[NewsPoster]

Google has responded to France's request for the European "Right to be Forgotten" law to be expanded to cover all Google search pages, suggesting it to be a bad idea for Internet users as a whole. French data protection regulator CNIL's formal notice for delisting of requested links has been declared by Google global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer as a "troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web."


The Right to be Forgotten was introduced by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) last year, requiring search providers to remove "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant" content from their search results, upon request by EU citizens. Google and others fought against the ruling, but ultimately set up systems to moderate results and remove only the ones that it legally had to delist, and only for European search services, leaving other versions alone.

CNIL claimed it received "hundreds of complaints" about Google in its request to the company, mostly relating to Google declining to remove certain requests following a review and from non-EU searches. CNIL declared that Google had to delist on all of its different search services "in order to be effective."

"While the right to be forgotten may now be the law in Europe, it is not the law globally," writes Fleisher. "Moreover, there are innumerable examples around the world where content that is declared legal under the laws of one country, would be deemed legal in others." Examples given by Fleisher include the criminalization of speech critical of the King in Thailand, critical speech of Ataturk in Turkey, and "gay propaganda" in Russia.

"If the CNIL's proposed approach were to be embraced as a standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place." Fleisher notes that the order from CNIL is "disproportionate and unnecessary" in the case of France, with approximately 97 percent of searches in the country performed on Google services went through Google.fr instead of another regional version.

"We have worked hard to strike the right balance in our implementation of the European Court's ruling and have maintained a collaborative dialogue with the CNIL and other data protection authorities, who agree with our decisions in the majority of cases referred to them," writes Fleisher. "We are committed to continuing to work with regulators in this open and transparent way."

[I-ku-u]

Google is confusing restrictions on content placed by governments with restrictions on content placed by those whom the content is about.

If I recall correctly one of the initial examples highlighting the need for the right involved a seaside hotel, and some multi-decade old horrible incident (a fire I think) that was prominently displayed for any search for the hotel. The hotel owner simply wanted the incident to appear from a search only if there were extra search terms relevant to the incident, instead of just for the hotel itself. And surely a tourist location that has reason to apply the "right to be forgotten" needs that to be applied globally, or it's meaningless.

Of course, I might be mis-remembering the specifics, but if so, consider the above a hypothetical application that highlights the need for the right to be applied globally.

[Flying Meat]

How's about people/institutions own their mistakes, and let the truth be the truth.
This historical data removal from all search sites can go so wrong so very-very quickly. For what again?
It does not seem to be in the best interests of the public at large.

[humblec]

if it is an accurate fact, it does not have a "right to be forgotten" and I certainly do not want Google or individuals to determine what is no longer relevant. There should be a process for removing inaccurate information, but that should not be solely Google's or an individuals decision. Censorship is a dangerous path to go down, even if for the 'right' reason.