
Google Fined by French Privacy Regulator - pavornyoh
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/technology/google-fined-by-french-privacy-regulator.html?ref=technology&_r=0
======
Someone1234
Why do American commenters become so defensive whenever an American company
operating abroad is subject to local laws? Foreign countries aren't subject to
the first amendment of the US constitution, and a lot of other countries both
through law and through social norms don't consider freedom of speech
absolute.

This law doesn't allow individuals to remove any information they find
distasteful, it allows individuals to apply to remove information about THEM.
And there is already built in a "public interest" defence, meaning if there is
a public interest to the link then the link stays.

Ultimately this isn't black and white, and there are some interesting use
cases of this Right to be forgotten (e.g. revenge porn), I'd suggest people
read the Wikipedia article top to bottom, it is quite fascinating:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten)

But I'll say this, whatever opinion you come away with, you cannot criticise
France for not holding up to the US's ideals. If Google doesn't want to
operate under the EU's privacy standards then Google can leave.

I also find it slightly ironic that Americans on one hand whine endlessly
about other countries violating perceived rights while on the other operating
the world's largest surveillance dragnet, and Americans routinely say
(paraphrasing) "it is unacceptable to monitor Americans, but fine to spy on
foreigners!" So if you're going to start arguing that the US's 1st amendment
should apply in France then I'm going to argue that the US's 4th amendment
should too!

~~~
kodablah
The defensiveness, at least for me, is that the laws are being applied
globally. Nobody should agree with US laws applying in France. Seems a lot of
people agree with EU laws applying in the US. The internet is global, laws are
not. I have the same opinion if a French company, doing business in the US, is
told how it must do things in France by US regulators (as opposed to its part
in the US).

> So if you're going to start arguing that the US's 1st amendment should apply
> in France

Did you read the article? It's the opposite (EU law applying outside of the
EU)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Bear in mind, the way Google applied the law 'only in France' originally was
to delist the search result in google.fr, but French citizens could simply go
to google.com and the results would be there. So Google was not complying with
French law, even in France.

Apparently, they've since taken the step of adding country detection,
regardless of which domain you go to, to ensure RTBF is applied based on where
you're browsing from.

However, the extended point, is that France has granted those individuals
certain rights. It's in France's citizens' best interests for France to
protect their citizens' rights globally.

Note that if an American is incarcerated for a violation of another country's
laws, the US will often actually intervene and try to negotiate for their
release. Your country is protecting your rights (as your country defines them)
even when you're outside of their borders.

~~~
linkregister
I believe you'll find that the U.S. intervenes in international incarceration
in only the most extraordinary of situations.

~~~
dekhn
Nah, congresspeople do this all the time for people affected who are in their
constituency. It's just not federally done.

I see things like this periodically:
[http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2016-03-19/esca...](http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2016-03-19/escape-
from-tanzania-foster-city-couple-jailed-in-africa-thank-speier-for-
help/1776425160337.html) and I wouldn't call that extraordinary.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
What about cases such as [http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/korean-american-
in-north...](http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/korean-american-in-north-
korea-confesses-to-stealing-secrets-media/ar-BBqUgxn?ocid=spartanntp)

That's the sort of example where the US may intervene (and the State
department's quote here suggests protecting US citizens abroad is a key goal
here). According to the law of that country, these people have committed
crimes, but the US interprets that law to be 'wrong', and may negotiate for
their release.

------
disgusted405
The Times should really stop referring to the "right to be forgotten" madness
as a privacy restriction as it only touches on public info, it's a
_censorship_ law.

They are being fined and ordered to censor public record items globally, say
what you will about China but even they don't do that.

~~~
oh_sigh
Right...and the insane part is they aren't even censoring the primary
documents - just the index! It's like not allowing a library to have index
card saying "Mein Kampf is located in section 23, row 8 under 'misguided
ideologies'", but you do allow them to stock the book itself.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Because this isn't about censorship! Google results are the default answer to
'what something is' online. It's improper for someone's first result online to
be fraudulent or irrelevant. So Google is the problem. Not the actual article.

Furthermore, actually removing content from original websites is incredibly
hard, incredibly costly, and involves a lot of legal work. Tracing down web
hosts all over the planet.

Controlling this at the search engine level, on the other hand, only needs to
talk to a handful of companies, and a simple, common framework can ensure
individuals are able to expediently request redress for these wrongs against
them.

~~~
cromwellian
What if one day everyone runs their own indexer, or there's a distributed
search engine where people index parts of the web and share it with others
like FreeNet/Kazaa? What of sites like archive.org whose job it is to preserve
the history of the web, in effect, a history of our culture?

You're talking about in effect, erecting a Great Firewall around Europe so
that EU citizens can't surface information that the rest of the world can. But
anyone in Europe could use Tor, a foreign proxy, or a VPN to get around this.

Ultimately, if government censorship extends too far, it may push
decentralized information indexing and sharing to be more mainstream than the
darknets it currently exists on.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
If you'd like to help replace Google with a decentralized, publicly-controlled
alternative, I think that'd be a great thing!

But that's a very large amount of mystical speculation, Ray. And by and large,
if people had their own indexers, we wouldn't have a single search engine
determining what people's public reputation is, so this problem would largely
cease to exist.

But the reality is, this has nothing to do with 'government censorship'.
Google itself admits things like revenge porn should be blocked. (And in fact,
it's Google itself that decides whether or not to censor RTBF sites!) Private
citizens should have the right to remove personal information with no public
bearing from the Internet. If you disagree, feel free to post your social
security number and credit card information.

~~~
cromwellian
You can't remove anything from the internet, that's the point, and that's why
you should be very careful about what information you put in the internet. At
best you can temporarily hide it.

Anyone who truly wants to dig up dirt on you, or wants to do a background
check, won't rely only on Google.

You say it's not about a company in particular, but the principle, but notice
how you are totally ok with a non-Google index.

The reality is, any distributed system would converge eventually, and end up
with the same issues you have with Google today, only just like with
controlling nukes in a multipolar, vs superpower world, governments would lose
power to regulate speech and publishing. Thinks would get harder and more
dangerous for those wishing to remove information about themselves from being
found.

Notice how quickly people are to go hyperbolic on the precedent of Apple
unlocking a single cell phone, because hey, if the FBI can ask Apple to do it,
then the Chinese government can too. But I don't see any similar concern about
the possible bad precedents European censorship will set for China, Russia, et
al.

How can tech companies put up a fight against Chinese requests for censorship,
when the European Union is given that option?

Given your history Jake, of nearly daily anti-Google articles on your social
feeds, should I not be skeptical that this has less to do with principle, and
more to do with your desire to see Google lose a battle or two?

And before you chalk this up to my employment at Google, maybe you should look
at my history in trying to prevent censorship of this form, going all the way
back to the 90s as one of the authors of the early anonymizing internet
proxies in 1996 ([https://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/privacy-
compcon97-ww...](https://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/privacy-
compcon97-www/privacy-html.html), search for 'Decense', or
[https://web.archive.org/web/20011129060515/http://www.clark....](https://web.archive.org/web/20011129060515/http://www.clark.net/pub/rjc/decense.html))

I have always absolutely opposed censorship, of any kind, by any entity.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The problem is other people can (and do) put private information about you on
the Internet. I am not any more comfortable with a Bing index than a Google
index, Ray. Decentralized search, not controlled by a corporation, however,
has very different ethics.

The problem is, that for example, right now, your employer could choose the
next US President. Google Search has that power. Furthermore, Eric Schmidt is
literally working for the Clinton campaign. I don't know how you could fail to
see the difference between a decentralized, neutral search index (or at least
one that didn't keep it's search algorithms veiled in secrecy) and your
employer's completely non-transparent black box with the power to write
history.

[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-
co...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-
the-2016-election-121548)

Google (and Bing or any other search provider) decides through a mysterious
algorithm how to rank people's lives. A faceless algorithm can determine
whether someone can EVER HOLD A JOB AGAIN. Seriously? You're going to defend
that? I know Googlers believe that automation is somewhere close to godliness,
but the fact of the matter is, Google ruins lives. And Google doesn't even
have the decency to entertain a request for redress without a government
passing a law to mandate they do so.

If Google had a customer service team of people that treated people like
people, maybe this sort of thing would never have become a problem. And yeah,
if Microsoft or Apple had the level of sheer unchecked power coupled with
inane irresponsibility that Google has, I'd be up in arms about them too.

And I still feel if you think it's wrong for people to have the right to
retract their personal information from the Internet, your social security
number should be on it.

~~~
cromwellian
It doesn't matter if the algorithm is known, or unknown in a distributed
index, the fact is, any ranking algorithm will be vulnerable to poisoning
attacks.

Let's say you have a completely distributed search index with no ability for a
central authority to curate. An attacker wanting to sway the US election would
simply flood the internet with fake sites and link farms, designed to attack
the weaknesses in a publicly known algorithm. This is in fact, substantially
more likely than Google modifying their own system to favor a candidate.

What this basically means is he who has the most compute resources wins.
Powerful entities could still manipulate the result just as anyone who owns
more than 50% of the hashing power in the blockchain can dictate it. Dedicated
campaigns can do it too (Santorum anyone?) Any coalition or entity with
greater resources than the opposition will have an outsized voice.

You're positing a decentralized system absolutely immune from collision or
resource constraints, in all likelihood, the systems deployed would have huge
compromises that can be manipulated as easy as a Google Bomb, only with less
ability to mount a defense. That is, an open index and known algorithm would
likely be WORSE at defense against manipulation.

One only needs to look at how long it took to develop defenses to spam on
USENET/UUCP/NNTP and SMTP. Even today, the defenses are not perfect, and
that's after 20 years of sophisticated development.

The reality is, if you commit a crime that's in the public record, if you're a
felon, or had judgements against you, and your employer is going to
discriminate against you, then they will find the information. How the hell do
you think this worked before Google? You think background checks for job
candidates only started when Google launched? The government, marriage,
police, and civil court case databases are all public. If I want to find out
if you're a criminal or a cheat, I don't need Google.

Your argument that I should 'dox' myself if I feel people shouldn't have a
right to retract information from the internet doesn't make any sense. It's
precisely because I don't believe you can ever retract such information that I
don't post my sex tapes with Kim Kardashian. If I knew I could censor whatever
I want, then I'd feel free to dump all kinds of information I don't want to
get out.

If someone decides to spread your info on the internet, censoring Google won't
save you. People taking revenge carpet bomb information all over many
resources like Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Twitch, Wikipedia. Ask the women
harassed in the GamerGate fiasco if the biggest issue was Google searches, or
social network spam. Have you not seen Encyclopedia Dramatica?

IMHO, if you want to deal with discrimination over knowledge of your public
records, pass anti-discrimination laws. Don't rely on security-through-
obscurity. If you're living a lie, sooner or later your workplace will find
out.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
You seem to be assuming everyone is using and contributing to a single index,
or that everyone's using the same ranking algorithm. Both are problematic.

Yes, you can file checks with government agencies or what-have-you, the
problem is Google isn't a government agency. Google is the court of Google.
You don't even have to be guilty to be sentenced for life by it.

Ray, I've never met you, but if I claim that you've molested a child or
something, there's a possibility, depending where that's said, that it becomes
attached to your name in search results. Even with no official court record,
evidence, etc. your name may be permanently tainted.

Your unwillingness to dox yourself is a problem because for millions of people
every year, it's not a choice. Let's say I have your social security number,
and I post it online. As far as your viewpoint is concerned, (you can't remove
anything from the Internet), your identity is permanently compromised, for
life. What would you do if that happened, what would be your first step?
You're suggesting it's okay that crimes against you involving your personal
information should be permanent and irrevocable.

Privacy IS security-through-obscurity. Time and time again, I've seen that
Googlers fail to grasp that concept. Privacy = obscurity. And if you are
opposed to obscurity, than you're similarly opposed to privacy.

------
gorbachev
The logical conclusion of following orders like this is for China to demand
every trace of Tiananmen Square to disappear from all of the Internet.

This is madness.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This is strawman! A reasonable right to privacy is defined as a fundamental
human right both by the United Nations and the European Union. The United
States constructively by precedent has a right to privacy though it's not
explicit and clearly, rarely followed.

Right to be forgotten, as the EU defines it, is specifically written to
protect individual citizens, not obscure information that is 'in the public
interest' such as Chinese history.

~~~
gorbachev
_sigh_

Let's put this in a way that you could understand.

So what's to prevent China from enacting a law that protects the privacy of
its leaders and then demanding Google to remove all traces of any mention of
any of its leaders, past or present, from the entire Internet?

If you think that's a hypothetical scenario, you would be well served to read
up on what's going on in Thailand with regards to writing about the king
there.

~~~
effie
> _So what 's to prevent China from enacting a law that protects the privacy
> of its leaders and then demanding Google to remove all traces of any mention
> of any of its leaders, past or present, from the entire Internet?_

Nothing, because China is sovereign state. On the other hand, the European
right to be forgotten does not require Google to comply with China's
government demands. What China may demand of Google has nothing to do with the
current topic.

~~~
gorbachev
Sure, because we obviously can't make logical conclusions of consequences from
actions regarding the issue at hand.

Once Google starts applying local laws globally, there's no stopping it.
Everything even remotely controversial (in someone's opinion) will slowly, but
surely, disappear from Google. It may take a while, but it will happen.

~~~
effie
Google is indeed required by the French regulator to de-list globally.

[https://www.cnil.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/d2016-05...](https://www.cnil.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/d2016-054_penalty_google.pdf)

It makes sense that if the protection of privacy of the individuals by de-
listing is to be effective, it must be applied to all search requests,
wherever they appear to come from or whatever google domain they are sent to.

This does not mean controversial things will disappear from Google. The ruling
and the penalty are about de-listing of specific search results, not
documents. And only for specific group of queries, involving individual's
name. The documents linked in de-listed results will still be available in
search via all other queries.

------
marcoperaza
If France is able to pull this off, and Google doesn't just decide to close
all of its French offices, someone will start an uncensored search engine
based exclusively in the US, subject only to American jurisdiction. Anyone
trying to dig up dirt, like a prospective employer, will search on that
instead. You might say, France will then block that search engine. Okay, so
people will use one of the hundreds of web proxies that can be easily found by
searching "web proxy" on Google, or Tor. And yes, people _will_ go through
this trouble, especially in a place where it's almost impossible to fire
someone, like France.

Sounds like a stupid sword to fall on.

------
ejk314
I think there must be a fundamental difference in the way Americans view
privacy vs how Europeans view privacy.

To me, 'privacy' means that my actions performed at home (or in other places
where I can reasonably assume to be alone or in private company) should not be
under the scrutiny of others.

I should have the right to act how I want in public as well, so long as my
actions do not affect other people. But I don't see how I could reasonably
expect to have privacy in that case.

Do Europeans have a different view?

------
disaster01
Ah les Francais. Show le Google our force. 100.000 EUR fine. Regardless of
whether the decision is right or wrong, the real question is: will it work.
Will they make Google and other companies submit with such methods?

~~~
effie
Unless Google wants do withdraw its business from France and potentially all
Europe, it will comply. I think it is quite probable it will comply, it is in
its financial interests.

~~~
topspin
Google has fought unreasonable Chinese demands, and Google has lost a lot of
Chinese market share as a result. Perhaps Google will also not bow to
unreasonable EU demands.

"Right to be forgotten" is a euphemism for censorship, and censorship is
anathema to the Internet. That's the beginning and end of the matter. Stop
legislating fantasies.

~~~
effie
Censorship is bad, but "right to be forgotten" is a very different thing.
Please read this document: [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-
protection/files/factsheets...](http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-
protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_rtbf_mythbusting_en.pdf)

~~~
ejk314
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered
objectionable.

The reason someone's search results are considered 'objectionable' is because
they consider those results private. The private citizen, in the case, is the
censor. The french government is just the enforcing body behind that
censorship.

~~~
effie
You are using a general definition "removing objectionable information" here
but most people, when reading "censorship" will understand it refers to a
different concept like "deplorable practice of suppressing communication
between people by force". You cannot, in general, put personal information
regarding an individual in place of that communication and call exercising
right to control personal data censorship. The right to be forgotten does not
mean anything objectionable can be removed and it does not apply to public
figures, companies or corporations. It only applies to individuals and search
queries containing their name. In special cases the objected search result is
important to the public, the right to be forgotten does not apply. So no, it
is not censorship.

------
ocdtrekkie
This is such a pittance. $112,000? That's like a parking ticket.

~~~
NovaS1X
A drop in the bucket. I'm assuming there's some legal or other reason why they
can't charge more.

I also find it funny how Google is trying to take the stance of "freedom of
expression". What a joke.

~~~
ryanobjc
What's so funny here?

For example, if Google gave France the right to censor content based on "right
to be forgotten" laws, why not other laws? For example, nazi memorabilia is
illegal in fr but not us (or most countries).

And if Google gave fr the right, why not de? Or cn? Or any other country in
the world?

~~~
codedokode
Google already is censoring content at DMCA requests. And what about privacy?
What would you do to remove some unpleasant information about yourself from
the internet?

~~~
kodablah
What would you do to remove some unpleasant information about yourself from
<some other publishing method>?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Presumably, get a lawyer and sue them for defamation, likely at great personal
expense. Up against the corporate lawyers of media empires (or search
engines), your chances are pretty slim.

------
aub3bhat
I guess its now Très chic to hate Google. Maybe they should revive
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Nothing about this is about hating Google. It's about basic human decency.

~~~
aub3bhat
It's all about censorship plain & simple. There is nothing related to privacy
in this fine.

~~~
effie
I am not so sure. The fine is about the right to be forgotten, which is a very
different thing from censorship. This may be of interest:
[http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-
protection/files/factsheets...](http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-
protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_rtbf_mythbusting_en.pdf)

