Google's Response To "The Right to Be Forgotten"

[Rilbur]

This story just deserves both a link, and a couple of quotes.  

 

Reading the story, the following paragraph should stick out.

 

"It was about time, since European data protection laws [have existed] since 1995. It took the European Court of Justice to say so. The right to be forgotten and the right to free information are not foes but friends."

 

Especially that last sentence, bolded for emphasis.

 

I have to agree with one of the commentors:

Sometimes I wish that companies which face these unreasonable and draconian regulations would just pick up and leave the region dictating these policies. "You don't like the service we provide? Ok, we'll just close up shop here and leave you without it. You know how to reach us if you change your mind."

They'd be pleading with Google to come back in a minute!

[Anjobranco]

Yes it is a very fine line between right and wrong. And like whit any thing i see, some people will abuse it for there one personal benefits. But i also see the other side of the coin.

 

Lets imagine that you where convicted of a crime, and you did your time in jail, don't you have the right to start you live hover, or do you thing that you have to be persecute for your mistake for the rest of your live?

 

I think the job of society it is to rehabilitate persons, not to marginalized them, marginalization leads to more crime.

[tigrillon]

 

Sometimes I wish that companies which face these unreasonable and draconian regulations would just pick up and leave the region dictating these policies. "You don't like the service we provide? Ok, we'll just close up shop here and leave you without it. You know how to reach us if you change your mind."

They'd be pleading with Google to come back in a minute!

Or they might realize they don't need Google.

 

And some other people might some time even realize Google is no charity.

[Rilbur]

 

Lets imagine that you where convicted of a crime, and you did your time in jail, don't you have the right to start you live hover, or do you thing that you have to be persecute for your mistake for the rest of your live?

 

 

You're creating a false comparison here.

 

Do I believe someone should be make restitution, then re-start their life?  Yes... mostly.  I wouldn't hire someone convicted of embezzlement as my accountant.  Ever.  I wouldn't want someone convicted of forgery acting as a notary.  Some mistakes you don't get to fix and come back from.

 

But, lets ignore that for now.  Even if you have the right to come back, that doesn't give you the right to destroy another site's accessibility.  By requiring google to de-index that article, that article effectively ceases to exist.  What's more, you're trying to dictate what information I can, and cannot, find out about you.  In fact, I'll go further and say that this 'right to be forgotten' is absurd to begin with!

 

I hate to resort to video-game quotes, but, well, 'Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.'

[tigrillon]

you're trying to dictate what information I can, and cannot, find out about you.

Yep. I want to dictate what information about me is out there. It's called privacy.

 

Don't get me wrong: I actually agree with you to some degree, insofar as what's public, is public. But again, if something was made public gainst my will, that cannot be hold against me, if I want it back. And even if I have bee stupid to makle it public myself ... well, everyone deserves a second chance.

[Anjobranco]

So lets try some different examples:

 

Everybody here yous young some time, and some have gone yo the university, and being young and for the very first time away from the parents, we will do thing we normally would not do, Stupid and embarrassing things, and normally a friend will be near by whit an camera and snap some pictures, those pictures, pictures that we will think are funny and publish on social networks like facebock.

The problem is some years later when trying for you first job and starting a carrier those pictures appears and ruined your change of it, those things can chases you for the rest of your life.

 

Imagine your are in an relationship, you are in love, and people in love to stupid things. You take some pictures whit your boyfriend or girlfriend. Later you have a nasty break up, and in revenge he or she makes an website whit those pictures.

 

So i think in some situations, we should have the right to prevent it.

 

 

Do I believe someone should be make restitution, then re-start their life?  Yes... mostly.  I wouldn't hire someone convicted of embezzlement as my accountant.  Ever.  I wouldn't want someone convicted of forgery acting as a notary.  Some mistakes you don't get to fix and come back from.

 

 

 

You can not forget that every body makes mistakes in there lives, sometimes people are pushed to desperate and impossibles situations, and forced to make some less than legal decisions.

Even if they can not get jobs in the same line of work they use to do, they should be aloud to have jobs in other fields.

 

A person whit a criminal record should have the right to have a job, if not we are just forcing them to remain criminals because it is the only way they know how to survive.

 

[seabird]

There are mistakes and then there are MISTAKES that one makes in the course of living. Swiping a can of Coco-Cola when you are sixteen is far different than Child Molestation when you are thirty-five! One is forgivable and the other is not! It takes a little common sense to tell the difference between the two crimes. and THAT is what is lacking today's society - COMMON SENSE! We seem to demand a set of procedures for every occasion (read:laws) and is simply not possible to write a single law that covers any and all aspects of the human kind. Nor is it possible for us, as individuals, to judge another without knowing all the facts. Some us will take a chance in hiring or otherwise relating to another person without intimate knowledge of that person and his/her past. Others will demand a full scale background check before allow a teenager to rake their lawn. That, unfortunately, is how human beings operate and no government law is going to change that. Those who have broken the law and have paid for their crime are going to have to realize that what they did, however great OR small, will follow them for the rest of their lives. Human nature cannot be legislated, so, those who have fallen from the state of "grace" are going to have to walk the straight and narrow path of honesty and "goodness" for a very long time, maybe for the rest of their lives.

 

 

It does no good to bemoan their fate, that is just how it is. On the other side of the coin, however, here in the United States, and probably elsewhere as well, we do not practice cruel and unusual punishments and many people who have perpetrated notorious crimes have been rehabilitated and gone on to serve honorable lives. Again, it is common sense. A person is judged by his or her actions and, even if you have done something in your past and paid for it, and now your actions are right and honorable, most folks will give you the benefit of the doubt. The ones who will not are probably hiding something far worse than what you did!

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[Rilbur]

 

Everybody here yous young some time, and some have gone yo the university, and being young and for the very first time away from the parents, we will do thing we normally would not do, Stupid and embarrassing things, and normally a friend will be near by whit an camera and snap some pictures, those pictures, pictures that we will think are funny and publish on social networks like facebock.

The problem is some years later when trying for you first job and starting a carrier those pictures appears and ruined your change of it, those things can chases you for the rest of your life.

 

Imagine your are in an relationship, you are in love, and people in love to stupid things. You take some pictures whit your boyfriend or girlfriend. Later you have a nasty break up, and in revenge he or she makes an website whit those pictures.

 

So i think in some situations, we should have the right to prevent it.

 

You can't restore the shroud of privacy once it's already been broken.  You're right, it was a stupid mistake that will haunt you for a long, long time.  But you can't wave some magic wand and come up with some absurd 'right to be forgotten' to try and magic that away.  You're trying to throw a band-aid on a wound that can't be covered by a band-aid.  Even if you can get the actual websites taken down, people are still going to remember and talk about it.  And the very effort to take them down will invoke the Streisand effect.  Frankly, the very idea reminds me of a movie preview I saw recently, about a couple trying to get every copy of an accidentally uploaded sex video off the internet.  It.  Ain't.  Gonna.  Happen.

 

And if we try to legally mandate allowing it to happen...  frankly, it opens the door to censorship of the worst kind.  A far, far greater evil than you're trying to combat.

 

You can not forget that every body makes mistakes in there lives, sometimes people are pushed to desperate and impossibles situations, and forced to make some less than legal decisions.

Even if they can not get jobs in the same line of work they use to do, they should be aloud to have jobs in other fields.

 

A person whit a criminal record should have the right to have a job, if not we are just forcing them to remain criminals because it is the only way they know how to survive.

 

This is spreading out into a second conversation entirely.  If you want to pursue it further, we'll need to open up a new thread.  While I agree that they should be able to find a new job, that has nothing to do with any so-called right to be forgotten.

[Zach Caldwell]

Someone correct me if I am in error as I do not follow the judical system aboard as well as I do here in the U.S.

 

It is my understanding that the court ruled a person has a right to request that information about them be removed from search engines. The ruling did not go so far as to say that criminal records could be removed, did it?

 

It would seem that anything that is a matter of public record (i.e. Arrest Record, Court Records..etc) would still be accessible. If the ruling is board and that it means public records could be removed, then I would certainly agree that is a step to far.

 

Again that is based on what little I know. Any clarity would be welcomed.

[Rilbur]

It is my understanding that the court ruled a person has a right to request that information about them be removed from search engines. The ruling did not go so far as to say that criminal records could be removed, did it?

 

It would seem that anything that is a matter of public record (i.e. Arrest Record, Court Records..etc) would still be accessible. If the ruling is board and that it means public records could be removed, then I would certainly agree that is a step to far.

 

Again that is based on what little I know. Any clarity would be welcomed.

 

In my opinion, the main issue here (that we got side-tracked from when discussing the right to be forgotten) is that by trying to remove it from Google, for all intents and purposes you mean you are making it inaccessible.

 

If someone went into a library, de-shelved all the books, then randomly re-shelved them, he might not 'destroy' any given book, but he sure as hell makes it impossible to find, achieving the same goal.  Google has made indexing the internet it's job, and they do a damned fine job.  Now someone is going around and re-shelving books at random on them.

[Zach Caldwell]

I think I see what you mean. But Google, said, did it not? That they would do as ordered and would not remove anything that was a matter of public record, such as arrest records or court records and so forth. So news articles about said arrest and trial might be removed but the fact of the arrest would and trail info would not. Anyone can go into a court house or police/sheriff's office and request to see public records.

 

Perhaps I am not fully understand the scope of this ruling and Google's position. 

[Rilbur]

Perhaps I am not fully understand the scope of this ruling and Google's position. 

 

The discussion kind of grew out of my disgust with the absurd comment about 'freedom of information' and 'right to be forgotten' being friends.  Their opposed opposites, and a huge chunk of this conversation grew from there.

 

Google's obeying, yes, but I think the ruling was a mistake, and obeying worse so.  (As someone pointed out, they had the option of simply suspending operations in Europe until Europe got it's head out of it's ass!)

[fanchb29]

Arrest records, court and other records are not public in several European countries.

There is only the publication of information in a journal (when identity is cited) that can be brought to the attention of the public (and even then there is a right to be forgotten in France) ...

[Zach Caldwell]

Arrest records, court and other records are not public in several European countries.

There is only the publication of information in a journal (when identity is cited) that can be brought to the attention of the public (and even then there is a right to be forgotten in France) ...

This is a bit of what I was seeking. I had my American perspective and was curious about the perspective from those in countries who would be most affected by the ruling. Thank you.

[fanchb29]

This is a bit of what I was seeking. I had my American perspective and was curious about the perspective from those in countries who would be most affected by the ruling. Thank you.

 

sorry for the mistakes, I'm rather bad English, I use google translation for I am of French origin.

It is important to understand is that the France (for example) does not have the same philosophy concerning the right to information.

For example, you can attend the court hearings in general (unless it relates to minors and "familliales" business). But after the hearing, you can not have free access to the minutes thereof.

The same applies to all personal wage and tax information. They are not public and it is not in popular culture (French) to speak publicly.

For example, very few people speak of their salary and / or their professional advantages, even within the company.

Political office are not elected either (and their salary is not published). Are the only elected municipal councils, regional councilors (who are sort of "states" without police powers, justice, légilatif ...), MPs and Senators (Representatives and U.S. Senators ) and the chairman.

The separation of powers is more pronounced between each "group". The legislature passed a law (MPs and Senators), the executive (ministers and the first minister) "institutions turned", the judiciary does not make account (in principle) either the legislative or the executive.

There is no sheriff, no more than elections of judges and prosecutors.

Executive power is exercised by ministers appointed by the president, but they are accountable to MPs and senators first.

To simplify, what is private in France remains mostly private, except that you do it yourself advertising.

You should know though that the French population (as a whole) generally remains in the same area (city), and therefore the population knows more.

In France for example, it remains quite "shocked" by the rather voyeuristic side of the American media, and enough "Puritan" side that emerges Americans. I mean that we often have the impression that American worship practices condemned in public yet they do in private.

For example, the sexual life of a person can not be used against her in court, even in cases of divorce.

And unfortunately we are "regulars" at extramarital relationships of our political leaders, without this poses real problems in public opinion.

We must also say that religion has a much less important in France and USA. For example, very few French regularly attend religious services. In general a nominee is assigned to several paroises, and even in this case the offices are not met.

[tigrillon]

This is a bit of what I was seeking. I had my American perspective and was curious about the perspective from those in countries who would be most affected by the ruling. Thank you.

Considering you asked politely, you deserve a real answer ;-)

 

Well, what fanchb wrote, is not just France, it is, to some degree or other, Europe, at least continental Europe. What he wrote applies also to Germany, and I think many other European countries. Especially Germany is known for rather strict privacy laws, by rule of the Fedral Constitutional Court, the "right to informational self determination" counts as human right, so everyone has a right to control what personal information is available about him. That is, even public registers must not hold any information without being explicitely empowered by law to have them. Furthermore, as fanchb also wrote, public registers generally are not accessible to the public. While you do have a right to know what they have on yourself, you cannot get what they have on anyone else.

 

This also means Europe has a differet view on the freedom of press than the US, because in the European view this right to privacy effectively limits the freedom of press: Press is only free to report matters of public interest, which private affairs may be in certain circumstances, but generally are not. And that's exactly what the base of this matter is, because in the Amercan view the press less or more is free to report everything, so the European restriction by some are seen as censorship, which they are not, because there is no restriction by any state authority, but simply a right to keep privtate affairs private, which prohbits the press to tear private matters to the public without an actual public interest in those matters.

 

Now I do think such restrictions might actually be in place in the US as well, so the difference would not be the right to privacy as such, but more a differet view on what constitutes public interest, and here the European view is indeed much more restrictive than the American. So, as fanchb wrote, criminal records e.g. are nor publicly acessible. Now before Rilbur gets an heart attack: No, this does not mean an employer could not check out an applicant, because of course anyone can get a certificate about his own record, or the lack therof, which an employer can demand an applicant to present. That way, anyone with a legitimate interest can get the information, and you still have the control on who gets it, so there is absolutely no reason anyone would need to access the record of anyone else. If I were to apply as a teacher, e.g., I'd have to present both a certificate of conduct, by which the police confirms I'm not a convicted child rapist, and a certificate of health, by which the pubilcly health office confirms I don't have open tuberculosis, but the school could not, and had no need to, access my criminal or health records.

 

Another difference, also adressed by fanchb, is the view on the personal life of celebrities, especially politicians. Such a thing as an impeachment because of a sexual affair with an intern were unthinkable in Europe, the sexual conduct of a politician is simply their prvate matter, and not of public interest. It didn't hurt a state prime minister to get elected chancellor that he got his third divorce before the election, stating as reason his wife refused to fry him a schnitzel. A former chancellor havig a many years log affair with his secretary wasn't even a subject, and the current federal president lives with a domestic partner while being married to another woman, and his life partner takes the role as first lady - and no one cares.

 

So, from the European view, the American way, with it's dragging to the public what, by European standard, should be private, is indeed percieved as widely voyeuristic and, yes, inhuman, as in violating the right to privacy. Which means, the American way to the average European is as disturbing and incomprehensible as the European way to the average American.

 

And with that background the court rule is to be seen. Because, what might have been of public interest once, might have ceased to be so, and while the French proclamation of a "right to be forgotten" is French only, similar rules exist elsewhere, in Germany it's also possible to demand removing outdated information, and yes, this includes removal from web archives, to answer a question asked in the thread. So yes, that means a person may have the right to demand certain information being unavalible, and the court rule simply states Google has to respect that and not to make such information available. Information that to distrubute is illegal by European law.  Now is it really censorship to demand Google not making illegal web content accessible?

 

The discussion kind of grew out of my disgust with the absurd comment about 'freedom of information' and 'right to be forgotten' being friends.  Their opposed opposites, and a huge chunk of this conversation grew from there.

 

Google's obeying, yes, but I think the ruling was a mistake, and obeying worse so.  (As someone pointed out, they had the option of simply suspending operations in Europe until Europe got it's head out of it's ass!)

 

So the European way is simply dumb, you Americas know it better anyway, and Europe has is head in his ass for demanding American businesses to obey European law when operating in Europe? Why isn't it the other way round and America gets it's head out of the ass and stops demanding European businesses to obey American law when operating in America? Do you even realize how often you have insulted Europe and the Europeans in this thread? It's that attidue, that derogative view on foreign law and custom, that gives the US such a bad name in many places.

 

To be honest, what your posts in this thread do to me is triggering "Ami go home"-moments. If Google doesn't want to obey European laws .. well, no one forces them to operate here. Just go home. Do you really think Europeans couldn't implement alternative search engines? And with Google retreating, and they not being forced to compete against that overpowering opponent holding a quasi monopoly, there might even be a chance for them to succeed. Google does know very well why they don't want to leave the European market ...

[fanchb29]

The biggest difference IMHO is still in Europe it is "normal" that everyone has a certain "control" information about it.
Tax information, social security, justice, "Privacy", etc ... belong to the person, not the company.
We must remember that Europe also has a "story" off behind her direction. Rather what makes him not allow that any institution (public or private) can collect and / or use of too many personal details.

I think europe has more "recoil" on issues of morality and considers that an unknown person has the right to stay.

And even celebrities have the ability to differentiate their public life of their privacy.
For example, a newspaper may evoke the career of a singer. But he can not discuss information that the singer has not previously made public.

You should know that the media does not have either the same level of influence. For example, 3 of the 6 national television channels "importance" are public. And many TV channels that the press (and internet) does not have the ability to overcome some "restraint". For example we do not film chases, nor arrests, there are not cameras in the courts (with very few exceptions).

In France, it is still quite surprised by example when we see images of court sessions directly from USA. And the French justice working load and discharge. Ie to look for the alleged perpetrator, while ensuring that it is not anyone else who could have done. Justice is also notoriously slower than USA, and "business" can last for years.

I think we have a European tend to be more "laid" and "discrete" in the USA. For example some flaunt their wealth and / or power and greatly prefer to live away from prying eyes.

[Rilbur]

So the European way is simply dumb, you Americas know it better anyway, and Europe has is head in his ass for demanding American businesses to obey European law when operating in Europe? Why isn't it the other way round and America gets it's head out of the ass and stops demanding European businesses to obey American law when operating in America? Do you even realize how often you have insulted Europe and the Europeans in this thread? It's that attidue, that derogative view on foreign law and custom, that gives the US such a bad name in many places.

 

To be honest, what your posts in this thread do to me is triggering "Ami go home"-moments. If Google doesn't want to obey European laws .. well, no one forces them to operate here. Just go home. Do you really think Europeans couldn't implement alternative search engines? And with Google retreating, and they not being forced to compete against that overpowering opponent holding a quasi monopoly, there might even be a chance for them to succeed. Google does know very well why they don't want to leave the European market ...

 

You're going a bit far there, but I think that's a matter of not knowing me well enough to give some context.  To give you a sense of personality (and associated context), lets just point out that I just as harshly criticize various decisions by the American government.  I think Citizens United was a bad idea, even if it happens to be good case-law.  I think the NSA needs to be cleaned up, hard.  I also think (ok, hope) the American election system is going to collapse under it's own weight soon enough, since it unfairly forces politics to coalesce around two opposed parties, leaving people like myself screwed since we tend to straddle the line between them.  (I'm mostly Republican, except when it comes to Civil Rights and a strong social security 'safety net' for the poor).

 

I am an opinionated person.  Strongly so, and rarely retreat from the field of combat without being forced to do so.  (And then, I manage the good grace to prove false the old saying about a man forced against his will -- I can be, and have been, persuaded to change my mind!)

 

Which, in all honesty, you just managed a very good job at.  The entire structure of how Europe manages privacy is different enough to swing me rather strongly on the idea of a right to privacy.  I'm still unsure about the protections that would need to be in place to keep the rights of the one (privacy) from infringing on the rights of the many (freedom of information), but the general concept no longer seems quite as absurd.  The ruling remains just as absurd, but you've shifted my position from one where the underlying right is absurd to one where the implementation details are absurd.

 

Also, as far as your 'go home if you don't like the laws', I think you missed my basic point that Google should have pulled out of Europe over this ruling.  So long as they operate in Europe, of course they're bound by European laws.  Hence the needs to pull out!.  Just as I'd encourage any European corporation that finds American laws impossible to pull up roots and go home.  Mind you, the result would be a private corporation blackmailing an entire continent, which is probably a bad precedent to set.  Google is, in it's own way, a victim of it's own success: nobody can compete with them because nobody is as good as they are at what they do.  And with search engines, you can't try to differentiate on pricing, which tends to encourage a monopolistic environment.

[fanchb29]

Personally, I think the decision on Google is also a bit extreme.

But I understand the objective, which is to enable an "unknown" person to remain a goal.

It is virtually impossible to erase your internet tracks, such as the site is based overseas, so we can achieve certainty the "source".

In such cases, the only remaining possibility is to be able to "avoid" the information is picked up by the search engines.

It must be remembered, however, that the "withdrawal" of the link is far from automatic and certain.

You must justify each withdrawal.
Incidentally, the U.S. has a somewhat similar procedure exists (except that it does not concern the "lambda" citizen) with among other major film company may request the withdrawal of google links, as well as the government.

Each continent also has its own history, and "lives" with the past.

This does not mean that the European system (in general) is better than the American system (and vice versa).
For example, the European political system is not very democratic in my opinion, because every country in Europe does what he wants, which gives uncoordinated national policies and recurring tensions between countries. Similarly, the European foreign policy is very brouillone, which greatly weakened the country.
On the other hand, the old relations with many non-European countries may allow us to discuss more easily with governments.

In my opinion, the biggest difference between europe and america are that Europe is more "restraint" and "thoughtful", while the united states are "voluntary" and "confident."

For a long time every continent also think he could exproter his way of life, regardless of existing cultural differences. While it is also possible to take account of individual differences ...

[Zach Caldwell]

I would like to caution everyone who is part of this conversation and those who are just reading the debate. We are all part of a different culture, in terms of what country we happen to live in and or grew up in.

 

Thus it is very important that we try and be mindful that our cultural values are going to be similar and at times very dissimilar. It is for this reason that I took the tract I did to encourage our overseas neighbors to give us some insight into what this ruling means for them and how their culture deals with issues of privacy.

 

Google is an international company and as such they have to operate based on the laws to which they are operating under. Just because they are an American Company does not mean they are bound by U.S. law alone. It seems to me, at a glance anyway, that Google is trying to develop a process by which they can comply with the European ruling and still or in part maintain their core premises.

 

Some American may believe that Google is selling out by obeying the ruling. I find that a bit a stretch for the simple fact that Google is an International business.

 

Now that I have a better understanding of the European cultural context with regards to privacy and information, the ruling makes a bit more sense to me. With that context and understanding, I no longer see this issue as a major event. The European ruling, of course affects Google as an international business, but it has no bearing on the United States and its laws on privacy or right to information.

 

It seems to me that the United States and Europe are each extreme examples on the issues. I wonder if the U.S. needs to move a little towards the European system and Europe needs to move a little bit to the U.S. system, to be more in the middle. That I think would be a far more interesting discussion to have.

 

I want to thank everyone for being a part of this conversation and thank you also to those who have shared your cultural views with us so that we can have a better understanding of our friends abroad.

 

Please also, do not allow anyone on this board to ever make you feel like you want to run away or not be part of the discussion. I do not believe that is something that has actually happened here. But I can see how a lack of social and cultural understanding of others can lead to instances of tension and misunderstanding. This makes conversations even more important. Again, thank you to everyone for being a part of this conversation and I hope we all have taken something from the other side.

[fanchb29]

Europe is more reluctant (in general) in the diffussion personal information and the use that can be made.

The story (it always) taught us a number of information could be used against you drastically.

For example, during the Second World War, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national power up, or even just a neighbor could offend (if not leading) to prison, then interned in concentration camps, and thus ultimately to death.

[Anjobranco]

One of the thinks that we have to take in consideration when comparing Europe and America in therms of cultural, is history. America was created in 1776 it is 238 years old, by example Portugal was created in 1139 that was 875 years ago, England and France are even older than that. I do not want to start a piss of context, to see who is the oldest and the wise, it is just to remember that we had a lot more years to of cultural experience, Another thing is something i hope you Americans never will have and Europe had, dictators, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal. I can say in the case of Portugal it was from 1926 to 1974 it was 48 years of fear and persecutions.

 

What i am trying to say it is, that Americans are to self center in there one history, try to learn also from the outer countries mistakes, some countries can say to what you are passing is "been there done that and have the t-shirt to prove it"

 

For the story nuts some links about Portugal and it story, read if you want.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Portugal

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

[Rilbur]

Another thing is something i hope you Americans never will have and Europe had, dictators, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal. I can say in the case of Portugal it was from 1926 to 1974 it was 48 years of fear and persecutions.

 

No offense, but trying to imply that American's don't have a... history... with dictators and imperial powers rather overlooks all sorts of events.  World War II comes to mind.

 

Also, the freedom of information is the best tool to combat would be dictators.

[Anjobranco]

No, i am not implying that America do not have history whit dictators, what i am saying is that you never have a dictator governing your country.

 

And we know what freedom of speech is, during 50 years we had an dictator governing us, he had an secret police that could listening to all our phone call, they could read our mail before we received it.

They had an so called office of censorship, all our journals and TV's news had to be censorship and approved by them, all of our TV and cinema movies and theater plays had to be approved by them.

 

They had snitches all over the country, if you said something that they did not like, you could be arrested, torture and simply made to disappear, no trial no accusation, nothing. If three people stop on the street to talk they could arrest them for illegal reunion.

 

Yes we had elections during those times, vote was by invitation only.

 

You Americans talk about freedom f speech and freedom of information, but you really do not know how lucky you are.

 

So what i was saying is i HOPE you will never be governed by an dictator

 

[fanchb29]

The second war is the latest example for Europe.

But unfortunately it is far from the only example.

This gives as that final result is less European looking for information available. And against generally consider that the right to information is not an absolute right to know everything about everything.
Do we do the greater the difference between the public interest information, and information more limited interest.

It is also interesting to know that France, for example, is more cautious about the "morality" of a policy.
For example, since De Gaulle, we did not have one president at a time of his career has not been indicted by the court. We can not count the number of court cases concerning our elected at any level that has long ...

An indictment by the court is not in our political conviction.

It is not in my opinion a matter of "young" and "old" continent (see population), but rather a question of "how to live"
U.S. considers a while "Black and White".
While a European rather considers that everything is "gray".

Many also exchange information about a coffee, strolling around, and even when we do our shopping ...