news


Google fights back against EU plans to impose its regulations on rest of world

Judge pronouncing sentence to man

Today the European Court of Justice will make a decision which will impact the global digital economy. Does the European Union have the right to impose its own data protection and privacy standards on everyone else?

The one-day hearing has been brought about because of French data protection watchdog, CNIL, pressing for Google to extend the ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling to all of its domains. When such a request is made and accepted, Google will remove content from search results in the relevant domain (e.g. .fr in France for example), but also when users from that country are searching through other domains (e.g. .com or .co.uk). CNIL argues the content should be removed from all domains, irrelevant where the user is based.

“This case could see the right to be forgotten threatening global free speech,” said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of free speech advocacy group Article 19. “European data regulators should not be allowed to decide what Internet users around the world find when they use a search engine. The CJEU (European Court of Justice) must limit the scope of the right to be forgotten in order to protect the right of Internet users around the world to access information online.”

While it might not seem like the most damning of cases, the ripples from this ruling could quickly become turbulent waves. Google and numerous other free speech advocacy groups argue this is simply France, and the European Union, pursuing their own form of censorship, imposing their own standards on other nations around the world. Should the judges rule in favour of CNIL precedent would be set and precedent can be very dangerous.

If the European Union can force other countries into complying with its regulations, why shouldn’t others?

“If European regulators can tell Google to remove all references to a website, then it will be only a matter of time before countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia start to do the same,” said Hughes. “The CJEU should protect freedom of expression not set a global precedent for censorship.”

The question these judges have to answer is a relatively simple one on the surface; should governments and regulators have influence over those who live in their jurisdiction or should they be afforded power over everyone else as well? For us, the answer is incredibly simple as well; no it shouldn’t.

The whole concept of the CNIL argument is contradictory and patronising; it’s a form of digital colonialism, with France assuming it is the moral, ethical and political authority on such matters. If China or Russia were pressing for their rules to be imposed on the international stage, there would be uproar. Of course, the rules in these countries are backwards, though the principle remains the same. France should not be allowed to dictate to other countries around the world.

This is another example of globalisation trends working against the consumer. Companies like Google make use of the grey areas and cracks between the legislative and regulatory regimes of different countries. They take advantage of lighter-touch regulation in some countries, remaining out of reach of those who are more involved. The absence of an international code or ruling authority simply offers the internet players a blank rule book and encourages lawyers to look for loop-holes to ignore regulations in more privacy-sensitive countries. That said, the will of one nation, or a dozen or 28, should not be imposed on the rest of the world.

For Telecoms.com, the decision is a simple one; France should be told to govern its own country and not get involved in jurisdictions which does not concern it. The precedent set would be far too dangerous.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Polls

Should privacy be treated as a right to protect stringently, or a commodity for users to trade for benefits?

Loading ... Loading ...