Google not implementing 'right to be forgotten' worldwide

[CaptainGazzz]

In a landmark ruling in May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established a "right to be forgotten", or more accurately, a “right to delist”, allowing Europeans to ask search engines to delist certain links from results they show based on searches for that person’s name. We moved rapidly to comply with the ruling from the Court. Within weeks we made it possible for people to submit removal requests, and soon after that began delisting search results.

However, earlier this summer, France’s data protection regulator, the CNIL, sent us a formal notice ordering us to delist links not just from all European versions of Search but also from all versions globally. That means a removal request by an individual in France, if approved, would not only be removed from google.fr and other European versions of Google Search, but from all versions of Google Search around the world. 

While the right to be forgotten may now be the law in Europe, it is not the law globally. Moreover, there are innumerable examples around the world where content that is declared illegal under the laws of one country, would be deemed legal in others: Thailand criminalizes some speech that is critical of its King, Turkey criminalizes some speech that is critical of Ataturk, and Russia outlaws some speech that is deemed to be “gay propaganda." 

If the CNIL’s proposed approach were to be embraced as the 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.

 

I don't really know how I should feel about this. I believe the right to be forgotten is a good thing and implementing it worldwide would be nice(if you want to be forgotten). But I also agree with Google, one country shouldn't be able to dictate what citizens of another country can see on Google.

 

Source

[Leonard]

Why would i want to forget something, if i do am sure to make any mistakes again.

[Sakkura]

Somewhat disappointing, but really this is something that legislators and regulatory agencies around the world need to fix.

 

 

Why would i want to forget something, if i do am sure to make any mistakes again.

 

If you were accused of molesting children, and a criminal investigation conclusively cleared you of wrongdoing, you might want to not be associated with child molestation for the rest of your life. The top google hit on your name could, in that hypothetical situation, be an article with a mugshot and accusations.

 

(this is also why publishing mugshots is illegal in many countries, by the way, but even without a picture your life could still be ruined)

[Leonard]

If you were accused of molesting children, and a criminal investigation conclusively cleared you of wrongdoing, you might want to not be associated with child molestation for the rest of your life. The top google hit on your name could, in that hypothetical situation, be an article with a mugshot and accusations.

 

(this is also why publishing mugshots is illegal in many countries, by the way, but even without a picture your life could still be ruined)

If you were cleared of child molestation or any other crime for that matter, then the LAW of the land should be the one to ensure the vindicated accused is not wrongfully victimized because a court of law is so you can settle an issue/dispute/accusation without the use of "vigilante justice" Yes i do understand that someone could "ruin" your life by taunting and what not but if you were forthcoming with the truth in the first place no one could come and try to let out any "hidden" information you have about yourself and win as everyone will already know.

 

This "right to be forgotten' is very disruptive and dismissive IMO which will only create more problems for good people as "slackers" will abuse it.

[ChineseChef]

The "right to be forgotten" is completely pointless and silly in the age of the unforgetting internet.  Not all the search engines do it, and it only applies within the borders of the country demanding it, and the source is still up.  So, it really only stops the most lazy of people looking for information on someone.  I can see making laws that require websites to remove or correct factually inaccurate data.  But all this law does is remove the index from the main search provider, heaven forbid I simply use a different one or simply use the US website instead of the (European country) website.

 

And for the argument of "what if you were wrongly accused of a crime", well, you were.  That is factual info, it did happen.  And honestly, I would also want the info stating that I was cleared of said crimes to be out there as well.  Maybe we should look at not destroying people's lives before they are found guilty, instead of trying to hide and delete factual history.

[ForsakenLive]

I don't think why this right is necessary. When I was a kid I did really stupid stuff that is still there online, and I don't care. My later actions made it not matter, that's what you call being responsible.

I feel like this 'right' sounds more like a excuse to delete entries from the internet.

[Misanthrope]

If you were accused of molesting children, and a criminal investigation conclusively cleared you of wrongdoing, you might want to not be associated with child molestation for the rest of your life. The top google hit on your name could, in that hypothetical situation, be an article with a mugshot and accusations.

 

(this is also why publishing mugshots is illegal in many countries, by the way, but even without a picture your life could still be ruined)

Yes but on the other hand, anyone who escapes criminal charges due to a technicality or side steps a scandal under out of court settlement to hide liabilities could now have the right to bury any and all mention of it.

Yes it is unfortunate than innocent people can right now be forever associated with a sex crime they did not commit but I kinda weight down that vs finding out a huge corporation created a mass outbreak of cancer but quicky settled out of court, there's far greater potential to abuse the right to be forgotten than legitimate advantages that are more than just minor embarrassment or understandable lapses in behavior.

[Sakkura]

Yes but on the other hand, anyone who escapes criminal charges due to a technicality or side steps a scandal under out of court settlement to hide liabilities could now have the right to bury any and all mention of it.

 

No, that's not how it works. It's not a blanket removal of information about criminal trials depending on whether the defendant was found guilty or not guilty. They're supposed to weigh the harm to the person's life against the public's right to know. If it's just a technicality that resulted in a verdict of not guilty, then the public has a much greater right to know.

[Misanthrope]

No, that's not how it works. It's not a blanket removal of information about criminal trials depending on whether the defendant was found guilty or not guilty. They're supposed to weigh the harm to the person's life against the public's right to know. If it's just a technicality that resulted in a verdict of not guilty, then the public has a much greater right to know.

Cases can be dismissed on technicalities without ever going to trial so they were never a matter of public record and this kind of thing would prevent the only possible sources of information which is news reports and such on it.

[Sakkura]

Cases can be dismissed on technicalities without ever going to trial so they were never a matter of public record and this kind of thing would prevent the only possible sources of information which is news reports and such on it.

 

No, this thing would not prevent those sources of information for the reasons I just explained.

[Misanthrope]

No, this thing would not prevent those sources of information for the reasons I just explained.

 

Like I said there's no public record without a court case, so before crying "read my explanation" you better read the reply as well: we're not talking about things that would ever get anywhere near a judge and hence subject to public scrutiny. 

[Sakkura]

Like I said there's no public record without a court case, so before crying "read my explanation" you better read the reply as well: we're not talking about things that would ever get anywhere near a judge and hence subject to public scrutiny. 

 

If there's no public scrutiny then there's nothing to forget and thus this isn't relevant. If there is public scrutiny, then the public's right to know must be balanced against the individual's right to be forgotten. It's not one trumps the other.