall provide that the transfer to a third country of personal data which are undergoing processing or are intended for processing after transfer may take place only if, without prejudice to compliance with the national provisions adopted pursuant to the other provisions of this Directive, the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection.

2. The adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country shall be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or set of data transfer operations; particular consideration shall be given to the nature of the data, the purpose and duration of the proposed processing operation or operations, the country of origin and country of final destination, the rules of law, both general and sectoral, in force in the third country in question and the professional rules and security measures which are complied with in that country.

3. The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of cases where they consider that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection within the meaning of paragraph 2.

4. Where the Commission finds, under the procedure provided for in Article 31(2), that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection within the meaning of paragraph 2 of this Article, Member States shall take the measures necessary to prevent any transfer of data of the same type to the third country in question."

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/EU-Directive-95-46-EC--Chapters-3-to-7--Final-Provisions/94.htm

 

Article 22 is rather naive and provincial, no?

As a test for plausibility and workability, it's useful to consider how it would play out if everyone did what's being proposed. As much as I love privacy, Article 22 fails.

PS Many of those highly paid lawyers are going to feed well on this, I think

 

If one assumes that this data is global and that Google has to comply with the laws of the countries in which it does business, what happens when one countries demands that this data be removed while another demands that it be kept, such as the US data retention laws?

 

War

 

In a previous Guardian article, I see:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/right-to-be-forgotten-ruling-quagmire-google

So the solution for Google etc is simple: have no operations in the EU

 

Pedophile, politician, and unpopular doctor among those who want Google to forget them

http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/15/p...r-among-those-who-want-google-to-forget-them/

 

Google swamped by takedown requests after court ruling

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/google-swamped-by-takedown-requests-after-court-ruling-1.2643817

 

Google may not be able to comply due to the scope of this ruling. Defying the court would not be in Googles interest. Levies and fines can be gigantic so this has to be considered. Eventually all search engines would have to be subject to this ruling (to be fair). However, if the court holds firm, I think Google would have to withdraw its business from the EU as the task would be impossible to implement and maintain. All the other SEs would have to consider withdrawing from the EU as well. What would Europe be left with? Would Brussels mandate an EU only censored search engine be created?

The result is either an eerie parallel with China's domestic censorship of search results, or a huge incentive for tech investment to get the hell out of Europe. Neither, presumably, is a remotely desirable result. - Says it all!

 

They might want to be in Europe due to this ruling, but being in the USA brings it's own headaches too !

From discussions i heard on TV, this will only apply to people who have been wronged etc. Not everyone who want's to be removed.

 

As I read it, it was Google's physical presence in Spain that made it "subject to the EU court's decision". Nothing would stop those in EU from using google.com, unless they created a "Great EU Firewall".

 

The onus is now on Google to determine how this will impact their cost of doing business in the EU. The cost to the bottom line will undoubtedly rise, however there are other costs that have to be weighed. Costs we all pay. At issue is freedom of the press and freedom of speech which are cornerstones of our Democracy. Anyone can call themselves a journalist, a writer, a blogger, a poster, a commentator... there is no international certification board that controls their work ethic or their integrity. The internet is choked with fair, true, untrue, reaching, ludicrous, and brilliant articles. An article that causes embarrassment, humiliation, pain or hardship will always make its way into the public domain. This domain is also open to those who want to challenge the spoken word. You have the right and the freedom to rebut an attack on your person. If you have wronged others you should suffer the consequences. If you have been wronged, then address it. The internet search will discover your stuff too. The courts are targeting the messenger (the internet, via Google). The right to be forgotton is not a 'right'.

 

For those in the EU - the below form:
https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch#

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lts-indicate-right-to-be-forgotten-censorship

http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/07/wales-on-right-to-be-forgotten/

 

From http://gigaom.com/2014/06/18/google...bsites-around-the-world-canadian-court-rules/:

 

The solution is simple. Google just needs to cease all operations in Canada. Once it has no legal presence in Canada, it can ignore Canadian judgments. Eventually, Google may be left back in the US, where it started.

That's funny

 

German publishers want an 11 percent cut of Google News

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/german-publishers-want-an-11-percent-cut-of-google-news/

 

Google cuts some European media search links, prompting censorship fears

 

Is it only google searches of individual people that may be censored now? Or can big banks and other companies also request that search results to unflattering news articles about them be taken down?

I mostly use Startpage for searching, which I believe uses google through some anonymity filter, so what's the second best search engine around these days in case I need to search for info about a person?

 

Google is censored in just certain locations. Also, Startpage doesn't get all Google results; use Disconnect Search instead for complete results (this issue aside).

 

Seem ridiulous. Anyone who want to find more informations, not censored this way, of course will learn to use the American version.