How Google determined our right to be forgotten

Re:How Google determined our right to be forgotten by fromtheoutside on Wednesday February 18, 2015 @08:19AM (#9068314)

Wording like "taken every opportunity to passively promote its role as a “truth” engine" makes me suspicious. How do you promote something "passively"?

If the EU wants to delist results worldwide they have to reach for a worldwide law. Work together with other bodies of law, the UN or whoever. But why'd EU law rule worldwide? Oh, right, we're rich.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Google determined our right to be forgotten by emiliobumachar on Wednesday February 18, 2015 @08:58AM (#9068484)

The article's comparison to copyright takedowns was a very good point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Google determined our right to be forgotten by fpgeek on Wednesday February 18, 2015 @11:10AM (#9069212)

It is a superficially appealing point, but I think the analogy falls apart on closer inspection.

Unlike the "right to be forgotten", a lot of effort has been put into harmonizing copyright law worldwide. While the mechanics of the takedown process may vary from country to country, if the content at the end of a link is infringing in country A, it is probably infringing in country B (with some limited exceptions like historical differences in went into the public domain). Given that, there's a serious rationale for applying copyright takedowns worldwide that isn't Google uncritically applying US law worldwide.

[ Parent | on HN ]