Canadian Court Believes It Has The Right To Censor The Global Internet; Not At All Concerned With Consequences
from the dangerous-ruling dept
In the wake of the awful European "right to be forgotten" ruling, it appears that a Canadian court is looking to get in on the over-aggressive censorship of the internet game. As highlighted by Michael Geist, the court in British Columbia has basically ruled that it can order Google to delete links to an entire website worldwide. The ruling in the Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack case is quite troubling on a variety of different levels, all of which should be called out for the problems and consequences (intended or otherwise) they are likely to create. First, in many ways, this ruling goes beyond the European right to be forgotten ruling, which at least limited the ruling to Europe. Not so with this court's ruling, which basically argues that because Google operates worldwide, it is automatically amenable to any regulation around the globe (even though Google isn't even one of the parties in the lawsuit!).This is, frankly, a concern that we've been discussing for well over a decade -- the question of "jurisdiction" for online activities. As we've noted, it's somewhat crazy to argue that because you do something online, and that's the accessible anywhere, that any laws from any countries apply worldwide. That's a recipe for killing the internet, because it means that the most draconian laws automatically prevail. The stricter the regulations and the greater the censorship always win out under that scenario, since not obeying the most draconian rules automatically subjects you to liability. Such a ruling would have immense (and immensely troubling) implications.
And yet, that's exactly what this BC court decides to claim. It almost entirely shrugs off the consequences, instead blaming them on Google for having the temerity to operate globally.
I will address here Google’s submission that this analysis would give every state in the world jurisdiction over Google’s search services. That may be so. But if so, it flows as a natural consequence of Google doing business on a global scale, not from a flaw in the territorial competence analysis.The court seems confused about two things. One is the decision to open up global offices and to be subject to the jurisdiction of various countries where you have operations, and be subject to those laws for the users within that country. That already raises some questions. But, the court conflates the idea that a company may be subject to a local jurisdiction for the parts of the company operating in that jurisdiction, with the fact that an online service is available around the globe. The second, is the idea that because a ruling applies to the Canadian jurisdiction, it's okay to enforce it around the globe from Canada. Google had already removed the links in question on the Google.ca search engine, but the court is saying it needs to go much, much further.
Think, for just a second, about the consequences of such a decision. As Michael Geist notes, it's not hard to see where this gets very troubling very fast:
The implications are enormous since if a Canadian court has the power to limit access to information for the globe, presumably other courts would as well. While the court does not grapple with this possibility, what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database? Or if Iran orders it remove Israeli sites from the database? The possibilities are endless since local rules of freedom of expression often differ from country to country.Or, just go back to the European right to be forgotten ruling. Under this rationale, Europeans might seek to have such content deleted globally. Or how about China? We just reported on how successfully China has more or less deleted all references to Tiananman Square online within China. Now imagine that it had the power to do that globally? For years we've discussed libel tourism in which individuals and companies pick the "best" jurisdiction to sue someone for libel, using the claims that because it's on the internet, the statements are available in that country (even if neither the speaker, nor the subject of the speech) are located in that country. Imagine what the internet looks like when such rulings can be determined to apply globally.
It's not just that it creates a heckler's veto for the internet. It's much, much worse. It means that the most draconian, most repressive, most anti-free speech rules automatically apply to the entire internet, because one could just seek out the most extreme jurisdiction to bring cases, and then seek to apply them globally just because the content appears "online." This is a disastrous ruling for the internet, for free speech and for freedom in general. Hopefully, the case is appealed and overturned.
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: canada, censorship, free speech, jurisdiction, libel tourism, search results
Companies: equustek solutions, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At this point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have to think it's doable, ideally in a manner that would allow those motivated and tech savvy enough (a modest level?) to circumvent it, but creating backlash from everybody else, hopefully a considerable amount. That judge may already be getting pounded, possibly by his own family, which must number among them some people under the age of 60 screaming "WTF you fucktarded looser?? What were you thinking??"
Maybe Google is concerned people would start using all those other search engines, like...ummm...Bingo? Is that one??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
* Article 1: All offences of the same kind will be punished by the same type of punishment irrespective of the rank, status, SEO or location in the world of the guilty search engine/webpage.
* Article 2: Whenever the Law imposes the removal of data from the internet, irrespective of the nature of the offence, the punishment shall be the same: data deletion, effected by means of a simple mechanism, such as destruction of the offending servers with an ax in a parking lot.
* Article 3: The punishment of the guilty search engine/webpage shall not bring discredit upon or discrimination against his corporate headquarters, affiliates, or LLC.
* Article 4: No one shall remind a CEO with any search engine/webpage data removal request, imposed on one of his family of companies. Such offenders shall be publicly reprimanded by a judge and on the internet, without posting exact details of what exactly they did, because then they could request to have such data removed.
* Article 5: The guilty search engine/webpage company will not have their other server(s) seized, unless suspected of "crimes" with no actual basis in fact. Then it is OK.
* Article 6: At the request of the subject in question, the offending data of the guilty search engine/webpage shall be returned to them for final deletion, and no reference to the nature of said data shall be registered on the internet, because then the subject would have request removal of the offending data all over again.
You can add, modify and change definitions as to what it really means in secret, later on down the road. It is your country, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We love technology's positive improvements to the world.
We struggle with its negative consequences.
The pendulum has swung way too far toward technology, away from protecting people. Expect the pendulum to swing the other way. Eventually there may be an equilibrium.
The seesawing will be interesting to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who's this "we"? I certainly don't see any unusual negative consequences that require "struggling". The "negative consequences" ("effects" is a better word) I see are the same ones that we've always had.
"The pendulum has swung way too far toward technology, away from protecting people"
We mus be speaking different languages. Rulings like this court's are not "protecting people" at all. Just the opposite.
"Expect the pendulum to swing the other way."
I do expect this. The push towards liberty and freedom always meets with opposition. However, I will fight that swing all the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have a right to protect myself.
We as a group have a right to protect ourselves. We do it by laws now.
Sometimes we overdo it, sometimes we underdo it. Not consciously, it just happens.
No unusual negative consequences? Guess you haven't read about Snowden. We need a lot of protection from things under the rock he lifted up.
Guess you didn't read the ruling. "Liberty", "freedom", but only for thieves? It the people being stolen from were you and yours, would you be bellowing for the thieves' liberty and freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Another self righteous do-gooder out to save the world from its self
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed so!
"Guess you haven't read about Snowden. We need a lot of protection from things under the rock he lifted up"
The abuses that Snowden revealed were not actually technological in nature. Such abuses go back as far in time as there have been governments. Technology was the means (and makes the abuse more effective), but it's not different in kind. To frame it as a consequence of technology is, I think, to fundamentally misunderstand what it's about.
"Guess you didn't read the ruling. "Liberty", "freedom", but only for thieves?"
Now you're just being silly. Nobody's saying any such thing. The problem is that courts in Canada is asserting power over the whole planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If my copyrights were infringed, would I demand that US copyright laws be enforced in other jurisdictions that may have different copyright laws? Fuck no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution
Sort of like "infinity plus one!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution
it will happen when Canada invades some small republic somewhere to enforce a court order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think a site is in order for indexing all the sites and pages that were taken down (from google) by court order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.gw1000.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> judgment upon an American company just because
> it has a worldwide online presence?
Short answer: no.
They would have no way of enforcing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not quite
We've only had one or two stupid rulings so far, although as of now, we seem to be headed in the same direction.
Hopefully this one gets reversed on appeal, which should
be expedited, based on the fact that it's only Google that's
targeted, not Bing, Yahoo, Ask, etc. It's blatntly unfair to require one search engine to filter without requiring ALL of them to do it. Since Google has already filtered its .ca domain, perhaps they should redirect all accesses to its other domains coming from Canada to a web page directing the users to the .ca domain. They can also add a polite note explaining that they've been ordered to restrict all Canadian access to Google to only go there because of the court order. They could then mention that if we in Canada don't like it, to please take it up with the relevant authorities in our country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The last 3 US presidents have been charged with war crimes by the international court. There is a reason why they never leave the country. The US is a do what I say not what I do style of leadership this last half century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you ever read (or watch) the news?
Yeah, I thought not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforcement
> rulings can be determined to apply globally.
But they can't be. Courts can issue all the rulings they like, claiming jurisdiction over whatever they like, but *enforcing* those rulings is where the rubber meets the road.
What is the Canadian court going to do if Google tells it to pound sand? It might be able to seize whatever property Google has in Canada to pay contempt fines, but if Google closes up shop, fires all it's Canadian employees and leaves Canada, then the Canadian government is powerless to enforce these court rulings, short of armed military invasion of the USA.
Same goes for all these other countries. Iran? Google doesn't even *have* any offices or property there, so any court ruling out of Iran would be a toothles tiger from the get-go.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. all should just close down their physical international operations and pick one country to operate from that they determine would give them the most beneficial business environment-- presumably but not necessarily the USA-- and then tell all these other countries to screw off. These countries can then accept their search engine and social media services the way they are or they can block them entirely and answer to their citizens for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enforcement
That way, there would be no way for a judgment on the CA "branch" to apply to the US "branch", since the US "branch" would be a separate company which only licenses the technology and trademarks to the CA "branch".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If google doesn't like it, it can back down, and let another player take it spot to offer similar services to the local country. Why won't they? Cause they don't want to lose those customers and the associated profits.
You want the $, then do comply. You don't want the $, then go to hell and let someone else take your spot. That simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> result, Google must comply with the laws
> of each and every country it operates in?
Because in this case, the Canadian court isn't just ruling regarding Canada. It's purportedly trying to control Google's behavior worldwide. The Canadian court is ordering Google to do something in America, for example, that not even an American court would have the authority to do because it violates our Constitution. The Canadian ruling is essentially an illegal order in America, yet it nevertheless expects Google to comply.
> If google doesn't like it, it can back down
What happens when one country orders Google to do something worldwide that would put Google in violation of another country's laws if it complies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since printed catalogs could be passed hand-to-hand the distributor would probably not physically be able to locate and recall all copies but what about individual pages that had been photocopied? In the same way there is no way to delete stored copies on individual computers all over the world. Perhaps the judge should order Google (not even a party to the case) to ask the NSA to infiltrate all computers and networked copiers/printers world wide and zap the offending 'documents'. Somebody should suggest her order doesn't go far enough just to see what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't possibly see this ruling withstanding an appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The powers to be in Beijing and elsewhere have to be laughing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something is rottten here and I strongly suspect the ruling will be declared unconstitutional in Canada.
I'll finish reading the entire ruling sometime tomorrow when I have the time. We're a strange bunch here in BC who often provide entertainment to the rest of the country. What would you expect from a Province whose first Premier called himself Amour De Cosmos? :-) Bill Smith was just too boring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something is rottten here and I strongly suspect the ruling will be declared unconstitutional in Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another idiot that thinks Google is the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quoting South Park
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This shit won't fly in the UK...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google block
1. she has no business telling people in other countries which websites they can view.
2. She has no business making up novel punishments and applying them without trial.
This is something you would expect from one of those elected judges in the deep south without any legal training.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reverse the situation
What if the situation were reversed, like the author said. What would happen if Iran or North Korea decided they have authority over the Internet. Politicians in the free world (including, presumably Canada) would be quick to say those countries have no legal standing. Yet if Europe or Canada does this, it's okay because they're the "good guys".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Precedent Has Already Been Set
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:re:
If it doesn't exist on Google, it may as well not exist.
I think the middle ground of these laws will be that low profile private citizens have a degree of empowerment to remove certain stuff while higher profile public figures do not, much like how a lot of slander/libel law is weighted today. If you're a public figure, the threshold is much higher. If you're not and some ex girlfriend goes on to a hit site that refuses to remove entries and calls you a pedophile, yeah, there should be some recourse there. As with all new issues, it becomes a battle of ideologues and worst case scenarios. Eventually, the truth settles someplace reasonable but until then, boy, the end-of-the-world theories about how the internet is being censored and other hysterics will continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
c. www.protocolconverter.com;
d. www.datalinkgateways.com;
e. www.abgateways.com;
f. www.datalink-gateways.com;
g. www.datahighwayplus.com;
h. www.datalink-networks.com;
i. www.datalinktek.com
j. www.datanetprotocols.com
k. www.1770-kf3.com;
I. www.1770-kf2.com;
m. www.1784-pktx.com;
n. www.1784-ktx.com;
o. www.1784-pcmk.com;
p. www.ethernetgateways.com;
q. www.control-logix.com;
r. www.ethernetipsolutions.com;
s. www.datatechgateways.com;
t. www.datalinkcontrollers.com; and
u. www.datalink-networking.com.
sadly this isn't the first stupid judgement by this specific judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First off the BC Supreme court is Provincial not Federal. Secondly, we are a constitutional Monarchy, even if the courts say something stupid, the Queen can tell them where to stick it. While we don't see that kind of interference often it does and can happen, and that muscle was even flexed within the last 5 years when Parliament was prorogued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google has become the gatekeepers of the internet
more is refusing to remove links to websites, posts which cause
irreparable harm to companies and individuals whether it be defamation
or companies involved in illegal activity.
By way of google’s 80%+ share of the search engine market, google has become the defacto gatekeepers of the internet. A single company with over 50 billion in
revenues decides on behalf of the world what information is accessible
on the internet and what is not. This is too much power for one company.
The public should be concerned of the overbearing power that Google
has.
The court decision was justified in that the internet is
limitless and worldwide and the harm to the company is impacted not only
in Canada.
In Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Gutnick, [2002]
H.C.A. 56 (10 December 2002), that same judge – Kirby J., of the High
Court of Australia — portrayed the Internet in these terms, at para. 80:
The
Internet is essentially a decentralized, self-maintained
telecommunications network. It is made up of inter-linking small
networks from all parts of the world. It is ubiquitous, borderless,
global and ambient in its nature. Hence the term “cyberspace”.4 This is a
word that recognizes that the interrelationships created by the
Internet exist outside conventional geographic boundaries and comprise a
single interconnected body of data, potentially amounting to a single
body of knowledge. The Internet is accessible in virtually all places on
Earth where access can be obtained either by wire connection or by
wireless (including satellite) links.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]