EU Thinks It Has Jurisdiction Over The Global Internet: Says Right To Be Forgotten Should Be Global
from the because-of-course dept
Back in May, of course, a troubling ruling by the EU Court of Justice said that search engines had to disappear links on searches for certain people's names if that information was somehow no longer relevant. This, of course, kicked off a "right to be forgotten" craze in Europe, where thousands of people sought to have embarrassing stories about them removed from Google's results on their names. In July, we noted that EU regulators were suggesting that this "right to be forgotten" should apply globally, rather than just in Europe, as Google had currently implemented it. Google pushed back on this idea, but apparently without success. Last week, the EU's data protection officials released new "guidelines" [pdf] that argue the right to be forgotten should apply globally.Specifically, it argues that if a person's privacy rights are violated by having results show up in search engines in Europe, then those same rights are violated if they show up in any non-EU search results as well (all emphasis in the original):
The [data protection working group] considers that in order to give full effect to the data subject’s rights as defined in the Court’s ruling, de-listing decisions must be implemented in such a way that they guarantee the effective and complete protection of data subjects’ rights and that EU law cannot be circumvented. In that sense, limiting de-listing to EU domains on the grounds that users tend to access search engines via their national domains cannot be considered a sufficient means to satisfactorily guarantee the rights of data subjects according to the ruling. In practice, this means that in any case de-listing should also be effective on all relevant .com domains.The key line here is not actually bolded in the original. It's the "this means that in any case de-listing should also be effective on all relevant .com domains." Basically, if it can be reached from Europe, it has to be blocked. Or, in even shorter form, "EU regulations apply around the globe online." That's a really, really, bad idea. Because now how will the EU respond to other countries pushing their own silly censorship efforts globally? Russia can claim that anything about homosexuality must be blocked globally. China can argue that anything about Tibet or government corruption can be blocked globally. And how will the EU respond?
Under EU law, everyone has a right to data protection.
This is so troubling that even folks who actually support the original ruling are speaking out about how troubling these new guidelines are. Even GigaOm's David Meyer, who regularly has supported the right to be forgotten (which he argues is an unfair description of "the right to be de-linked"), says that this is bad:
I can understand Falque-Pierrotin’s logic, but even I — someone who finds value in the concept of the right to be de-linked — think this is an awful decision.Even if Europeans believe strongly in this right-to-be-forgotten idea, they should be, as Meyers is, troubled by the idea that an EU ruling can impact the global internet. And yes, as Meyers points out, the US is often guilty of pretending that its laws apply to the global internet as well, and that should be equally troubling.
It’s part of a worrying trend, taking place around the world, for local or regional internet-related rules to apply everywhere. Again, it is understandable why regulators want to do this – the internet is a global medium, and it’s near-impossible to geographically limit effective regulation – but the result is layers of overlapping jurisdictions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eu, free speech, jurisdiction, privacy, right to be forgotten, search engines
Reader Comments
The First Word
“If the EU is serious, then they should start blocking .com
@btr1701 hit the nail on the head. If the EU regulators are truly serious about this, they should STFU and start blocking access to .com and all other sites not under their control that won't kowtow to their censorship.Even better: I'd love to see Google go ahead and do it for them. Put up a big banner on .com for all EU visitors: "Sorry, but your stupid government thinks your lives are better off without Google products. If you disagree, click here to send them a message." I would love to see their email servers melt down from all that traffic.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fantastic.
Under China Law, everyone has no rights to anything not deemed acceptable by the government. So, as far as applying your laws to non-EU citizens, I have the same response that I have for China trying to apply their laws to the entire world:
STFU you pedantic asshats. If you want to f*** up the internet for your people, go ahead, but leave mine alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a sovereign nation can issue global orders to a multinational corporation, then someone ought to sue Google in a US court for blocking Nazi content in Germany, and get a court order compelling them to unblock it.
The EU can hardly complain when their own precedent is applied, can they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regs
And if the big companies like Google are too entrenched in Europe at this point to abandon their physical facilities, a new space will open up in the search engine business market for one that isn't physically located in Europe and subject to these laws. If I knew that such a search engine was out there and its results weren't purposely skewed and censored, I'd certainly use it over Google, which I would know is giving me back less than complete and accurate results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regs
This is what I'm waiting for. Google has already degraded their search a LOT in an effort to comply with governmental desires. Just a little bit more and a competitor that doesn't come from a major corporation because feasible.
Remember, when Google first entered on the scene, the conventional wisdom was that it didn't have a chance because Yahoo, Lycos, and AltaVista had the market locked up. A couple of years later, everyone forgot about anything that wasn't Google. The fortunes of these companies can turn completely in no time at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU law cannot be circumvented.
Well, it's obvious that when someone chooses to live somewhere other than the EU it's just a transparent attempt to circumvent EU law. This circumvention cannot be allowed to stand! What good is the rule of law if it can be so easily circumvented? I've heard there are now even whole countries trying to use this loophole!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attacking the symptoms, not looking for a cure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attacking the symptoms, not looking for a cure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attacking the symptoms, not looking for a cure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Attacking the symptoms, not looking for a cure
The PRC probably say they're protecting the Chinese people, when they're really protecting the regime. They don't need to be honest about what they're doing, just spin it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Attacking the symptoms, not looking for a cure
Probably. This is precisely the same as every other government does, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attacking the symptoms, not looking for a cure
It's only censorship when someone else does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attacking the symptoms, not looking for a cure
They'd rather milk one cow than a million mice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attacking the symptoms, not looking for a cure
That's obvious. It's just too bad that they think that convenience is more important than doing the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something, something, jurisdiction.
Look, if you want to make policy in other nations you need to do so within the laws of that nation. AFAIK, non European nations have not agreed to, nor joined the EU - so piss off.
I realize that corporations are attempting an end run on this concept but that has not yet been successful and hopefully never is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blackout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blackout
The Average EU Bureaucrat thinks "Screwed up" only applies to other people. If there are problems, its just people interpreting the regulations wrongly. (The interpretation varying between was happens to be politically wise at the moment)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blackout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No_2257 /94
I think the name of the first URL says it all without having to visit the link, but there are lots of silly things reported about the various EU legislation.
Many of the rules regarding produce are to reduce waste at the consumer or retail level. For example, there are some problems with selling "misshapen" vegetables, so they often go unsold by the retailer. There are also some concerns about maximizing shipping efficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackout
The UK people are going to read something, care enough to contact their representatives, their representatives are going to care about the people they represent, these representatives will have enough power to enact change, and they will make a meaningful change that will not f*** things up further.
It may be easier to just hope REALLY REALLY hard that this fixes itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blackout
I also think that them not making a firm stand will hurt them more in the future. If they make a stand they will get some angry politicians yelling, politicians who will likely be sightly afraid of doing much. If they keep rolling over to demands like these though then Google will loose its user base.
Reading these stories just makes me more and more interested in projects like Yacy. Peer-to-Peer search that cannot be tampered with at the whims of Governments. All it will take is one project like that to get real traction and Google would quickly loose dominance as search provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blackout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blackout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blackout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blackout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackout
Google should change the results page to say EU insisted they forget the following results (not providing links to them), then list the EU based search engines which would provide them.
Augment that with links to the asshats who demanded such perversity, and their contact pages.
Said EU asshats should just stop listening to EU celebs, politicians, bureaucrats, & etc. They're no-nothing whiners who should do less alcohol fueled foolishness, not complain when people remember the silly things they've done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blackout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another way Europe thinks it can legislate the global Internet...
Ridiculous. And unenforceable, unless the operator of such a business should decide to visit the EU somewhere down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another way Europe thinks it can legislate the global Internet...
This figure is from my memory and from a few years ago. Maybe it has changed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another way Europe thinks it can legislate the global Internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another way Europe thinks it can legislate the global Internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another way Europe thinks it can legislate the global Internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another way Europe thinks it can legislate the global Internet...
I know when I lived in the US (as an Aussie) the tax treaties allowed me to pay my taxes in the US system and avoid paying tax back in Oz. Without the treaty, it was explained that I might be liable to pay income tax in both jurisdictions.
If the US and EU have signed a treaty regarding tax cooperation, then the VAT collection may be valid and the EU could be able to force collection through the US courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So far anyway, it's totally as bad as originally painted. And you say "merely substitute one imbalance for another" as if that's benign. I don't think that it is (and the original imbalance wasn't as bad as the new imbalance.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the point...
Not only they would then give a giant middle finger to German newspapers, but also blackhole all the "right to be forgotten" demands, due to "insufficient manpower".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the point...
Google is able to provide its users with free services because of the search and advertising revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps using the whole de-link rules to crush a few EU companies would make them start thinking a little harder about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone should have this right
You should have the right to be forgotten whenever someone submits the proper notification to Google that you should be forgotten.
Google should have a simple machine callable API so that automated programs from the RIAA / MPAA can submit "right to be forgotten" requests without human intervention.
Sites suspected of piracy could be forgotten.
Embarrassing stories about copyright maximalists infringing others' copyrights could be forgotten.
Stories of bumbling clown circus copyright trolls could be forgotten.
Stories which suggest wrong thinking, or modes of thinking contrary to established political policy could be forgotten.
Unfavorable stories about Internet Service Providers and Mobile Wireless Network operators could be forgotten.
Such a tool would make the world a wonderful place. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone should have this right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geographic Split
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geographic Split
Would never happen. Google-dot-co-dot-uk, on the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, its wrong in both instances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Decisions, decisions.....
or
make the claim against each and every search engine and subdomain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ultimate solution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If internet content were filtered according to a "least common denominator" of all countries' laws, would there be anything left online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geolocation
One example of a common glaring error was those users who used the American AOL as a service provider, where the geo-location software pinpointed them as physically being in Virginia, USA.
1. League Against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA), French Union of Jewish Students, v Yahoo! Inc. (USA), Yahoo France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (The County Court of Paris), Interim Court Order, 20 November, 2000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would there be anything left online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to be forgotten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop trying to help us.
Sincerely, the Public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stuff it. We're thinking only of ourselves and our corporate masters.
Sincerly,
EU Rulers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Google should do as it did in Germany
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think Google should do as it did in Germany
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DAT European search engine every one uses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops.
Advocate-General of Minnesota: “Persons outside of Minnesota who transmit information via the internet knowing that information will be disseminated in Minnesota are subject to jurisdiction in Minnesota courts for violations of state criminal and civil laws”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> Advocate-General of Minnesota: "Persons outside
> of Minnesota who transmit information via the
> internet knowing that information will be disseminated
> in Minnesota are subject to jurisdiction in Minnesota
> courts for violations of state criminal and civil laws".
Oops, indeed. Minnesota can pass such a law, but it has no authority under our federalist system of government to enforce it, or to bind citizens in other states or countries to whatever spews forth from its legislature. I don't live in Minnesota, I didn't vote for the people passing laws there, and I'm not subject to their jurisdiction.
Merely putting a website up on the internet doesn't subject me to any jurisdiction other than the state where I'm actually located and the federal government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look up "extradition".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't need to. Extradition is only available in my state for crimes committed *in* the requesting state's jurisdiction. I could easily defeat any extradition request from Minnesota by simply showing that I was not in Minnesota on the date and time when the alleged crime was committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be up to the court to decide ... in Minnesota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> in Minnesota.
No, it wouldn't. You don't really have any idea how extradition works, do you?
Any attempt at extradition would require a judicial hearing in *my* state first, and all I would have to do is show the judge in *my* state that I was not in Minnesota on the date and time when the alleged crime was committed, and extradition would be denied to Minnesota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forgeting the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There isn't much they can do about people o/s the eu seeing the results, even if they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last I checked, the E.U. is not a global world government body. Only the E.U. would be so arrogant to think it actually was.
This is why I do not respond to any 'right to be forgotten' requests involving my website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> government body. Only the E.U. would be so arrogant
> to think it actually was.
No, the American government has a long and rich history of believing its laws apply everywhere in the universe as well. One only has to look no further than the Kim Dotcom case to see that. Even when American laws conflict with the actual laws of a foreign country, American authorities have insisted that the country ignore its own laws in favor American laws and turn its citizens over to the U.S. for prosecution.
The EU is just taking the American example and embracing the suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The EU was a last bastion of hope for some of us Americans
Since then, the internal corruption and perversion-of-purpose of the US DoJ has continued to reveal itself, and I'd come to the conclusion that it is a lost cause until destroyed and re-established again anew.
I had hoped the EU would be more sensible when it came to trying to regulate the internet (e.g. don't. You will not succeed) until its own censorship and IP-related troubles started surfacing.
Now I can't help but think that any institution that thinks it's big enough to control the internet can't help itself but try to reshape it into its own image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter how many times I read this, I can't make any sense out of it. These "data protection officials" don't seem to know the first thing about law or computers, and their whole philosophy seems to be "do what we meant and don't bother us about details". Is that a hiring requirement at the CJEU?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
YOU really have to wonder about this idea. HOW are the cops going to TRACK people if they arent shown on the net?
Right to be forgotten, on Youtube, MSN, Yahoo, EXCITE, G+, FACEBOOK,...,..., every newspaper..
HOW can you be invisible..
All this is going to do, is give people a way to HIDE.
Like being an idiot at a party, at the beach, getting Drunk, beating your wife, your KIDS being stupid..
This all started over a Politician and a news paper..and google having it linked.
NOW think about that..A LINK to another site would be illegal..
HOW many sites, can give you LINKS to videos, music, and Other GRAY area's..
Anyone wish to turn off, LINKING for a day?
Every search engine would go DOWN.
Every Ref. link would go down.
Every News aggregator would GO DOWN.
Every link in TD would go down..
AND in the BASIC structure..DNS is a Link program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet won't bow down to its new insect overlords.
If so, then this just looks like a bunch of control-freaky bigs being a control freak about how they cannot control the internet.
You know, doesn't forgive, doesn't forget, doesn't rules, doesn't legion, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just "No."
Let us see a breakdown then: who wants the right to be forgotten.
And while we're at it: who wants the right to remember?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just "No."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would he be ok with censorship at the city level, but not at the state level?
Someone please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use GEO IP location
It's not that difficult and it doesn't have to affect the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use GEO IP location
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use GEO IP location
Sure they can. This isn't what the EU wants. Re-read the title of this story. They insist they have a right to re-write your reality wherever you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use GEO IP location
Very few courts have taken the matter of geo-location very seriously. One that did was a French County Court against the defendant Yahoo! Inc. [1] In that case the Court heard evidence that estimated the certainty of being able to identify a browser location. Perhaps 70% of users could realistically be located with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
One example of a common glaring error was those users who used the American AOL as a service provider, where the geo-location software pinpointed them as physically being in Virginia, USA.
1. League Against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA), French Union of Jewish Students, v Yahoo! Inc. (USA), Yahoo France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (The County Court of Paris), Interim Court Order, 20 November, 2000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's even worse.
github was recently blocked in Russia again...
reason? several public repositories contains old joke file about methods of suicide ... so it should be blocked worldwide until they comply with RosComNadzor's demands and remove it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the EU is serious, then they should start blocking .com
Even better: I'd love to see Google go ahead and do it for them. Put up a big banner on .com for all EU visitors: "Sorry, but your stupid government thinks your lives are better off without Google products. If you disagree, click here to send them a message." I would love to see their email servers melt down from all that traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shall we all be forced to forget Napoleon's failure at Waterloo? Shall we forget the treason, exile, and debauchery of John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester? Or how about Guy Fawkes? Shall we forget his treason and never remember the fifth of November?
How much history will you lose when no one is allowed to remember what is already known?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]