Well, not sure what the EU really said (Wired might be biased towards "big-tech" more than to strange European (or more likely: select-minority-being-successful-in-interparty-fights) ideas of the rule of law) but as it stands this is really concerning as it either shows
a) a neo-colonial relapse: Europe knows what's right for the world.
b) another step at the official adoption of authoritarianism on this world. How about the Chinese government taking down any material on the existence of Tinamen-Square-massacre (yeah, I know, it was just a peaceful sit-in and the people just progressed to a higher plane of existence so there's noone left to tell the story) or the existence of the NRC worldwide? It's great for business certainly!
The decision simply states that EU law does not prevent a national court from specifying than an injunction to remove content from a platform should apply worldwide, as long as it is otherwise legal to do so (it also complies with international law, etc.). [1]
"the Directive on
electronic commerce, ..., does not preclude a court of a Member State from ordering a host provider ... to remove information covered by the injunction or to block access to that information worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law, and it is up to Member
States to take that law into account."
Well, what kind of law is internationally valid (at the level, where American presidents casually give orders for murder)? Do "hosters" now have to employ lawyers having knowledge of all 193 "official" states on earth or otherwise they risk getting sued again?!
By "pull out" do you mean Facebook would have to stop doing business with advertisers in France? As long as the servers are in another country, the French government would have to create a Great Firewall to stop its citizens from accessing that content.
"As long as the servers are in another country, the French government would have to create a Great Firewall to stop its citizens from accessing that content." Not really.
How to avoid Great Firewall, while blocking FB:
France could expect Facebook to deny requests for content originating in France, regardless of where FB servers are. No need for a Great Firewall; make FB implement the firewall.
Legal justification (if not ethical):
The server locations are irrelevant because the data has cross the border into France.
Enforcement (how to force FB to block itself):
Easy: make the executives criminally liable. Also, anyone working on FB infrastructure could be held criminally liable.
France is a big and important country, they have heft to get their way from companies like FB.
Geoblocking is common and if they are doing business in a country it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to do it as well as for the state taking measures to enforce non-compliance (though criminal liability of corporate executives is something we won't see anytime soon I guess).
What's not reasonable is to force them to block people in other countries (and also those taking significant efforts to conceal their identity) - at least there is no international law (compared to international deals) justifying that anyhow.
But then this is exactly down the road to authoritarianism.
I understand and support that companies have to comply to the laws of the country where they are operating/targeting an audience. If worldwide dispersion of content banned in your country is such a concern, you can either push it to the UN OR you make according deals with the states harboring the companies.
Otherwise you can go down the great firewall route and there's little difference between that and forcing hoster to effectively implement the firewall worldwide.
Real-life example: weed is legal in the Netherlands. So all neighbors could now force the Dutch to close all coffeeshops OR block all their citizens from entering the Netherlands. I don't see any difference to this case.
It's about courts in the EU imposing things on EU hosts. Facebook has legal subsidiaries in the EU.
Companies that are present in several countries do have to employ lawyers to comply with each country's law.
It's like when the SEC fines an EU bank. It's not that the SEC has jurisdiction in the EU, it's that the EU bank has a subsidiary in the US and does business there.
I repeatedly asserted I have no problem with hosts having having to comply to national/EU/trade-deal law.
But in my opinion compliance is reached if they just do geoblocking in the areas affected by the law/delete content if it's originating there? If someone uses a VPN he's basically traveling to another jurisdiction for all practical purposes?
The court believes that EU doesn't have the right to tell it's members that they _can't_ do that. It does _not_ say that it makes any sense for a EU state to do this.
As I understand the issue. I might have misunderstood.
> that they have the right to tell someone in America
No, they believe that they have no right to tell Member States to not even ask as long as it's "within the framework of the relevant international law, and it is up to Member States to take that law into account."
Titles for this particular topic were chosen to cause indignation and get clicks. Trying to get the right idea from just the title these days is begging for misunderstandings.
On the other hand don't forget the DMCA. It's US's way of doing exactly what you are outraged about to other countries, as long as the company targeted also operates in the US. Or government mandated backdoors that also apply elsewhere.
Yeah, I don't know about this. If a certain item may be "unlawful" in the EU, but not India. What then? Why should I not be able to see such content just because some government halfway around the world has a problem with it?
Furthermore, take this hypothetical case: A government makes it illegal for folks to share any information about ongoing crises/protests in the country on social media. Does this mean that people outside said country also won't be able to talk about it on social media? That would be disastrous for discourse on the internet as it exists today.
Weirdly worded. Am I missing something? I understand this to mean that the court (not the EU!) said that EU law doesn't forbid the take down orders that are issued by EU members, it does not say that EU law (or national law of member states) is applicable world wide.
It didn't rule on whether a global take down notice is lawful, just that the take down notice itself isn't unlawful in general.
They cant stop the internet, and neither can China. Technology will move too fast for these governments to get an iron grip, the cat is out if the bag.
Not sure how the DMCA prevents people in boats from hijacking ships, but your view isn't of any relevance, what's of relevance in France is France's view.
The DMCA allows people in non-US countries, working for companies in non-US countries, who have broken no law in those countries, to fall under arrest if they accidentally get into U.S. jurisdiction.
So when complaining that people in the U.S. who don't break U.S. law, may be prevented from doing business in France if they've broken French law, think back to what you sewed 20 years ago when the FBI decided that U.S. courts had global jurisdiction and arrested foreign citizens for not obeying.
This is an intentionally misleading headline which seeks to play into the US tech community’s carefully nurtured scepticism about regulation originating from the EU.
What has actually happened: the CJEU has decided that EU law does not place a restriction on member states’ legal systems with regard to whether or not they can issue injunctions or request content be blocked worldwide. It is a case of the CJEU deciding that EU law does not affect existing processes.
35 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 89.0 ms ] threada) a neo-colonial relapse: Europe knows what's right for the world.
b) another step at the official adoption of authoritarianism on this world. How about the Chinese government taking down any material on the existence of Tinamen-Square-massacre (yeah, I know, it was just a peaceful sit-in and the people just progressed to a higher plane of existence so there's noone left to tell the story) or the existence of the NRC worldwide? It's great for business certainly!
The decision simply states that EU law does not prevent a national court from specifying than an injunction to remove content from a platform should apply worldwide, as long as it is otherwise legal to do so (it also complies with international law, etc.). [1]
"the Directive on electronic commerce, ..., does not preclude a court of a Member State from ordering a host provider ... to remove information covered by the injunction or to block access to that information worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law, and it is up to Member States to take that law into account."
[1] https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201...
If Facebook were to pull out from France, there is almost nothing that France could do to force Facebook to comply.
This is why Google left the Chinese market. They did not want (or, more specifically, their employees refused) to comply with certain Chinese laws.
How to avoid Great Firewall, while blocking FB:
France could expect Facebook to deny requests for content originating in France, regardless of where FB servers are. No need for a Great Firewall; make FB implement the firewall.
Legal justification (if not ethical):
The server locations are irrelevant because the data has cross the border into France.
Enforcement (how to force FB to block itself):
Easy: make the executives criminally liable. Also, anyone working on FB infrastructure could be held criminally liable.
France is a big and important country, they have heft to get their way from companies like FB.
What's not reasonable is to force them to block people in other countries (and also those taking significant efforts to conceal their identity) - at least there is no international law (compared to international deals) justifying that anyhow.
I understand and support that companies have to comply to the laws of the country where they are operating/targeting an audience. If worldwide dispersion of content banned in your country is such a concern, you can either push it to the UN OR you make according deals with the states harboring the companies.
Otherwise you can go down the great firewall route and there's little difference between that and forcing hoster to effectively implement the firewall worldwide.
Real-life example: weed is legal in the Netherlands. So all neighbors could now force the Dutch to close all coffeeshops OR block all their citizens from entering the Netherlands. I don't see any difference to this case.
It's about courts in the EU imposing things on EU hosts. Facebook has legal subsidiaries in the EU.
Companies that are present in several countries do have to employ lawyers to comply with each country's law.
It's like when the SEC fines an EU bank. It's not that the SEC has jurisdiction in the EU, it's that the EU bank has a subsidiary in the US and does business there.
But in my opinion compliance is reached if they just do geoblocking in the areas affected by the law/delete content if it's originating there? If someone uses a VPN he's basically traveling to another jurisdiction for all practical purposes?
What about radio waves?
Do they claim that any communication that leaves one country and goes into theirs is now under their control?
This is a really, really bad precedent to be setting.
As I understand the issue. I might have misunderstood.
No, they believe that they have no right to tell Member States to not even ask as long as it's "within the framework of the relevant international law, and it is up to Member States to take that law into account."
Titles for this particular topic were chosen to cause indignation and get clicks. Trying to get the right idea from just the title these days is begging for misunderstandings.
On the other hand don't forget the DMCA. It's US's way of doing exactly what you are outraged about to other countries, as long as the company targeted also operates in the US. Or government mandated backdoors that also apply elsewhere.
b) not a thing
Furthermore, take this hypothetical case: A government makes it illegal for folks to share any information about ongoing crises/protests in the country on social media. Does this mean that people outside said country also won't be able to talk about it on social media? That would be disastrous for discourse on the internet as it exists today.
It didn't rule on whether a global take down notice is lawful, just that the take down notice itself isn't unlawful in general.
The DMCA allows people in non-US countries, working for companies in non-US countries, who have broken no law in those countries, to fall under arrest if they accidentally get into U.S. jurisdiction.
So when complaining that people in the U.S. who don't break U.S. law, may be prevented from doing business in France if they've broken French law, think back to what you sewed 20 years ago when the FBI decided that U.S. courts had global jurisdiction and arrested foreign citizens for not obeying.
The age of American exceptionalism is over.
What has actually happened: the CJEU has decided that EU law does not place a restriction on member states’ legal systems with regard to whether or not they can issue injunctions or request content be blocked worldwide. It is a case of the CJEU deciding that EU law does not affect existing processes.