
Google wins privacy case: ‘Right to be forgotten’ applies only in EU - tingletech
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-24/google-european-union-right-to-be-forgotten
======
holstvoogd
What everybody here seems to miss, is that the right to be forgotten is aimed
at you right to ask a company to delete all personal data they have on you.

The question then is, how does this apply to search engines/indexers? I don't
think it necessarily should, however since 'indexers' are not a recognized
role in data processing laws, it takes some case law to figure these things
out properly.

By the letter of the law, if something about me is indexed by google, they are
processing my personal data and I have the right to ask them to stop doing
that and delete it. Realistically though, this can lead to abuse by public
people same as the DCMA does for companies.

So, still some work to be done. But I am glad that I have a legal way to force
for instance a marketing deparment to stop harassing me with spam mail/calls.
In practice, the threat of making a official request is often enough to
motivate them ;)

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
Seems like a transitive bit of reasoning might be a useful law here.

If I post a photo to facebook with "public" settings, then later want to
delete it, facebook should do so. If an indexer like google has indexed it,
then they should delete it too. Profile photos are an instance.

If I am the subject of a public interest news story, then I don't think I can
ask them to forget me, so maybe in that case I can't ask google to forget me
either?

I could then ask google to forget something if and only if I could ask the
underlying content publisher to forget it.

~~~
oarabbus_
>If I post a photo to facebook with "public" settings, then later want to
delete it, facebook should do so. __If an indexer like google has indexed it,
then they should delete it too. __Profile photos are an instance.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It's certainly valid for them to retain a
snapshot of that time with the profile photo available. Or are you suggesting
they are expected to alter/modify snapshots (or log data) to cater to after-
the-fact decisions?

~~~
Aeolun
The whole point of the right to be forgotten is that they do not retain those
snapshots.

~~~
oarabbus_
Then I think the "right to be forgotten" is utter bullshit. It's isn't and
shouldn't be a right.

------
Grumbledour
This law is really terrible, but maybe decisions like this will help abolish
it. After all, if one can find the information with a VPN, it becomes less
useful to enforce this law and people who want to change their record will do
it the old way, applying to the person publishing the information or the
courts to get it removed instead of getting it delistet in search engines.

~~~
StreamBright
>> This law is really terrible

Why?

~~~
donatj
I don’t think people should be able to cover up the truth. That’s rotten. If
there are lies about you, that’s covered by slander law.

Not letting others know things that are true that reflect poorly on you is
though is a different story.

Take for instance the since-freed murderers who have used the law to hide
their past actions. I don’t think that is something you should have the right
to ask the world to forget.

~~~
krastanov
I might be missing the forest for the trees here, but I strongly dislike your
example. In a country with a working justice system, the expectation is that
after you are done with your prison sentence you are rehabilitated. Making it
more difficult for ex-cons to reenter society only leads to further
recidivism. I am aware that the US does not have such a justice system, but
for many countries in Northwest Europe this is a reality and this law makes
sense there.

Basically, I have no problem with only law-enforcement having a record of the
past mistakes of reformed people, assuming that 1) law enforcement is actually
"serving and protecting" and 2) the justice systems ensures a high fraction of
cons are actually reformed.

~~~
paggle
The Norwegians can hire murderers as babysitters, as a reactionary American I
would rather not.

~~~
Dylan16807
Are you saying they should be in prison?

If they should be in prison then the countries don't differ.

If they shouldn't be in prison then they probably won't make a worse
babysitter. It was a very extreme circumstance that they regret.

~~~
seisvelas
I think he's suggesting they went to prison and were released, and he'd like
to be able to access someone's criminal record before hiring them as a
babysitter.

~~~
Dylan16807
I understand that, yes. But is the implication that they were released
incorrectly?

There's nothing that makes murder specifically relevant to babysitting. If the
implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job.
So they'd be unhireable. Which in practice is more or less the same as "they
should still be in prison".

~~~
seisvelas
Saying someone shouldn't be a babysitter is a long way from saying they should
still be in prison, or even from saying they're unhireable. Different jobs
require different kinds and degrees of trust - it isn't that black and white.

> If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to
> every job.

Unhirable for one, high trust job doesn't mean unhirable for every job. For
example, I don't care if a sex offender washes my dishes at a restaurant, but
I wouldn't want them teaching my preschoolers.

~~~
Dylan16807
A babysitting job isn't very demanding, or we wouldn't have so many teenagers
doing it. If someone seems to be qualified, then they probably are. If you're
okay with hiring a murderer in general, I don't think they're notably less
likely to babysit correctly. Let me know if I'm wrong here? (If you're not
okay with hiring a murderer in general, then ignore this comment.)

For a sex offender, it depends on what _kind_. For example, a former
prostitute is no less qualified than anyone else. But sure, some kinds are
relevant, and should disqualify people from a narrow slice of jobs.

The problem is when people have supposedly served their time but can't get 95%
of jobs.

------
blue_devil
People seem to conflate the collection of personal data and the (selective)
censoring of information.

The Right to be Forgotten, if applied to books would be Orwellian but somehow
it's ok when the information is digitally aggregated/distributed?

~~~
Dylan16807
Yes, there is a difference between data you collected about someone and a work
they published.

~~~
CDSlice
But Google is just indexing published works. It would be like forcing the
library to hide all results for George Orwell. Google isn't collecting data
about you, the publishers are. Google just lets other people easily find it.

~~~
bloak
Justify that "just"! To me there seems to be a huge practical difference
between information about someone being online somewhere and that information
being made available to anyone who types that person's name into a browser.

It would be a lot easier if newspapers could stop printing names of people who
are not public figures. In some countries newspapers already don't do that. No
doubt it's highly titillating for people to read about how AB was brutally
raped and how XY has been arrested as a suspect (XY being released without
charge the next day may or may not be considered newsworthy), but surely the
story would be just as titillating without the names? Then we wouldn't have to
argue about how to stop Google from indexing those names.

------
NightlyDev
Where is the asterisk?

applies only in EU*

* Also applies in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.

~~~
judge2020
Likely because of their half-relationships with the EU in the form of
EFTA/EEA.

------
shadowgovt
Silly implementation question:

To implement a right to be forgotten, I assume one must keep a list of things
that must be forgotten by indexers.

Doesn't the existence of that list defeat the purpose of the right to be
forgotten if it's leaked? It'd be the ultimate Streisand Effect directory.

------
advisedwang
This is great! It means we're able to have states that care about privacy
pushing the boundary on how we can regulate to achieve this without landing in
an cross-jurisdictional nightmare.

------
Hitashihamamoto
While we all are busy talking about this, has anyone thought about this - Is
Google still sticking to its original motto of organizing the world's
information?

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
How does this apply on the basis of the content's origin? If google indexes
content hosted in france, transmits (exports) that data to canada, and then
the french person whose content it is (or is about) requests it be forgotten,
is that any different from the same story except the content is hosted in
canada? I'm thinking about a french outlet reporting the same news as a
canadian one.

It seems reasonable to have some kind of "export" controls, like if you want
to index our country's data, you have to abide by our content laws regarding
it. Meanwhile, we'll let you do whatever with data you index from elsewhere.
You can't show Canadians the forgotten French story, but you can still show
them the Canadian paper's version of it. And if you don't abide by that, we
won't let google canada export this data from france in the first place.

~~~
Silhouette
Under the EU data protection regime, it's already the step where you export
personal data to somewhere outside that matters in your scenario. There are
obligations on those exporting personal data to places beyond the EEA ensure
that adequate safeguards are in place to protect it to an equivalent standard.

This is somewhat controversial, because arguably it is impossible to meet that
standard if you export to somewhere like the US, where there are laws allowing
the national government to obtain personal data from those within its own
reach, which no contractual safeguards or similar provisions can override. EU
nations have similar rules, but only recognise their own national security
interests as a valid reason to override the normal protections, not the
analogous interests of any third country (that is, country that isn't an EU
member state). The UK now has similar concerns in connection with Brexit.

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
As incomplete as it is, fining google france for google canada's use of
illegally exported data seems great then. You want the EU market, you abide by
EU export laws.

------
swiley
I'm still not convinced this is possible. How do you authenticate these sorts
of requests so that people aren't able to delete other people's data?

------
twobat
Let's not forget that this law is for people with money. Most common people
will not have enough resources to compel anyone the size of Google.

~~~
X6S1x6Okd1st
Filing is pretty cheap: [https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-
removal-reques...](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-
request?complaint_type=rtbf&pli=1)

------
DannyB2
Can this now be renamed to: The Right To Invoke The Streisand Effect

How about an archive (outside the EU) of every Right To Be Forgotten request,
and links to what was not to be remembered.

The people of the EU can be the most forgetful people on the planet. But
everyone else can remember.

However, it is impolite to point and laugh. So don't. Keep it to a low
snicker.

~~~
s_dev
I think the EU is right to take a serious attitude to data privacy even if it
doesn't always get it exactly right. These are new issues and the other
approach is the the US approach which means tolerating the likes of Equifax et
al data breaches with no real compensation or recourse. So I'd take the EU
apprach with its flaws over the US approach with its flaws.

~~~
tantalor
Right to be Forgotten has nothing to do with data privacy

~~~
hartator
It is part of the gdpr law.

~~~
danShumway
Is it?

My understanding is the Right to Be Forgotten predates GDPR by a fairly long
period.

------
binarnosp
I should have the right to remove embarrassing things I've done 20 years ago
when I was a teenager from a public indexer, the same way I can request the
phone book to delist my phone number: this does not mean that the phone
company has to delete my number, it just cannot be indexed.

A stupid example? just put a "like" on Medium next to an article regarding
something that embarrasses you and few days later that article will appear on
Google when looking for your name, and then you would love to have the GDPR at
your disposal to permanently delete your Medium account.

~~~
tantalor
Bad analogy for several reasons:

\- phone numbers are not personal, embarrassing stories

\- a phone book is a primary source, but a search engine is not

~~~
pgcj_poster
> phone numbers are not personal, embarrassing stories

Right, which makes the right to be forgotten even more important than the
right to be removed from a phone book.

When you're disputing an analogy, the discrepancies have to actually be
relevant and support your point. You can just say "you can't compare A and B
because A is not B."

------
knorker
With "Right to be forgotten" now applying to proper news, I think it's great
that this Orwellian rewriting of history is spared on most of the world.

I'm sure you've seen news articles from 100 years ago describing relevant
aspects about history, with lessons and describing how we became the society
that we are. "Right to be forgotten" wants history to be ephemeral.

You have no right (in the EU) to write about true facts from your life, for
future generations, if anybody finds that truth embarrassing.

I think that's scary as fuck, and a greater danger to freedom and democracy
than Trump, Johnson, Kim, and Putin combined.

~~~
cirno
I hope that for your own sake, you are never in a position where you are
unable to find work because employers stumble across false allegations made
against you that are shown as the top result for your name on Google search.

Because that's a very real thing that happens to a large number of people who
have made enemies through ex-lovers, jilted coworkers, and just garden variety
online trolls that maybe didn't take kindly to a random post you made online
somewhere.

~~~
holstvoogd
While one might want to remove false allegations by an ex, the next might call
an expose of their corruption as a local politician false allegations.

As with many things, it is all a double edged sword. Medical confidentiality?
Great! Until the patient is a commercial pilot, the doctor his psych that
tells him he should not be flying and the pilot decides to not tell his boss
and fly his plane with everyone aboard into a mountain... (Happened a few
years back)

We have to balance risks & rewards with these kinds of laws.

~~~
Dylan16807
It doesn't apply to public figures.

And you need a lot of medical confidentiality or you make people afraid to go
to psychologists at all, and everyone is worse off.

~~~
jimbob45
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Psychologists are one
instance where medical confidentiality would help. Making people make a trip
to their local clinic to hear the results of their X-ray of their broken leg
because nurses can't tell you anything over the phone is fucking asinine.
Surely, there are shades of gray here to be recognized.

------
tonyjstark
Did I understand that correctly: Google France "forgets" about things that I
would like it to forget but Google Canada still knows? Shouldn't it be more
about that if I'm European, I have the right to be forgotten, so all the
information that I want to be removed should be removed, no matter which
engine is used?

~~~
oh_sigh
So a French person can demand that a Canadian company must prevent Canadians
from finding information about them?

Maybe it makes sense that if the Canadian company is serving content to France
they have to abide by the French rules, but I don't see any kind of case for
blanket removal. Neither does the EU for that matter. Take note that the
ruling says basically Google had to make it hard for a French person to access
the Canadian version of their engine.

~~~
Fradow
No, and that's specifically what this ruling is about: a French person cannot
demand that a Canadian company prevent Canadians from finding information
about them.

On the other end, a French person can demand that a Canadian company prevent
French people from finding information about them (some exceptions might apply
though). The Canadian company can also choose not to do business with the EU,
in which case it doesn't have to abide by EU rules (some sites decided to do
exactly that when GDPR rolled out).

------
ecmascript
I have already used the "Right to be forgotten", but a lot of websites updates
the url as soon as anything about you change. Which means you need to apply
again if you for example change address, name or similar things.

Where I am from, there are many websites that display your personal
information (social security number, address, phone numbers etc) since the
state gives it away for free and there is no way to block this. The fault is
really not Googles, but at least this tool lets people get some peace since
most of the people where I am from only use Google and when you are removed
you are basically invisible.

This is highly annoying, especially when you have been subject to criminals,
but I get it. It is hard to block something else than a url.

~~~
ecmascript
Why do you downvote me? I shine a light on an actual valid use case for this.
The state publishes information that you cannot remove as a citizen.

HN has become so one-sided. I don't even know if I agree with the right to be
forgotten but it certainly has had a positive effect for me and probably many
others.

~~~
chriswwweb
I didn't downvote you ... but your post mentions a misterious state that
publishes personal information, you don't say what state, you don't show an
example and you don't describe what kind of information is being shared ... I
think you just got downvoted for not showing any proof / real example of what
you describe and the person that downvoted you has doubts what you say is
really a thing

~~~
ecmascript
I live in Sweden. Hard to show an example without doxing someone.

But here is an search on just such a site:
[https://www.merinfo.se/search?who=Kjell&where=](https://www.merinfo.se/search?who=Kjell&where=)

Kjell is a common Swedish name, just click on any link and you will see the
personal information about this person. Usually, there also pictures outside
their homes with Google Street view.

There are many of these sites, and the information comes from the government.
The sites have a right to publish this information and there is nothing you
can do in order for it to stop as an individual.

The only real solution if you want to be a bit more anonymous is to write
yourself on an adress which you don't live on. But that requires you to have
such an adress to begin with and will mess with a lot of systems.

