they want search engines to scrub results globally because of the ease of switching from a European domain to Google.com

It is just as easy to switch to DuckDuckGo, Yandex, Baidu etc (all exempt from their law).

Sounds like a "Great Firewall of Europe" is what they really want.

...

Sounds like a "Great Firewall of Europe" is what they really want.

Sounds like google doesn't care about it's users?

if you go for a job and your name is "bobbity bobbob", someone there google's it and up pops a picture of you drunk doing something silly from 20 years ago. is this relevant to the job? i don't think it is.

Bing already has the opt out form to block search results for your name

[bing.com...]

duckduckgo uses bings search results so it will affect them too.

What way to get normal Google Search results?

I often search my own site with Google and get
in maybe 50% the message, that some results are not shown in the EU.

Bing already has the opt out form to block search results for your name

Google has had an almost identical form for at least six months (and more than 200,000 people have used it).

And the title of the form you referred to is:

Request to Block Bing Search Results In Europe

I have emphasised the relevant words to assist your understanding.

Anyone interested in this topic should note that it is not just EU member states that are affected - Norway, Iceland and Lichstenstein, though not EU members, are also subject to it under other agreements.

...

You're right in highlighting the ludicrous nature of the law, and the almost impossible aspect of being able to remove the story. It's going to be somewhere on the Net, whether Google removes it or not. For example, the waybackmachine can often be your friend or enemy, depending upon which side of the fence you sit.

duckduckgo uses bings search results so it will affect them too.

From Wikipedia (YMMV):

DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "about 50" sources, including Yahoo! Search BOSS; Wikipedia; Wolfram Alpha; Bing; its own Web crawler, the DuckDuckBot; and others.

The EU law only applies to commercial search engines with offices in Europe.

...

from wikipedia

DuckDuckGo (DDG) is an Internet search engine that emphasizes protecting searchers' privacy

you mean duckduckgo won't respect your right to be forgotten but yet claims to respect your privacy? that's terrible! i'll be contacting them about this.

It's going to be somewhere on the Net, whether Google removes it or not.

Yes, and that makes the law even more ludicrous. The original story or source material isn't censored; only the search engines are.

Yes but search engines can just remove any results they like, their not public services they can remove any site and any link at any moment.

search engines can just remove any results they like

The webmasters who publish the source material can remove it too.

But they don't have to because it is perfectly legal, even in Europe.

And other webmasters are free to link to it from their sites.

The ruling only applies to commercial search engines that do business in Europe, and makes legal, accurate, factual information that is already published - quite legitimately - harder to find.

Welcome to the Ministry of Truth.

...

so the information is still there to look at? if the search engines had the result on page 10000 would it still be a problem?

you mean duckduckgo won't respect your right to be forgotten but yet claims to respect your privacy? that's terrible! i'll be contacting them about this.

You have totally misinterpreted what they mean by that statement!
They referring to your browsing history privacy, NOT the "privacy" to have content about you that you do not like removed!

if the search engines had the result on page 10000 would it still be a problem?

Of course.

If you are interested in this subject there are some useful links in the opening post.

...

it seems america isn't as free as you would like to believable it is:

A US journalist has been sentenced to 5 years for posting A LINK to government data stolen by anonymous.

A LINK!

"Barrett Brown originally faced charges punishable by more than 100 years in prison, but the sentence was reduced after he pleaded guilty last year."

He said: "The government exposed me to decades of prison time for copying and pasting a link to a publicly available file that other journalists were also linking to without being prosecuted."

[bbc.com...]

I'd rather be in Europe with it's 'crazy privacy' laws thanks

I do not see what that case has to do with privacy laws?

I do not see what that case has to do with privacy laws?

people here are claiming europe is creating a "Great Firewall of Europe"

A journalist is given 5 years for posting a link by the US government.

this thread is about censorship too

What is the penalty in European countries for doing the same thing?

What is the penalty in European countries for doing the same thing?

for posting A LINK? it will be pretty much zero unless your the piratebay and hosting a site that facilitates illegal activity.

The person hosting the content will be liable for any penalty.

How can you be prosecuted for posting a LINK? that's ridiculous how can you control what someone else is hosting?

the guy was a journalist!

I ask you again: What is the penalty in European countries for doing the same thing?

That guy broke the law. Do you even know if there is a similar law in European countries or not?

I've answered your question?

No you haven't. You are not being very logical here.

I ask you again: What is the penalty in European countries for doing the same thing?

If you have no idea what the penalty/law is in Europe, then why not just say so.

for a journalist posting a link that has been posted many many times before by other journalists there would be no penalty in Europe.

I hope this answers your question?

for a journalist posting a link that has been posted many many times before by other journalists there would be no penalty in Europe

But that is not what he was charged with, was it?.

From the article you linked to:

In April he pleaded guilty to three charges, including obstruction of a police search, making internet threats and a charge related to his involvement in the sharing of the Stratfor data.

Obstructing police, threatening behaviour and theft are all crimes in Europe (and probably everywhere else).

And none of this is relevant to the topic of this thread.

...

he wasn't charged with theft. please check the facts of the case.

the obstruction of a police search, making internet threats were the result of the FBI investigation into the original link posting.

Defense attorneys and supporters argued that the charges, which would have amounted to a 100 year sentence, potentially criminalized a basic function of the Internet: hyperlinking. Although the charges were later dropped as part of the plea agreement, they remained a factor in the case and the sentencing.

as you can see america isn't as free as you might like to think, you said it sounds like Europe wants a "Great Firewall of Europe", (for protecting peoples privacy). yet an american individual is now serving 5 years in jail and has been ordered to pay $890,250 in restitution for posting A SINGLE LINK.

I think it's relevant to a discussion on the internet where we are talking about peoples rights, hyperlinking and comparing Europe to China (aka "Great Firewall of Europe").

as you can see america isn't as free as you might like to think, you said it sounds like Europe wants a "Great Firewall of Europe", (for protecting peoples privacy). yet an american individual is now serving 5 years in jail and has been ordered to pay $890,250 in restitution for posting A SINGLE LINK.

I don't know if that's true or not (I haven't studied the case), but even if it is, so what? It doesn't mean a "right to be forgotten" law that censors search results but not the original sources isn't ludicrous.

he wasn't charged with theft

Reports say accessory-after-the-fact regarding stolen data.

please check the facts of the case

According to your citation, he pleaded guilty to three criminal charges.

If you feel so strongly about the case, start another thread.

It has zero relevance to this one

...

@nonstop
if you read the article you posted, it says this:

In April he pleaded guilty to three charges, including obstruction of a police search, making internet threats and a charge related to his involvement in the sharing of the Stratfor data.

Are these not the facts?
You really not being logical and barking up the wrong tree.
....and you still not come close to answering my question I asked several times above.

I've answered your question.

I'm not going to talk about your question anymore if you can't see that I've already answered it, if you just keep saying "you haven't answered it, you haven't answered it". It's rather pointless to keep saying that without expanding on the question / answer and offer some kind of feedback.

Reports say accessory-after-the-fact regarding stolen data.

Source?

In April he pleaded guilty to three charges, including obstruction of a police search, making internet threats and a charge related to his involvement in the sharing of the Stratfor data.

this does not mention theft

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation

he pleaded guilty to three crimes: being an accessory after the fact to the unauthorized access to Stratfor’s computers; interfering with the execution of a search warrant by hiding a laptop; and, most seriously, threatening an FBI agent.

The "unauthorized access" involved theft of data, and he pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact.

Most of his sentence was for interfering with a search warrant and threatening an officer, both of which he also pleaded guilty to - your assertion that he was "given 5 years for posting a link" appears to be entirely unfounded.

And I have seen no suggestion that he has ever attempted to exercise a "Right to be Forgotten" under EU law.

...