It is worth noting that the USA is the worst offender when it comes to extending its jurisdiction to the whole world. For instance it regularly demands that European countries send people to the USA for trial that have not set foot in the USA but have transgressed its laws on servers located in the USA. They also criminalise foreign nationals who engage in trade with non-approved organisations.
Just saying.
It is not an argument between you and the EU, but between the EU and a corporation that wants to do business in the EU. The corporation will make decisions in the interests of its shareholders- that’s capitalism for you!
It’s true that the concept is completely novel. It’s not like, for instance, a French bank could be fined $ 9 billions by US courts for violating the US embargo against Sudan. :dubious:
US courts do exactly the same thing exactly all the time. If you operate in a country, you must follow its laws. The alternative is stopping doing business there.
So you’re saying that the US prosecutes people who committed a crime in their jurisdiction? Amazing.
It’s of questionable legality: CasinoWithBonus.com | It's Bonus Game
The major justification is, to be honest, probably little more than might-makes-right (and the after-effects of the Cold War), but here’s the official breakdown:
Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the Gander:
France says: do not break our laws by allowing our citizens to access information that is considered protected (private) by our laws.
Google pulls it from French Google.
France then points out that Google makes Google USA available in France.
Google says that it cannot do anything about the availability of Google USA.
France points out that it can simply remove the entry from Google USA.
If publishing protected information is a crime in France, then whether it is done via Google France or via Google USA, it is still a crime in France.
Same argument.
You can make anything sound good or bad by crafting you words. Here, let me rephrase that:
“An multinational organization run by unelected power-hungry bureaucrats creates a new “right” out of whole cloth, then applies that so called “right” to corporations operating in Europe, which just so happen to be almost entirely American. These companies dutifully comply with the onerous regulation, but power tripping French courts seek to extend their control beyond their borders to encompass the entire world, and impose censorship on everyone, everywhere, forever.”
Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it shouldn’t be hard to see why Americans are quite justly upset about this; if France gets its way, our lives are made worse and less free, and we don’t even get some laughable “privacy rights” to compensate. This isn’t just about France, because the benefits of this policy accrue to Europe, while the costs accrue to the world.
That is how international politics work. The rest of the world has to put up with being the tail that the dog shakes in many matters. The USA is probably the most aggressive country in extra-territorial claims to extend its laws. When the EU or russia or China seek to do the same there is a tendency to call foul.
Mentioning the word “Israel” is illegal in Iran (hypothetically). If an Iranian court rules that Google should remove all links featuring the word “Israel” anywhere in the world, should Google comply? After all, an Iranian court ruling is just as legitimate as a French court ruling.
I live in England and slowly but surely we are losing our ancient freedoms of speech. The English historically have been passionate about such freedoms and the colonists took that passion with them to America. Now unbelievably government repression of free speech in the name of the idiotic ‘right’ not to be offended is popular with the public. Our ancestors would be appalled. The Europeans never seemed to care much about this freedom anyway in the past so nothing surprises me there.
But now, to my horror, I see signs of this attack on free speech in the US, the last bastion of such liberties. Please, guys, be vigilant, don’t let weasel words of ‘protecting people from offense’ rob you of the basic right of free speech.
Google actually doesn’t do much business in China for this reason (that it doesn’t want to comply with the Chinese legal requirements.) It has like less than 2% market share and after 2010 they basically got rid of mainland Google China and now Chinese searches just go through Google Hong Kong. So the Chinese simply used the Great Firewall to turn off access to all Google websites (you just get a DNS error if you try to use them from mainland China), Google Hong Kong continues to work as normal in Hong Kong.
Most Android phones in China are Chinese “forked” versions of Android that do not connect to the Google Play Store and Google essentially generates no revenue and has no control over these offshoots of Android. [In the United States it maintains control because users expect the “quality” software of the Google maintained Android branch, in China that’s just not a concern and the government doesn’t want it.]
Google does operate a few other services in China and has some research facilities there, but it’s mostly not in the Chinese market.
Despite all the whining on both sides about international jurisdictions the truth is that Google can just make Google USA inaccessible from France and the problem would be solved. They want some kind of fight over this so that’s the only reason they haven’t done so as of yet. Google is extremely profitable and would be so even without a cent from Europe, so it has the flexibility to do weird things against its business interests. I mean it’s setting up fiber utility networks (a notoriously capital expensive and low profit venture) just “because” it wants to show internet speeds should be faster in the United States.
I don’t really care how much French people want to censor their Internet, it certainly doesn’t affect me–and I don’t care for Google as a company in any case. I will only note that as dumb as American laws on technology are you only have to look to the EU to consistently see dumber ones.
The fundamental point is that it is a stupid law. Sure, sometimes I can agree on the principle of different strokes for different folks, but in this case, the law is being used for the cause of worldwide censorship. Maybe Russia should make it a crime for the Internet to carry stories about how they invaded Ukraine.
Perhaps it would help this debate if you could come to a consistent position on extraterritorial laws. You’ve been basically arguing that the EU is justified in following the US’s practices, but the US’s practices are awful, therefore the EU case is good.
I think you need to pick a position and stick with it.
I have a totally consistent position. Might is right in International relations.
I feel there is probably a middle ground between USA Right to free speech (to a point) and European Right to Privacy(to a point). It will be decided by diplomatic and commercial arm wrestling.
It does amuse me to see the USA which is probably the greatest proponent of extra territorial law complaining when other states make decisions and try to export them to the USA. Sometimes the USA way is not the way for everyone; sometimes the USA needs to bend as other countries do.
Google sees little profit in Iran, so will ignore it. The EU market is larger tha the USA market so Google will comply.
And you support that? Then why do you keep implying that the US flexing its muscle on extraterritorial laws (like arresting people who have sex with underage prostitutes in Thailand - quelle dommage) is a bad thing? You should be cheering it… but you aren’t.
[QUOTE=Pjen]
I feel there is probably a middle ground between USA Right to free speech (to a point) and European Right to Privacy(to a point). It will be decided by diplomatic and commercial arm wrestling.
[/QUOTE]
There is. That middle ground is that in Europe, American companies need to comply with European laws, no matter how ridiculous. However, in America (or elsewhere) they don’t, and a ruling by a European court really has no bearing outside of Europe. If you want to become China and kick all of the US or other nations companies out because we won’t comply with your ridiculous rules outside of your country, well, feel free to do so. That’s certainly your right. Good luck with that.
I accept that might is right as a fact of life in international relations. I do not support it. I do see hypocrisy where one state (the USA) regularly forces its will on the world by various means, legal and extra legal, yet bleats when another state forces its will on an American company and maybe affects matters in the USa (access to uncensored Google.)
But the USA does the same and worse. If a British banker funds an organisation that is not approved by the USA, they feel free to seek extradition and try them in US courts (which the one sided US/UK extradition treaty allows). They feels free to pursue the “War on Drugs” and bring pressure to bear on countries that fail to comply.
Bothe sides use the same argument- “if you want to play in our yard it must be by our rules” and “by the way, that also involves your behavior when not in our yard.”
The European Court of Justice is not demanding that anything is removed from the Internet, merely that its indexing is. Europe has been developing a Right to Privacy which the US is reluctant to introduce (though Roe v Wade was largely based on such arguments.) It is illegal in the UK to gather and store information about third parties where that information is sensitive, whether or not it is broadcast unless the person/company registers as a Data handler and complies with rules about the use of and privacy of such information. No-one is stopping the Newspaper sites keeping the information in the public domain, or even repeating such stories anew. What is being regulated is a process where such information is made so readily available that it infringes reasonable expectations of privacy.
I wonder whether Google UK is registered for its Google Search provision.