British Judge Rules Google Can Be Sued In UK Over Privacy Case
from the setting-precedents dept
The battle over online privacy, and how personal data should be treated as it moves over the Internet, is being fought between the US and EU points of view in multiple ways. There is the EU's Data Protection Regulation, currently grinding its way through the legislative process; there are the discussions about the NSA's spying program, and how it impacts Europeans; and finally, there are various court cases involving US companies and the personal data of EU citizens. One of these is in the UK, where The Telegraph reports that an important decision has been handed down:The High Court ruled on Thursday that Google can be sued by a group of Britons over an alleged breach of privacy, despite the company being based in the US and claiming that the case was not serious enough to fall under British jurisdiction.Google has said it will appeal, so it's too early to tell what the impact of the UK court's decision will be. But if it is allowed to stand, it will create a hugely important precedent for future legal actions against US companies providing services involving the handling of personal data in the EU.
Google faced a group action by users of Apple's Safari browser who were angered by the way their online habits were apparently tracked against their wishes in order to provide targeted advertising. But because Google is based in the US they needed to seek the court's permission to bring the case in the UK, something which the search company claimed was inappropriate.
That claim has now been thrown out, as Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's High Court, ruled that the UK courts were the "appropriate jurisdiction" to try the claims.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eu data protection, jurisdictions, privacy, uk
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's hope ends the fiction of multi-national corporations not being subject and liable in any given country.
But it's been successful dodging taxes (and this is just one scam of many: it has over $50 billion offshore untaxed):
Google and the £6billion Bermuda tax shelter: Web giant's haven revealed as Cameron urges global crackdown
Google funnelled an astonishing £6billion through the tax haven of Bermuda in a year – while paying just 0.1 per cent of that amount in British corporation tax.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255850/Google-6billion-Bermuda-tax-shelter-Web-giants-h aven-revealed-Cameron-urges-global-crackdown.html
Advocating that The Rich be free from taxes is in effect to advocate that everyone else be enslaved.
12:08:49[n-65-4]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
oh, so that makes it ok then ! OK...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's hope ends the fiction of multi-national corporations not being subject and liable in any given country.
So…how do we apply that logic to copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's hope ends the fiction of multi-national corporations not being subject and liable in any given country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you one of those conspiracy theory chappies who honestly believes in a British conspiracy to take back America? Dear me! ROFL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you have to think back a ways to find out where this started and who it was, but i'll bet you a dime to a dollar it was the USA. it wanted to make it's own companies exempt from local laws, taxes and prosecution, but when the shoe was on the other foot, it wanted to force everyone to abide by USA laws
you cant have it just one way and like so many selfish, greedy moves by USA companies and courts, it's now come back to haunt us! tough shit then! if you dont want to get burnt, keep out of the cookhouse!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the problem is some people wrongly think the internet is borderless. It is not.
It is in the border of whatever country it is in, If Google is operating within Brittan it is within those borders, if operating in America it is within those borders.
If you are within any borders, you are required to abide by the laws of that country.
Anyone does have access to the internet, but you do not cross some border when you do it, you remain right where you are.
Its simply not a borderless internet, it is a border FULL internet. Thinking otherwise is really a stupid argument.
Its not borderless, nor is it lawless.
not to mention this case is about Google spying on people against their will (and fighting for the right to continue).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem comes from trying to take a different view of on-line businesses vs. brick-and-mortar ones. A b&b business can't control where it's customers live, but we treat it as doing business where the business is located regardless of where the customers come from. On-line we abandon that and try to treat the business as being located wherever it's customers are, not where the business is. Why? Why not treat a b&m business as doing business wherever it's customers live instead? Because, obviously, that would cause exactly the kinds of headaches on-line businesses are subject to, and we consider those headaches unreasonable. So why do we suddenly accept them as reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Illegal copies of IP work would be based in Tuvalu and Western Sahara.
Illegal drug sales would happen in Sao Tome and Principe and Papua New Guinea.
You see where I am going?
Forum shopping for countries with particularly lax laws against your crime of choice would be easy. It has some resemblance to tax evasion where people move money around the world to avoid taxes...
You need truely international laws against these things, you need working governments and you need international cooperation to pull the thing about free place of residence off and so far it is not even close to feasible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its not the fact he came to your web site, or that you cannot block him from doing so, its the fact you chose to make a sale with him, as such you are doing business in that country (you could of said, sorry we don't trade with GB), but if you make the trade, you are a trader, and as such liable for the laws of the countries you trade with. (as well as your own), you are liable for the laws where you operate, not just the laws of where you are based.
Trade in Brittan, and accept their laws and rules, trade from the US accept their laws and rules as well.
you are liable for both, and not exempt from either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bye, bye, net...
That sounds practical...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google has a major problem with data treatment. It should be obvious that the problem is a political hot potato as well and even more regulation will hit them. On the issues of handling of data I believe they deserve what is incoming...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Users of Apple...
Who is Apple's biggest competitior at the moment? Google...
Is this a legit complaint or is Apple trying to knock Google down a notch?
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: did not realise applesearch was so popular
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Data Protection Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should Google be a charity?
That having been said, the case against Google seems like utter nonsense. If anyone feels that targeting advertising is a violation of their privacy, then they shouldn't use Google, or Yahoo, or Bing, or most search engines.
Google makes its money from advertising - that's hardly a secret. Should Google be a charity? If so, then who is going to pay for their servers? Seems like a lot of people have a real sense of entitlement.
Iif you really demand "the right" to use Google (and even Gmail) and not be subjected to the horrors of targeting advertising, trying turning off cookies and Javascript in your browser - you will no longer see pop-ups and many pages will load faster. Your browsing experience might be less colorful and convenient, but I think you'll survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Google be a charity?
1. Use it and STFU
2. Use it and take your own countermeasures (plentiful options)
3. Don't use it
(sorry four, 4. Be Blue and go through life as a self-righteous asshat.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Google be a charity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should Google be a charity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google did wrong
That's pretty damned bad.
If what Google says is true, that they only did it to store operational data for signed-in users and weren't actually collecting it in an advertising or spying sense, that's a mitigating factor. But it's still pretty damned bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't know what it is worse crazy governments or crazy companies(no, not talking about Google here).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USA requires it for companies doing business with it's citizens, as does every other country for the last 100 yrs under reciprocity and specific consumer, trade, privacy, tax, etc laws.
As Apple, IBM, and even McDonalds (to name a few) have found out within places like Australia (and the UK is no different) ... the courts have always stated that if you do not want to abide by the laws of the country you are within (and being on the Internet is irrelevant) DO NOT DO BUSINESS THERE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]