In accordance to a ruling by the European Court of Justice in May 2014, people received the power of requesting search engine computer screens like Microsoft and Google to remove improper and irrelevant advice associated with web search results. This opinion gave rise to the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ — a right that’s been debated on affecting its status as among the basic human rights or as a particular provision.

Yet, in counterargument, Google said that removal of previous data from the entirety of the Internet means limiting free flow of information across the virtual net. This may (read: will) have huge consequences in regard to advice sourcing, that regularly plays vital role in precedence across multiple instances. Because of this, Google removed data of special requests from its local sites, and not the international platform. For example, if it were appropriate in India, an Indian’s request to apply his or her right to be forgotten would result in the removal of the related URL just from Google.co.in, and not Google.com. This has been done to maintain the sanctity of natural strategy, i.e., a suitable expression of reality wherein an activity done in the past cannot be reversed under any condition.

This particular period has been, nevertheless, differed on by the CNIL. “Using delisting to all the extensions will not curtail freedom of expression insofar as it will not entail any deletion of content on the World Wide Web,” the body said. For example, when getting the information from within France, the link requested to be removed across all of Google’s websites will not be seen by a French national. While keeping the international access of information complete, such actions was taken to be able to solve security problems of a country. “As a matter of principle, we differ with the CNIL’s declaration that it’s the power to command the content that folks can get outside France, and we intend to appeal their opinion,” a Google spokesman told Reuters.

The fine has been levied following the French data guardians determined that right to privacy of personal advice cannot be sufficiently confined when it comes to geographical places, and “only delisting on all the search engine’s extensions, whatever the extension used or the geographic source of the individual performing the search, can essentially carry on this right.”