News EU: Right to Be Forgotten Doesn't Apply to US

Gillerer

Distinguished
Sep 23, 2013
312
33
18,890
30
Don't be silly.

Despite the outcome seeming common sense, the EU Court of Justice still had consider the case, because the French Data Protection Authority sought a ruling against Google to require them to extend the practice globally.

This is the way laws and checks and balances work in democracies.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
Don't be silly.

Despite the outcome seeming common sense, the EU Court of Justice still had consider the case, because the French Data Protection Authority sought a ruling against Google to require them to extend the practice globally.

This is the way laws and checks and balances work in democracies.
Not being silly. No countries laws trump another countries laws.

Checks and balances only apply to each country within themselves not outside of that. It would only apply if we were one big world with a set of laws to check and balance.

If anything I find it silly that France thought it could extend its power beyond their own borders.
 

setx

Honorable
Dec 10, 2014
75
40
10,560
0
The EU might have good intentions regarding the removal of certain URLs from search results. Would more oppressive governments like China, Russia and the like use the precedent set by the right to be forgotten to step up their own censorship efforts?
So, the same censorship is ok for some countries but not for others? The one who claims "good intentions" first wins?
 

Gillerer

Distinguished
Sep 23, 2013
312
33
18,890
30
Not being silly. No countries laws trump another countries laws.

Checks and balances only apply to each country within themselves not outside of that. It would only apply if we were one big world with a set of laws to check and balance.

If anything I find it silly that France thought it could extend its power beyond their own borders.
Checks and balances in this instance means that courts will limit the breadth the government can stretch the application of the law.

Every company has to work within the legislation of every country they operate in.

So, the same censorship is ok for some countries but not for others? The one who claims "good intentions" first wins?
No, "good intentions" can be judged objectively by anyone; like protecting private individuals who have done nothing wrong, versus "bad intentions": protecting corrupt politicians or silencing dissidents. The gray area between is then subjective.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY