• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A French court case against Google could threaten global speech rights

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,416
Reaction score
38,988
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-card-a:homepage/story&utm_term=.6e996dc89128

Imagine going online to do some research. You want to look up the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre, read up on the recently deceased king of Thailand or learn about the Armenian genocide. You enter the search terms in your search engine of choice, and you get nothing. Zero results.

The case imperiling search as we know it stems from an order issued in 2014 by France’s data protection authority, CNIL. The order commands Google to remove 21 links from the results of a search on the name of a particular French citizen who asserted a “right to be forgotten.”

Google initially complied by removing the offending links from its French search site, google.fr, and its other European search sites (such as google.de and google.it). When CNIL balked at this approach, Google went further and blocked the links from results returned to European users accessing one of its non-European sites (such as google.com or google.ca).
Click to expand...
Quite the court case. How did it get this far?
Thoughts are? Aside from are they stupid.
 
joG said:
Yes. That ruling was very disturbing. More worrying is that large numbers of Europeans think that it is right.
Click to expand...
Scary is my opinion. This case ref that person has been going on for a number of years. Cannot recall when I first read about this legal case and "the right to be forgotten".
 
Ikari beat me to it.

If anyone wants to stay outside of any attention, better not surface anywhere at all. Of course that's an overstatement just to illustrate the point but keeping personal details out of the internet isn't that difficult a task. Simply don't post any. Of course that doesn't preclude getting hacked by whoever or one's data leaked from elsewhere and having one's data spread, but the individual interests in such a case should not outweigh the right of the general public to information.
 
Chagos said:
Ikari beat me to it.

If anyone wants to stay outside of any attention, better not surface anywhere at all. Of course that's an overstatement just to illustrate the point but keeping personal details out of the internet isn't that difficult a task. Simply don't post any. Of course that doesn't preclude getting hacked by whoever or one's data leaked from elsewhere and having one's data spread, but the individual interests in such a case should not outweigh the right of the general public to information.
Click to expand...

More info on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

(Directive 95/46/EC) to regulate the processing of personal data.[9] This is now considered a component of human rights law.[10] The new European Proposal for General Data Protection Regulation provides protection and exemption for companies listed as "media" companies, like newspapers and other journalistic work. However, Google purposely opted out of being classified as a "media" company and so is not protected. Judges in the European Union ruled that because the international corporation, Google, is a collector and processor of data it should be classified as a "data controller" under the meaning of the EU data protection directive. These "data controllers" are required under EU law to remove data that is "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant", making this directive of global importance.[7]

Recognition
European Union

In Article 12 of the Directive 95/46/EC the EU gave a legal base to internet protection for individuals.[3]:233 In 2012 the European Commission disclosed a draft European Data Protection Regulation to supersede the directive, which includes specific protection in the right to be forgotten in Article 17.[16]
Click to expand...
 
Actually rights to be forgotten do exist in the whole EU, Japan and others. And I am pretty sure that all countries will eventually have it to some extent, at least to protect minors.

For those who think it is a mistake, a few counter-arguments:
* consider children.
* consider homonyms.
* it only applies to readers from the concerned countries.
* it is not always about what you did, it can be about what has been done to you.

Yes it does infringe on freedom of speech but any freedom must be balanced with others' interests. And the harm can be immense in some cases.
 
JANFU said:
Quite the court case. How did it get this far?
Thoughts are? Aside from are they stupid.
Click to expand...
Well my first thought is that the hacks who wrote that article are outright liars. The idea that a ruling in this "right to be forgotten" case could lead to the kind of censorship they raise is simple false. There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had here but that article (and the response it clearly triggered in you) isn't it.

This is largely a media problem. Say you're wrongly accused of a high profile rape and have to go to court to clear your name. You're picture is splashed over all the news websites, your name and the details of the horrific rape you've been accused of. Weeks, maybe months of stories, all focusing of the poor innocent victim and you as the heartless rapist forcing her to give evidence. You are, eventually, found not guilty - misidentification or false accusation maybe. A couple of outlets will report on your verdict but not many and with nothing like as much intensity. They, of course, make no changes to their earlier articles reporting your "crimes". Now, if anyone searches for your name, say an employer or a potential partner, the rape case comes up, all the sordid accusations first, reports of the aquittal much lower down, if at all.

Those are the kind of cases the laws behind this case are aimed at and so couldn't reach the fantasy extents being dreamed up here. I hope you can see that there are arguments for this either way and that it isn't as simple or "stupid" as you might have been led to believe.
 
joG said:
Yes. That ruling was very disturbing. More worrying is that large numbers of Europeans think that it is right.
Click to expand...

Nobody asked Europeans what they think about it, how do you know what they think?

Do not believe in the BS you read in the controlled European Media.
 
HonestJoe said:
Well my first thought is that the hacks who wrote that article are outright liars. The idea that a ruling in this "right to be forgotten" case could lead to the kind of censorship they raise is simple false. There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had here but that article (and the response it clearly triggered in you) isn't it.

This is largely a media problem. Say you're wrongly accused of a high profile rape and have to go to court to clear your name. You're picture is splashed over all the news websites, your name and the details of the horrific rape you've been accused of. Weeks, maybe months of stories, all focusing of the poor innocent victim and you as the heartless rapist forcing her to give evidence. You are, eventually, found not guilty - misidentification or false accusation maybe. A couple of outlets will report on your verdict but not many and with nothing like as much intensity. They, of course, make no changes to their earlier articles reporting your "crimes". Now, if anyone searches for your name, say an employer or a potential partner, the rape case comes up, all the sordid accusations first, reports of the aquittal much lower down, if at all.

Those are the kind of cases the laws behind this case are aimed at and so couldn't reach the fantasy extents being dreamed up here. I hope you can see that there are arguments for this either way and that it isn't as simple or "stupid" as you might have been led to believe.
Click to expand...

Read my post on the Dr who botched things. That is also being deleted.
 
JANFU said:
Read my post on the Dr who botched things. That is also being deleted.
Click to expand...
I've no idea which post you're referring to. Does that address any of the points in my post such as the lies in the article you're promoting or your gross over-simplification of a complex social, technical and legal issue?
 
Art_Allm said:
Nobody asked Europeans what they think about it, how do you know what they think?

Do not believe in the BS you read in the controlled European Media.
Click to expand...

I live in the EU and talk with many people. What they say seems to back the polls you sometime see.
 
PERSONAL PRIVACY

JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-card-a:homepage/story&utm_term=.6e996dc89128

Quite the court case. How did it get this far? Thoughts are? Aside from are they stupid.
Click to expand...

From the WashPo article:
The case imperiling search as we know it stems from an order issued in 2014 by France’s data protection authority, CNIL. The order commands Google to remove 21 links from the results of a search on the name of a particular French citizen who asserted a “right to be forgotten.”
Click to expand...

Not stupid. WashPo has gone overboard in this story on what the French Law is protecting. Namely, personal privacy.

The Internet has the means for destroying personal lives. So anyone who desires so, should have the right to excise any and all incorrect, wrongful or injurious personal information from the Internet, if decided so by the law. A judge will decide if the law has been abused.

Since when is "privacy" not a privilege even in the US?

I suggest you consider the French law in question to which Google must abide in France, here: ACT N°78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DATA FILES AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Particularly consider Article 6, excerpt:
Article 6
Processing may be performed only on personal data that meet the following conditions:
1° the data shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully;
2° the data shall be obtained for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes, and shall not subsequently be
processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. However, further data processing for statistical, scientific and historical purposes shall be considered compatible with the initial purposes of the data collection, if it is carried out in conformity with the principles and procedures provided for in this Chapter, in Chapter IV (formalities prior to commencing data processing) and in Section 1 of Chapter V (obligations incumbent upon the data controllers and the rights of individuals) as well as in Chapters IX (processing of personal data for the purpose of medical research) and X (processing of personal medical data for the purposes of evaluation or analysis of care and prevention practices or activities) and if it is not used to take decisions with respect to the data subjects;
3° they shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are obtained and their further processing;
4° they shall be accurate, complete and, where necessary, kept up-to-date. Appropriate steps shall be taken in order to delete and rectify data that are inaccurate and incomplete with regard to the purposes for which they are obtained and processed;
5° they shall be retained in a form that allows the identification of the data subjects for a period no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which they are obtained and processed.

Article 7
Processing of personal data must have received the consent of the data subject or must meet one of the following conditions:
1° compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject;
2° the protection of the data subject’s life;
3° the performance of a public service mission entrusted to the data controller or the data recipient;
4° the performance of either a contract to which the data subject is a party or steps taken at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;
5° the pursuit of the data controller’s or the data recipient’s legitimate interest, provided this is not incompatible with the interests or the fundamental rights and liberties of the data subject.

The collection and processing of personal data that reveals, directly or indirectly, the racial and ethnic origins, the political, philosophical, religious opinions or trade union affiliation of persons, or which concern their health or sexual life, is prohibited.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't think the above elements of the data law are excessive since they pertain to the personal lives of individuals.

The Internet can get very freakish if such wrongful personal data is published and kept on-line ...
 
Last edited:
joG said:
I live in the EU and talk with many people. What they say seems to back the polls you sometime see.
Click to expand...

Then they have not given it enough consideration. All the law is doing is to extend the rights to personal privacy that cover printed journalism to that of the Internet.

It is there an extension of the laws that exist presently but only for printed material (which does not cover the Internet).
 
Lafayette said:
Then they have not given it enough consideration. All the law is doing is to extend the rights to personal privacy that cover printed journalism to that of the Internet.

It is there an extension of the laws that exist presently but only for printed material (which does not cover the Internet).
Click to expand...

Could you please clarify a point for me? Does this law apply to the sites that are actually hosting the offending content, or just to the sites that are indexing the content?

Seems to me that if Google is displaying active links with offending content, then they are not to blame. If they display links that are no longer active, then they should be at fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lafayette said:
PERSONAL PRIVACY



From the WashPo article:

Not stupid. WashPo has gone overboard in this story on what the French Law is protecting. Namely, personal privacy.

The Internet has the means for destroying personal lives. So anyone who desires so, should have the right to excise any and all incorrect, wrongful or injurious personal information from the Internet, if decided so by the law. A judge will decide if the law has been abused.

Since when is "privacy" not a privilege even in the US?

I suggest you consider the French law in question to which Google must abide in France, here: ACT N°78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DATA FILES AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Particularly consider Article 6, excerpt:

Frankly, I don't think the above elements of the data law are excessive since they pertain to the personal lives of individuals.

The Internet can get very freakish if such wrongful personal data is published and kept on-line ...
Click to expand...

I suggest you dig deeper.
 
JANFU said:
I suggest you dig deeper.
Click to expand...

Brilliant response! Well thought!

I give you (in English) the actual law stipulating the limits of protection, and you tell me to "dig deeper"!

This is NOT a "message board". It is a "debate forum".

Why don't you put some thought into your responses - or go elsewhere ... ?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Could you please clarify a point for me? Does this law apply to the sites that are actually hosting the offending content, or just to the sites that are indexing the content?

Seems to me that if Google is displaying active links with offending content, then they are not to blame. If they display links that are no longer active, then they should be at fault.
Click to expand...

Google has no specific right to display content that offends French law, or any national law. Why WashPo has printed this comment, since it does not apply to the US, is incredible. (WashPo has no French edition but does carry articles about French personalities in English.)

Google is an international company, and is indexing documents for referal to third-parties. That service is free. But, like any international company, it mus observe national laws and conventions.

The French law is a good one - defamation laws exist also in the US, by which "personal vehemence and calumny" that can harm a person's public image can be defended in a court of law. (That's one, however, that our gentlemen Founding Fathers seem to have forgot to put in the Constitution, even though Defamation Laws in the colonies existed pre-Constitution.)

It's a damn fine law wherever it exists, and helps prevent one's "self-esteem" from being degraded illegally in public (by whatever the platform - journalism or Internet) ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Google has no specific right to display content that offends French law, or any national law. Why WashPo has printed this comment, since it does not apply to the US, is incredible. (WashPo has no French edition but does carry articles about French personalities in English.)

Google is an international company, and is indexing documents for referal to third-parties. That service is free. But, like any international company, it mus observe national laws and conventions.

The French law is a good one - defamation laws exist also in the US, by which "personal vehemence and calumny" that can harm a person's public image can be defended in a court of law. (That's one, however, that our gentlemen Founding Fathers seem to have forgot to put in the Constitution, even though Defamation Laws in the colonies existed pre-Constitution.)

It's a damn fine law wherever it exists, and helps prevent one's "self-esteem" from being degraded illegally in public (by whatever the platform - journalism or Internet) ...
Click to expand...

You reference national laws and from the article, Google did remove the links from google.fr. You provided a link to google.fr for defamation, but I don't really know that I can trust that link since it is intended for a French audience. Again, Google is linking to websites controlled by others. If the person has a boeuf with that site, then the French law should prevail should the site be in France. Since Google removed the links on google.fr, then they seem to me to be complying with the French law.

This feels like a money grab by the French government to dig into Google's deep pockets, or to control information outside the French borders which is anathema to the role of the internet.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You provided a link to google.fr for defamation, but I don't really know that I can trust that link since it is intended for a French audience.
Click to expand...

Why should you not trust it? It was a link explaining a law that was passed that was written by that agency. The agency made it available on the Internet in English, and therefore intended for an international audience. Since France's major industry is tourism the law translated into English was relevant.

Google took information off a French-based server without permission, copied and indexed it for all the world to see. Indexing an computer-filed document is at the heart of its business. And, because in America such information is in the "public domain", quite possibly it thought that the same was true for the rest of the world.

Wrong. It transgressed the law in France and, if it is not careful, it will transgress the law elsewhere regarding private property as regards the person.

A personal example: I live in France and was at the beach in St. Tropez when an American pulled out his camera to take a picture of some topless beauties. I told him it was illegal to take an image in France without permission. So, he asked me to ask the girls if he could do so.

They said no, so he did not take the picture - whereupon he walked off in a huff. (They were all models and get paid for having their picture taken.)

Laws are laws, and they apply wherever the original source of information is obtained. Goggle has learned its lesson. A photo is above all the personal property of the person in question. The only circumstance in which it should allow it to be published is when the right to do so is given by the person or persons in question. (Ie, if it's an individual, ask for permission. If the picture is of a crowd of people or even multiple persons, it is considered "public"; and therefore permission is not necessary.)

(Ditto btw for YouTube.)

WashPo should do some investigating before it allows such columns to be published. The world is not an "open book" like America thinks of itself ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Why should you not trust it? It was a link explaining a law that was passed that was written by that agency. The agency made it available on the Internet in English, and therefore intended for an international audience. Since France's major industry is tourism the law translated into English was relevant.

Google took information off a French-based server without permission, copied and indexed it for all the world to see. It transgressed the law in France and, if it is not careful, it will transgress the law elsewhere regarding private property as regards the person.

A personal example: I live in France and was at the beach in St. Tropez when an American pulled out his camera to take a picture of some topless beauties. I told him it was illegal to take an image in France without permission. So, he asked me to ask the girls if he could do so.

They said no, so he did not take the picture - whereupon he walked off in a huff. (They were all models and get paid for having their picture taken.)

Laws are laws, and they apply wherever the original source of information is obtained. Goggle has learned its lesson. A photo is above all the personal property of the person in question. The only circumstance in which it should allow to be published is when the right to do so is given by the person or persons in question. (Ie, if it's an individual, ask for permission. If the picture is of a crowd of people or even multiple persons, it is considered "public"; and therefore permission is not necessary.)

WashPo should do some investigating before it allows such columns to be published. The world is not an "open book" like America thinks of itself ...
Click to expand...


Your link to me here: "https://www.google.fr/search?q=defamation&rlz=1C1GGGE_enFR491FR492&oq=defamation&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65j0l4.2102j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" The definition is in French in my view.

You claim that information was taken off a French server. Do you have a source for that? Why was it on a French server if this individual claimed his right to be forgotten? Would Google have presented the links if the information were not on the French server? What was the nature of the information being presented?

You see, there are a lot of questions and not as simple as perhaps either of us suggest.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Your link to me here: "https://www.google.fr/search?q=defamation&rlz=1C1GGGE_enFR491FR492&oq=defamation&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65j0l4.2102j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" The definition is in French in my view.

You claim that information was taken off a French server. Do you have a source for that? Why was it on a French server if this individual claimed his right to be forgotten? Would Google have presented the links if the information were not on the French server? What was the nature of the information being presented?

You see, there are a lot of questions and not as simple as perhaps either of us suggest.
Click to expand...

I am referring to this French law (translated into English) here (in pdf): ACT N°78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978
ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DATA FILES AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

The server in question was that of Google France, and any research for images that it may contain originate in France is covered by the French law, which should be consistent with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary Works. Google cannot argue that because a French photo is available in France (and protected in France) is not protected for international distribution. Because it is.

And namely, article 2, which I quote:
It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form.
Click to expand...

The above means that any photograph must be expressly protected internationally by a formal request for its protection in its country of origin. Which is the case.
 
Lafayette said:
I am referring to this French law (translated into English) here (in pdf): ACT N°78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978
ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DATA FILES AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

The server in question was that of Google France, and any research for images that it may contain originate in France is covered by the French law, which should be consistent with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary Works. Google cannot argue that because a French photo is available in France (and protected in France) is not protected for international distribution. Because it is.

And namely, article 2, which I quote:

The above means that any photograph must be expressly protected internationally by a formal request for its protection in its country of origin. Which is the case.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are not understanding what I"m asking. I asked the nature of the content that was on a 3rd party server that you say was located in France and that Google acquired the content. I asked for a source that indicated what content Google had acquired that is the subject of this case. In other words, provide a news or government source to indicate that the content was acquired from within France. What website did google index that brought them in contact with this content? You keep referencing photos and I'm not finding that it is an image.

I'm not questioning the law at this point, I'm assuming that you know it better than me, although you didn't reference which section was relevant to this issue in the 45 page document.
 
Lafayette said:
PERSONAL PRIVACY



From the WashPo article:

Not stupid. WashPo has gone overboard in this story on what the French Law is protecting. Namely, personal privacy.

The Internet has the means for destroying personal lives. So anyone who desires so, should have the right to excise any and all incorrect, wrongful or injurious personal information from the Internet, if decided so by the law. A judge will decide if the law has been abused.

Since when is "privacy" not a privilege even in the US?

I suggest you consider the French law in question to which Google must abide in France, here: ACT N°78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DATA FILES AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Particularly consider Article 6, excerpt:

Frankly, I don't think the above elements of the data law are excessive since they pertain to the personal lives of individuals.

The Internet can get very freakish if such wrongful personal data is published and kept on-line ...
Click to expand...

And what borders does the law stop at. That is what (1 main reason) the case is about. Extending French Laws to other countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom