Beware Of Op/Eds Falsely Claiming The US Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because Lobbyists Neutered The FCC

from the willful-delusion dept

In recent weeks, the telecom sector and FCC allies have been busy trying to claim that the only reason the US internet still works is because the FCC killed net neutrality rules in 2017. That repeal, you'll recall, not only killed net neutrality protections, but the FCC's ability to hold giant telecom monopolies responsible for pretty much anything, be it obvious billing fraud or kicking disabled people offline during a crisis.

The pandemic has been making it very clear that might not have been a great idea. It has also brought renewed attention to the fact that 42 million Americans lack access to any broadband whatsoever despite the US having thrown endless billions at US telecom monopolies. There are millions more who can't afford service because captured regulators have intentionally turned a blind eye to monopoly domination of the sector and the lack of competition, high prices, and terrible customer service that routinely results.

To try and shift the focus away from, you know, reality... this new bumbling telecom-backed PR campaign has tried to change the subject. Namely, by insisting the only reason the US internet is working at all is because of our mindless, repeated pandering to telecom lobbyists. It's a missive that keeps popping up around the telecom policy ecosystem, including the AEI, Wall Street Journal, FCC Commissioners, and the FCC General Counsel:

Like most telecom industry PR efforts, the narrative was then shoveled to various paper op/ed sections via industry allies. Last week, it was USAToday's turn to run a factually-dubious editorial claiming that the only reason US broadband works during quarantine is because the Trump FCC kissed the ass of telecom giants:

"For most of the past 25 years, the United States has strategically minimized regulatory interference in a sector of the economy that empowers innovators, entrepreneurs and consumers. This light-touch regulatory environment has encouraged private companies to invest tens of billions of dollars in building the internet’s superstructure while opening the doors to innovators and entrepreneurs."

There's nothing in this paragraph that's actually true. And when's the last time you saw AT&T or Comcast do much of anything to "empower innovators or consumers?" That's not what these companies do, and these editorials always originate from a false premise: that US broadband is some kind of amazing success story, and you just didn't notice.

For one, the telecom market has never been a "free market." It's an increasingly deregulated pile of regional telecom monopolies that all but own state and federal government due to regulatory capture. They don't try particularly hard to compete on price, upgrade their networks, improve shaky customer service, or expand broadband to rural or less affluent areas because there's no competition driving such efforts, and most local, state, and federal lawmakers are in their pockets (ensuring the regulatory and cost burdens to upstart competitors remains high).

The end result of this is obvious: the US routinely ranks in the middle of the pack in nearly every broadband metric that matters, while US consumers pay some of the highest prices in the world. There's an entire chorus of folks employed by the telecom sector to try and pretend this isn't true.

The article's headline -- "Virus shows internet is too important for government to run" -- also ignores the fact that many communities have built some of the most popular and fastest broadband networks on the backs of apathy at market failure. And like several previous op/eds of this ilk, the author tries to claim that the pandemic has crushed European networks (completely false), but not US networks (false) because deregulation has triggered a massive wave in US investment (guess what: false) not seen in Europe:

"Unlike here, European networks are more heavily regulated. This has led to less investment and worse performance for consumers for years. American consumers are being generally well served by the private sector. Hundreds of service providers have signed up for the FCC’s COVID-19 pledge related to retail practices and prices. Wireless providers are giving out more data and the use of more hotspots for free."

You mean that entirely voluntary pledge that big ISPs are ignoring because they know the FCC just eliminated its authority to do anything about it? Again, the US internet has held up generally well, but it's largely thanks to smart engineers and well designed core transit routes used to handling massive events like the Superbowl. Out at the "last mile" of the network, where many Americans are still stuck on 5Mbps DSL lines from 2003, the results have been less impressive. Less impressive still are the sky high prices Americans pay for service, something industry apologists will literally never mention in the hopes of making the fact go away.

Lawmakers, economists, think tankers, and others loyal to companies like AT&T and Comcast repeatedly ignore hard data in a bid to strip away consumer protections, claiming this leads to miraculous outcomes that never arrive. It's an incredible 30 year history of delusion that never results in the projected and promised outcomes. Yet like some purgatorial version of Charlie Brown and Lucy football, we keep repeating the same mistakes and parroting the same delusions, certain that this time, pandering to telecom monopolies will surely drive the fast, cheap networks we were all promised 30 years ago.

This kind of circular, rose-colored glasses policy has long ensured US broadband remains mired in mediocrity. But using a pandemic to prop up and justify this obvious dysfunction is a particularly new and grotesque touch. There's a reason the telecom industry and its allies are pushing this nonsense, and it's to try and distract you from the fact that a generation of pandering to telecom monopolies has resulted in patchy, expensive broadband networks at a time when reliable, affordable connectivity is more important than ever.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid-19, eu, fcc, net neutrality, oversight, pandemic, us

It's Impossible To Opt Out Of Android's Ad Tracking; Max Schrems Aims To Change That

from the another-reason-to-use-apple? dept

Most of the world has been under some form of lockdown for weeks, but that clearly hasn't stopped the indefatigable Austrian privacy expert Max Schrems from working on his next legal action under the EU's GDPR. Last year, he lodged a complaint with the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) over what he called the "fake consent" that people must give to "cookie banners" in order to access sites. Now he has set his sights on Google's Android Advertising ID, which is present on every Android phone. It builds on research carried out by the Norwegian Consumer Council, published in the report "Out of control".

Today noyb.eu filed a formal GDPR complaint against Google for tracking users through an "Android Advertising ID" without a valid legal basis. The data collected with this unique tracking ID is passed on to countless third parties in the advertising ecosystem. The user has no real control over it: Google does not allow to delete an ID, just to create a new one.

The Android Advertising ID (AAID) is central to Google's advertising system. It allows advertisers to track users as they move around the Internet, and to build profiles of their interests. Google claims that this "gives users better controls", which is true if people want to receive highly-targeted advertising. But if they wish to opt out of this constant tracking, there is a problem. Although Google allows you to change your AAID, it is not possible to do without it completely: the best you can manage is to get a new one. And as the detailed legal complaint to the Austrian Data Protection Authority (pdf) from Schrems points out, there are multiple ways to link old AAIDs with new ones:

Studies and official investigations have proved that the AAID is stored, shared and, where needed, linked with old values via countless other identifiers such as IP addresses, IMEI codes and GPS coordinates, social media handles, email addresses or phone number, de facto allowing a persistent tracking of Android users.

Schrems' organization None of Your Business (noyb.eu) claims that's unacceptable under the GDPR:

EU Law requires user choice. Under GDPR, the strict European privacy law, users must consent to being tracked. Google does not collect valid "opt-in" consent before generating the tracking ID, but seems to generate these IDs without user consent.

Google's position is weakened by the fact that Apple gives users of its smartphones the ability to opt out of targeted ads; for those using iOS 10 or later, the advertising identifier is replaced with an untrackable string of zeros:

If you choose to enable Limit Ad Tracking, Apple's advertising platform will opt your Apple ID out of receiving ads targeted to your interests, regardless of what device you are using. Apps or advertisers that do not use Apple’s advertising platform but do use Apple's Advertising Identifier are required to check the Limit Ad Tracking setting and are not permitted by Apple's guidelines to serve you targeted ads if you have Limit Ad Tracking enabled. When Limit Ad Tracking is enabled on iOS 10 or later, the Advertising Identifier is replaced with a non-unique value of all zeros to prevent the serving of targeted ads. It is automatically reset to a new random identifier if you disable Limit Ad Tracking.

The formal legal complaint was filed on behalf of an Austrian citizen, requesting that the AAID should be deleted permanently. If the action succeeds, that would allow anyone in the EU -- and probably elsewhere -- to do the same. In addition, the complaint points out that under the GDPR, the maximum possible fine, based on 4% of Google's worldwide revenue, would be about €5.94 billion. There's no chance such an unprecedented sum would be imposed, but the fact that every Android user in the EU is forced to use Google's AAID could lead to a fairly hefty fine if Schrems succeeds with his latest legal defense of privacy.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: android, android advertising id, eu, gdpr, max schrems
Companies: google, noyb

COVID-19 Is Exposing A Virulent Strain Of Broadband Market Failure Denialism

from the ill-communication dept

A few weeks ago, the US telecom industry began pushing a bullshit narrative through its usual allies. In short, the claim revolves around the argument that the only reason the US internet still works during a pandemic was because the Trump FCC ignored the public, ignored most objective experts, and gutted itself at the behest of telecom industry lobbyists. The argument first popped up over at AEI, then the Trump FCC, then the pages of the Wall Street Journal, and has since been seen in numerous op-eds nationwide. I'd wager that's not a coincidence, and I'd also wager we'll be seeing a lot more of them.

All of the pieces try to argue that the only reason the US internet works during a pandemic is because the FCC gutted its authority over telecom as part of its "restoring internet freedom" net neutrality repeal. This repeal, the story goes, drove significant investment in US broadband networks (not remotely true), resulting in telecom Utopia (also not true). The argument also posits that in Europe, where regulators have generally taken a more active role in policing things like industry consolidation and telecom monopolies, the internet all but fell apart (guess what: not true).

Usually, like in this op-ed, there's ample insistence that the US broadband sector is largely wonderful while the EU has gone to hell:

"Unlike here, European networks are more heavily regulated. This has led to less investment and worse performance for consumers for years. American consumers are being generally well served by the private sector."

Anybody who has spent five minutes talking to Comcast customer support -- or tried to get scandal-plagued ISP like Frontier Communications to upgrade rotten DSL lines -- knows this is bullshit. Still, we penned a lengthy post exploring just how full of shit this argument is, and how there's absolutely zero supporting evidence for the claims. The entire house of cards is built on fluff and nonsense, and it's just ethically grotesque to use a disaster to help justify regulatory capture and market failure.

While it's true that the US internet, in general, has held up relatively well during a pandemic, the same can't be said of the so called "last mile," or the link from your ISP's network to your home. Yes, the core internet and most primary transit routes, designed to handle massive capacity spikes during events like the Superbowl, has handled the load relatively well. The problem, as Sascha Meinrath correctly notes here, is sluggish speeds on consumer and business lines that, for many, haven't been upgraded in years:

"Right now, an international consortium of network scientists is collecting 750,000 U.S. broadband speed tests from internet service provider (ISP) customers each day, and we’ve been tracking a stunning loss of connectivity speeds to people’s homes. According to most ISPs, the core network is handling the extra load. But our data show that the last-mile network infrastructure appears to be falling down on the job."

Again, your 5 Mbps DSL line might be ok during normal times, but it's not going to serve you well during a pandemic when your entire family is streaming 4K videos, gaming, and Zooming. And your DSL line isn't upgraded because there's (1) very little competition forcing your ISP to do so, and (2) the US government is filled to the brim with sycophants who prioritize campaign contributions and ISP revenues over the health of the market and consumer welfare. And while there's a contingency of industry-linked folks who try very hard to pretend otherwise, this is a policy failure that's directly tied to mindless deregulation, a lack of competition, and, more importantly, corruption. In short, the complete opposite of the industry's latest talking point.

For years we've been noting how US telcos have refused to repair or upgrade aging DSL lines because it's not profitable enough, quickly enough for Wall Street's liking. Facing no competition and no regulatory oversight, there's zero incentive for a giant US broadband provider to try very hard. Similarly, because our lawmakers and regulators are largely of the captured, revolving door variety, they rubber stamp shitty mergers, turn a blind eye to very obvious industry problems, routinely throwing billions in taxpayer money at monopolies in exchange for fiber networks that are usually only partially deployed -- if they're deployed at all.

Meanwhile, US telcos that have all but given up on upgrading aging DSL lines have helped cement an even bigger Comcast monopoly across vast swaths of America. It's a problem that the telecom sector, Trump FCC, and various industry apologists will ignore to almost comical effect. Also ignored is the fact that this results in US broadband subscribers paying some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world:

"Numerous studies, including those conducted by the FCC itself, show that broadband pricing is the second-largest barrier to broadband adoption (availability is the first). It’s obvious that if people are being charged a lot for a service, they’re less likely to purchase it. And independent researchers have already documented that poor areas often pay more than rich communities for connectivity. Redlining of minority and rural areas appears to be widespread, and we need accurate pricing data from the FCC to meaningfully address these disparities."

Try to find any instance where Ajit Pai, or anybody in this chorus of telecom monopoly apologists, actually admits that the US broadband market isn't competitive and, as a result, is hugely expensive for businesses and consumers alike. You simply won't find it. What you will find are a lot of excuses and straw men arguments like this latest one, designed to distract the press, public, and policymakers from very obvious market failure. Market failure that was a major problem in normal times, and exponentially more so during a pandemic where broadband is an essential lifeline.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, congestion, covid-19, eu, failures, fcc, market failure, regulation, us

EU Joins In The Bullying Of South Africa For Daring To Adopt US-Style Fair Use Principles

from the copyright-maximalists-made-me-do-it dept

As part of its copyright reform, South Africa plans to bring in a fair use right. Despite the fact its proposal is closely modeled on fair use in American law, the copyright industry has persuaded the US government to threaten to kill an important free trade deal with South Africa if the latter dares to follow America's example. If you thought only US copyright companies were capable of this stunningly selfish behavior, think again. It seems that the European copyright industry has been having words with the EU, which has now sent a politely threatening letter to the South African government about its copyright reform (pdf). After the usual fake compliments, it gets down to business in the following passage:

we once again regret the foreseen introduction in the South African copyright regime of provisions relating to fair use in combination with an extensive list of broadly defined and non-compensated exceptions. This is bound to result in a significant degree of legal uncertainty with negative effects on the South African creative community at large as well as on foreign investments, including the European ones.

Invoking "uncertainty" is a standard ploy, already used back in 2011 when the UK was considering bringing in fair use. It is manifestly ridiculous, since the US provides a shining example of how fair use does not engender any terrible uncertainty. America also offers a rich set of legal and commercial experiences others can draw on when they implement a fair use right. Here, "uncertainty" is just a coded way of threatening to withdraw investment in South Africa. It's an empty threat, though, since US history shows that fair use encourages innovation, notably in the digital sector, for which investors have a huge appetite. The EU letter goes on to tip its hand about who is behind this whining:

The European right holders continue expressing their concerns to us in this regard as they have done during the consultation period. All creative sectors in the EU, film industry, music and publishing industry have pointed to the possibility of revisiting their investment plans in South Africa due to these concerns. Other sectors, such as those which are high- technology based, could also suffer as a result of legal uncertainty created by the new regime.

That last sentence is revealing. If the digital sector had actually expressed its fears about "uncertainty", you can bet that the EU would have mentioned it as a serious issue. Since it is framed as "could also suffer as a result", we know that this is just the EU's hypothetical. It is an attempt to get around the awkward fact that high-tech companies love fair use in general, since it gives them far more scope to try out exciting new ideas. It's sad to see the EU slavishly doing the bidding of copyright's digital dinosaurs, and joining with the US in the unedifying spectacle of bullying a small nation trying to modernize its laws.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: copyright, eu, fair use, innovation, south africa, uncertainty

European Commission Wants Coronavirus Tracing Apps To Build In Strong Protections For Privacy -- Unlike The French Government

from the essential-requirements dept

Techdirt has just written about France's incredibly hypocritical attitude to privacy when it comes to contact tracing apps for COVID-19. The European Commission seems to be rather more consistent in this area. As well as pushing privacy legislation like the GDPR and ePrivacy Directive, it has released a series of documents designed to help EU Member States create tracing apps without compromising on citizens' privacy. For example, on April 8, it adopted a "Recommendation to support exit strategies through mobile data and apps", which called for "a joint toolbox towards a common coordinated approach for the use of smartphone apps that fully respect EU data protection standards". Details followed a week later, when the European Commission announced a pan-EU toolbox for "efficient contact tracing apps to support gradual lifting of confinement measures". A 44-page document spelled out in some detail (pdf) the "essential requirements" for national apps deployed in the region -- that they should be:

voluntary;

approved by the national health authority;

privacy-preserving -- personal data is securely encrypted; and

dismantled as soon as no longer needed.

Finally, as if to underline the importance of respecting citizens' privacy yet further, the European Commission released another communication (pdf) providing "Guidance on Apps supporting the fight against COVID 19 pandemic in relation to data protection". The whole section on security is worth reading in full, since it offers a good summary of the current thinking on the best ways to preserve privacy with these apps:

The Commission recommends that the data should be stored on the terminal device of the individual in an encrypted form using state-of-the art cryptographic techniques. In the case that the data is stored in a central server, the access, including the administrative access, should be logged.

Proximity data should only be generated and stored on the terminal device of the individual in encrypted and pseudonymised format. In order to ensure that tracking by third parties is excluded the activation of Bluetooth should be possible without having to activate other location services.

During the collection of proximity data via [Bluetooth Low Energy communications between devices] it is preferable to create and store temporary user IDs that change regularly rather than storing the actual device ID. This measure provides additional protection against eavesdropping and tracking by hackers and therefore makes it more difficult to identify individuals.

The Commission recommends that the source code of the app should be made public and available for review.

Additional measures to secure the data processed can be envisaged notably with automatic deletion or anonymisation of the data after a certain point in time. In general, the degree of the security should match the amount and sensitivity of personal data processed.

All transmissions from the personal device to the national health authorities should be encrypted.

The contrast between this rigorous and comprehensive approach to safeguarding the rights of citizens and France's cavalier disregard for the same, is stark. Unfortunately the Commission's guidance is not legally binding and is likely to be ignored by the French government, which often insists on going its way, as with its terrible implementation of Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: contact tracing, covid-19, eprivacy directive, eu, france, gdpr, privacy

UPDATED: GDPR (Briefly) Blocked Grocers From Accessing Lists Of 'At Risk' People In Need Of Food Packages

from the so-private-you-might-just-die-from-it dept

Kind of a major update here: it appears the GDPR was likely not to blame for the delay in grocers getting lists of vulnerable citizens in need of food deliveries. As is pointed out by DocGerbil in the comments, this more likely had some to do with a processing hiccup by the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). DEFRA apparently had the data but had not turned it over as soon as expected, resulting in a slight delay in deliveries.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed it is "working with the retailers to get them the information they need".

Defra said by combining Government and supermarket data, it could "ensure essential items are delivered as soon as possible to the people with medical conditions that make them most vulnerable".

This is confirmed by sources other than the Telegraph, including a piece by The Guardian that explains data protection details were being finalized, which may have contributed to the delay.

Britain’s supermarkets have been warned against holding on to NHS data about vulnerable patients which they will receive as part of the government’s efforts to combat Covid-19 once the crisis has abated.

The retailers will this week begin contacting customers whose names are on a list of medically vulnerable individuals, handed over by the government.

But they must delete the data they have received when the coronavirus crisis has abated, the information commissioner warned. Until then, the information, which covers at least 1.5 million people, may be kept and used by the supermarkets to help prioritise deliveries to those most in need.

The delay may have been due to the UK's own Data Privacy Act, rather than the GDPR. What's said about the GDPR generally sucking still stands, but I will take the hit for what was written here, drawn from a report only quoting an anonymous source saying it was the GDPR standing between vulnerable citizens and grocery deliveries. My apologies to our readers, who certainly expect and deserve better.

Original post follows with references to the GDPR's culpability struck through to clarify, while still leaving my screwup on my permanent record, mainly as a warning to myself.

-------

The GDPR is a mess. Still. After nearly two years of existence, it hasn't done much to improve the privacy of the millions of Europeans it affects. But it has made big tech companies even more dominant and generated a hell of a lot of collateral damage.

The privacy law was created by regulators bursting with short-sightedness and good intentions. And, if we're honest, a lot of unmitigated hate towards powerful US tech companies. (Hate, let's continue being honest, many of these companies did little to mitigate.) Transferring the power of privacy back to the people sounds good on paper, but in practice, it results in things like EU regulators violating their own law and, um, trash cans being temporarily removed from post offices because of the personal data they "collected" without permission.

The unintended consequences of the broadly-written law have been discussed here at Techdirt with alarming regularity. Clerical mix-ups have resulted in people accessing other people's personal data. The law has reached across the pond to screw with US court dockets and vanish posts from American search engines. GDPR has even made Christmas more of a logistical nightmare than it usually is.

Now there's this: in the middle of a pandemic, GDPR is preventing food from being delivered to at-risk Europeans self-isolating to prevent exposure to the deadly coronavirus. [See update above] (Paywall-free link here.)

Supermarkets have been unable to get the names of 1.5 million vulnerable people being shielded from coronavirus to deliver food boxes because of EU data protection rules.

Grocers are waiting for a list of those self isolating for 12 weeks due to underlying health conditions so they can be prioritised for deliveries.

The details were expected to be handed over at the weekend, but insiders said they have been held up because of the European Union's general data protection regulation, which prevents mass sharing of information such as people’s names, addresses or emails.

Awesome. They can either eat or have their privacy protected. But not both. And they don't get to choose which option they get. The GDPR has already decided they don't get to eat until the government straightens this out. Multiple major grocers confirmed they had no access to lists of vulnerable residents in need of food assistance.

Fortunately for everyone involved -- especially those considered to be at-risk -- this has been sorted out. One day after the original reporting, supermarkets stated they had finally received the lists previously blocked by the GDPR.

While this is a surprisingly speedy turnaround, the fact is the blocking of at-risk residents' info never should have happened in the first place. While GDPR's goals are (mostly) good, the side effects of mandating broad restrictions on data-gathering and sharing screws with the interoperability of the private and public sectors. In the GDPR's case, it also screws with the interoperability of multiple public entities, making it a nightmare for everyone involved. Good intentions only get you so far. And those good intentions don't mean much when they're undermining the public's health and well-being.

Filed Under: at risk, eu, food, food boxes, gdpr, groceries, pandemic, privacy

EU Says That, No, Rental Car Companies Don't Need To Pay A License To Rent Cars With Radios That Might Play Music

from the copyright-insanity dept

Performance Rights Organizations (PROs), sometimes known as "Collection Societies," have a long history of demanding licensing for just about every damn thing. That's why there was just some confusion about whether or not those with musical talents would even be allowed to perform from their balconies while in COVID-19 lockdown. And if you thought that it was crazy that anyone would even worry about things like that, it's because you haven't spent years following the crazy demands made by PROs, including demanding a license for a woman in a grocery store singing while stocking the shelves, a public performance license for having the radio on in a horse stable (for the horses), or claiming that your ringtone needs a separate "public performance" license, or saying that hotels that have radios in their rooms should pay a public performance license.

Five years ago, we wrote about another such crazy demand -- a PRO in Sweden demanding that rental car companies pay a performance license because their cars had radios, and since "the public" could rent their cards and listen to the radio, that constituted "a communication to the public" that required a separate license. The case has bounced around the courts, and finally up to the Court of Justice for the EU which has now, finally, ruled that merely renting cars does not constitute "communication to the public."

From the CJEU's press release:

... the Court of Justice, in its judgment delivered today, held that it is the case of the supply of a radio receiver forming an integral part of a hired motor vehicle, which makes it possible to receive, without any additional intervention by the leasing company, the terrestrial radio broadcasts available in the area in which the vehicle is located. That therefore differs from acts of communication by which service providers intentionally broadcast protected works to their clientele, by distributing a signal by means of receivers that they have installed in their establishment.

Basically, people aren't renting cars for the purpose of listening to music, and it's not like the rental car company is creating some special musical offering. They're just renting cars. Which have radios. Which might play music. If a customer turns it on and tunes into a radio station. And thus, finally, years later, we are assured that renting cars is not "communicating [music] to the public" for which the rental car company must pay extra.

But just the fact that this spent half a decade in court should give you an idea of just how greedy and messed up the copyright world is, with the various PROs/Collection Societies leading the way down the most ridiculous path.

Filed Under: cjeu, collection societies, communication to the public, copyright, eu, performance rights, pros, public performance, radios, rental cars

Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name

from the i-wonder-who-that-might-be... dept

We received notification this week that Google has delisted our entire right to be forgotten tag page, based on (of course) a right to be forgotten request under the GDPR in the EU. To be clear, this only applies when someone searches the name in question -- which was not shared with us. I am... perplexed about this. I understand that some people may not want us talking about their ongoing efforts to rewrite history and hide their past. However, you would think that if these articles don't actually talk about their historical scams that are very much a part of the public record, and instead focus on their very current and ongoing abuse of the "right to be forgotten" process, they should be allowed to remain up.

The very fact that the tag being delisted when searching for this unnamed individual is the "right to be forgotten" tag shows that whoever this person is, they recognize that they are not trying to cover up the record of, say, an FTC case against them from... oh, let's just say 2003... but rather are now trying to cover up their current effort to abuse the right to be forgotten process.

Anyway, in theory (purely in theory, of course) if someone in the EU searched for the name of anyone, it might be helpful to know if the Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection once called him a "spam scammer" who "conned consumers in two ways." But, apparently, in the EU, that sort of information is no longer useful. And you also can't find out that he's been using the right to be forgotten process to further cover his tracks. That seems unfortunate, and entirely against the supposed principle behind the "right to be forgotten." No one is trying to violate anyone's "privacy" here. We're talking about public court records, and an FTC complaint and later settlement on a fairly serious crime that took place not all that long ago. That ain't private information. And, even more to the point, the much more recent efforts by that individual to then hide all the details of this public record.

And of course, plenty of our right to be forgotten stories don't mention this particular individual at all -- so it seems pretty silly to then have them all blocked, but this is the future the EU apparently wanted. Just the fact that the tag itself was around "right to be forgotten" probably should have tipped off the Google reviewer that perhaps this was not a legit request, but hey, the EU's gotta EU and I won't goolnick around and complain about whatever decisions the company makes.

Filed Under: censorship, eu, free speech, gdpr, right to be forgotten, search