Why do you want Google of all companies to stand above the sovereign state, which is a representative democracy?
The ruling is incredibly dumb for sure (at least the removing apps from devices part), but if the sovereign state demands it, they'll either have to exit the market/nation entirely or comply.
Of course it doesn't guarantee that, nor did I ever imply such.
It's still the sovereign state however, businesses that want to be active on their territory have to comply with local legislation, wherever that legislation is an extreme overreach or not.
This is not a case of one arm of the government doing whatever it wants like with PRISM.
This is a public ruling. they're criminal if they don't comply, by definition.
Civil disobedience is something an individual can can do. That's something very different to this situation.
The company isn't a person, the CEO could do civil disobedience and order that the company doesn't comply. But that'd be the same as exiting the market, as the government will be forced to take action anyway. And then they'd likely go to jail, achieving nothing.
You can't really do civil disobedience while everyone is looking at you, the way to do that is in secret.
I struggle to imagine how you would arrive at such a cruel & disturbing allegation, that corporations organizations & institutions must be morally blind.
Overt disobedience versus subversive disobedience can have a risk. Yeah, don't do things that will eliminate your entity from the world. But often you should be willing to take some kind of an L (loss). The best time to fight injustice is as early as possible; push back if you can.
It has to be case by case assessment of whether the law is just & right. We have a moral obligation to not follow - to practice civil disobedience - against unjust laws.
Banning vpns is a bridge to far for me. The state is placing itself too far above the people, demanding control which it is not entitled to, dictating how we might think & connect.
Letting a state grow ever more vicious in its enforcement, letting it cut itself off from the world & punish its citizens by denying them access to the internet & technologies that the rest of the world enjoys is their own real power, is the economic-military control they have, if they want to go to war with businesses. That's all they have for power. And it makes them look dumb, shows them to be bullies, and hurts their people.
We need some states to get uppity, so it becomes more clear that the Internet doesn't care & that states can do what they want, ban what they want, and the rest of the world will keep moving along. That's exactly what's happening here, and the state is, in my view, making an absurd fool of itself by going so absurdly far in desperation to try to apply the law. Fucking with the app stores just to drive home a grudge match with one service is fucking ludicrous & we should laugh out ass off at these fools.
They're essentially saying that they don't want the US 1st amendment imported into their state. So they should block it like they have and that be that.
big stretch, this is only twitter, and with plenty of reasoning, history, and back and forward, where twitter has time after time ignored brazillian's court requests.
It's a bit silly & over the top, but I do think there's a huge danger to this planet with lots and lots and lots of jurisdictions all over the planet who have all kinds of incentives to self deal, to try to bend the internet & computing to their whims.
And the Internet & computing can't have such extreme veto power over how we think & connect. Europe for example has granted itself a right to be forgotten, where even if you do awful awful things you can ask to have yourself removed from the Internet. And so far that's been respected... In European search results. But as much as they insist, we don't censor the rest of the world of those results, just because one group of people says so.
Whether vpns are available isn't exactly the same. But its still horseshit. It's still casting a gigantic net because you are a petulant shitty power-mad rule-maker. It doesn't seem representative of the nation either; it seems like some hyper-political over-reacrion horseshit.
There's just so many people who will be trying to control how we think, how we connect, control what the internet is. And I feel like there's a long running crisis of what we do and what we don't do to match nations. We maybe aren't at full Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace. But we've had a number of services get to the brink fo bas again and again, only for someone to blink. And it seemed inevitable that this system of never testingimots was going to break, and when it did, rather than break reasonably & part ways, Brazil has just gone scorched earth, has drastically drastically upped the brinkmanship & blast zone, in extremely harmful ways. This is just my judgement call, but fuck yeah I think this shit deserves a colossal colossal colossal middle finger, and if Brazil wants to escalate, well, have fun doing something other than the internet that everyone else uses. You'll have to build that path yourself, and I don't think we should support & enable that schism.
The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that the operator of a search engine is not required to carry out a de-referencing on all versions of its search engine. So, it's a bit bold of you to say that Europe is trying to control the entire internet when they explicitly told Google they're allowed to limit the impact to Europe alone.
Also, the "right to be forgotten" suggests more rights of the data subject than the text of the article provides for. The title is often understood by data subjects to be an absolute right to have personal data deleted - however if the controller has a legal basis for the processing of personal data, the exercise of Article 17 GDPR has usually no effect.
Not gonna happen. But it should, if this is the order!