
Google faces €600k privacy fine in Belgium - jacquesm
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/technology/121533/google-faces-e600000-privacy-fine-in-belgium/
======
gruez
Sounds like what happened was

1\. the complainant told google to delete something

2\. google says no

3\. the complainant complains to the DPA, who agrees with them and fines
google 600k

The implementation of "right to be forgotten" is problematic. It forces
service providers to take down content on the request of a complainant,
without going through judicial approval. It's up to the service provider to
render a decision, and if they wrongly refuse the request, they could be
subject to a fine. This is problematic because there's almost zero incentive
for the service provider to keep the content up, and plenty of potential
downside if they keep the content up. Thus, the "safe" decision is to always
comply with any request, regardless of merit. This is the same problem with
DMCA, where every request gets rubberstamped, because if you don't comply with
the request and it later turns out to be valid, you lose your safe harbor
status and can be held liable for the infringement. Needless to say, this
effect is terrible for free speech on the internet. Also, unlike court, there
isn't any "defense" so to speak. Who is supposed to be representing the public
interest or the author?

~~~
jacquesm
The application of the law as intended is not 'problematic', it is Google that
is problematic in the sense that they seem to be of the opinion that the law
does not apply to them. If you don't act in good faith and in fact try to
interpret the law when it comes to the actions of private individuals then you
really can not complain if the judiciary disagrees with you. That's a risk you
took. Keep in mind that Google would have lost nothing if they had just
complied with the request, instead, they decided to make a stand and show that
they were in the right. Tough luck.

~~~
kodablah
> it is Google that is problematic in the sense that they seem to be of the
> opinion that the law does not apply to them.

Except the article explicitly states:

> Google refused to delete the search results. According to the Litigation
> Chamber, this was justified with regard to possible links with a political
> party

It seems to me that the law only applies to them. One should be punished for
trying to use the law to request things be deleted that are not illegal.

> Keep in mind that Google would have lost nothing if they had just complied
> with the request

This is scary, one-sided thinking. Google loses their ability to determine if
the request is even a legal one if they comply blindly. Similarly the public
accepts unnecessary content censorship.

~~~
jacquesm
Google does not get to make law in Belgium, they are _subject_ to the law in
Belgium.

~~~
kodablah
Of course, nobody would argue otherwise. The point was at least some of
request was invalid _by the law in Belgium_. So a reasonable person might read
the article and conclude "one side didn't abide by a partially invalid
request" and "another side submitted a partially invalid request". I am
lacking on details of the issue at hand, but it's clearly stated some of the
request is invalid.

We have seen the consequences of invalid takedown requests in other situations
(e.g. DMCA), and we should appreciate companies not just taking every takedown
request at face value.

~~~
karaterobot
> The point was at least some of request was invalid by the law in Belgium.

From what little information was provided in the article, it sounded like
Google maintained that these search results were exempt from the law, because
they were political in nature, so they stood their ground.

However the DPA determined that these results were NOT exempt, due to the
particular facts of the case (the results were "irrelevant and outdated"). So,
keeping them up did not serve the public good (which, I resume, is the
justification for these exemptions).

To me, it sounds like Google chose the wrong test case to stand their ground
on. I appreciate them taking a stand on keeping information available if it is
important.

But, crucially, Google claiming the request was invalid does not make it
invalid; that's for the DPA to decide.

~~~
unishark
> But, crucially, Google claiming the request was invalid does not make it
> invalid; that's for the DPA to decide.

Except apparently the DPA requires google to decide. And hits them with a
hefty fine if they pick the wrong answer. I believe this is the point being
made in the thread. Google suffers all the risk.

------
ocdtrekkie
The key concept here seems to be that Google decided that a public figure
shouldn't be able to have something forgotten (which is reasonable, and in
line with Right To Be Forgotten), but failed to account for the fact that
something proven to be inaccurate or unfounded should still be able to be
forgotten because it isn't true.

The latter issue is particularly important, as someone should not be
permanently be harmed by a mere accusation of wrongdoing. Accusations should
not follow someone after they've proven inaccurate.

~~~
cookiengineer
According to lumendatabase the defamation complaints were filed 8 times by her
lawyer about a private video (that seemingly was uploaded without her consent
to porn websites) where she appeared as a "hooker from Brussels".

I think this is a serious human rights issue, in times where not everybody
knows what's actually going on on their mobile devices, where Android malware
is not a joke anymore and commonly spread around.

I mean, just imagine the same case that your private pictures or videos get
uploaded to a porn website and Google simply ignores your legal complaints to
take those down ... social- and work-life must be a living hell from that
point on.

~~~
masto
So now that you’ve posted that, does Hacker News face a €600k fine if they
don’t delete your comment?

~~~
cookiengineer
Technically speaking, as I cannot delete my comments after a given amount of
time, HN isn't GDPR compliant anyways.

------
zxcvbn4038
This is a lesson that Google really needs to learn. If you’ve ever been on the
wrong side of Google you know that they will dodge you like you are collecting
debts and often the only way to get their attention is to shame them in the
media, back channel someone you know, or engage them in court. They probably
could have avoided this fee entirely just by answering the phone and realizing
that the automation missed something.

I try really hard to like Google because overall they have done a lot of good,
but sometimes it’s just jaw dropping how a company with so many smart people
fails so badly at the most basic things.

~~~
gchamonlive
maybe the cost of answering the phone and putting the effort to fix something
that automation missed, case by case, outweights the risk of getting this kind
of fine.

This is why punishment should be exemplar, read disproportionate, and the
basic customer support should be enforced by law. Otherwise companies will
just take the cheap way out and risk lawsuits.

------
gundmc
Title is vague/misleading. I think it would be clearer to say "Google faces
€600k fine for Right to Be Forgotten compliance".

~~~
deadmutex
Do you think it would've gotten so many upvotes/clicks if that was the case?

------
xyst
600K euros is like a slap on the wrist for Google. A few people within the org
get demoted or fired and life goes on.

They could probably write it off and somehow earn money on getting fined.

~~~
ggggtez
It's hardly a random employee's fault that Google lost the court case.

I doubt anyone would be fired for a $600k mistake. When you work processing
legal requests, there is always a chance you get sued. If Google blamed their
court losses on the employee that originally caused the problem... they'd have
a hard time convincing anyone to do that work at all.

This person probably handles dozens of requests a day. There would have to be
serious evidence of neglect for the employee to suffer any punishment.

------
Traster
Does anyone know if Google is going to be solvent after this? If they have to
liquidate or start shedding staff it could really impact them.

------
ideals
Is there a website which collects and tracks the fines tech companies incur?

I wonder how much Google, FB, etc have paid in fines in Europe and elsewhere
over the years and the frequency of these fines.

~~~
Nextgrid
[https://www.enforcementtracker.com](https://www.enforcementtracker.com)

As you can see, not many fines compared to the large-scale privacy violations
these companies are committing.

~~~
ideals
Thanks for the link! My only complaint would be this is restricted to only
gdpr fines but there are more which occurred before gdpr was a thing and fines
outside of the EU.

I'll do some more searching though since it seems likely it exists in full
exhaustive format

------
samstave
Ill admit - ive never actually understood fines against companies - meaning
the economic benefactors of said fines.

I never hear where those fines go and what is ultimate the outcome of them.

So, ok - company A gets fined N millions of dollars.

You never hear anything like:

“Googles $600k fine was used to finance school supplies for 3 million
students! Yay!”

Im not being flippant - in just pointing out that there is never(?) any
followup as to what happens to said “fines for transgression”

~~~
detaro
Do you wonder about the same when you hear about someone getting a speeding
ticket?

~~~
samstave
My mind cant compare the two - why can yours?

------
didip
€600,000 total? That's like 1 L6/L7 salary in a year.

It doesn't even count as a slap on the wrist. More like soft caressing touch.

------
holografix
I find it very hard not to interpret at least “some” of the intention behind
this fine to be about recapturing some of the evaded tax by national
governments. €600K sounds like __a lot __of money.

------
swarnie_
600k is rounding error right?

~~~
glial
I bet it's cheaper than their legal fees.

~~~
not2b
It's about the revenue they pull in every two minutes.

------
shrimpx
It seems wrong to go in the direction of telling intermediaries to blacklist
and curate traffic. The right thing is to develop a scalable way to notify
sources to take down the content.

------
throwaway6263
I‘m going to do the same to Tinder (Match). Just watch me.

------
freediver
Better title would be Google fined an equivalent of 2.5 minutes of its revenue
for thing X. That puts things in the right perspective. Absolute fines were
always senseless for corporations.

~~~
coronadisaster
Is that 2.5 minutes in Belgium or worldwide?

------
tda
Can someone do the math, how many seconds of profit is that for Google?

~~~
gpm
I think the better question is how many person months of profit it is.

It doesn't make sense to punish people more for each offense just because they
got together in a bigger group that does more things.

~~~
fmajid
Actually it does. Finland calculates fines, e.g. speeding tickets, as a
function of your income, otherwise the rich will treat them as a simple
nuisance.

~~~
gpm
This is why I measure in person months and not dollars.

You fine the speeder a fraction of their income (person months), not a
fraction of their entire support networks income (months). Doing the latter
would tend to discourage people from forming large support networks (large
companies).

