Canadian Supreme Court Says It's Fine To Censor The Global Internet; Authoritarians & Hollywood Cheer...
from the d'oh-canada dept
For the past few years, we've been covering the worrisome Google v. Equustek Solutions case in Canada. The case started out as a trademark case, in which Equustek claimed that another company was infringing on its trademarks online. That's fine. The problem was that the lower court issued an injunction against Google (a non-party in the case) that said it had to block entire sites worldwide. Blocking sites already raises some concerns, but the worldwide part is the real problem. In 2015, an appeals court upheld that decision, and earlier today the Canadian Supreme Court agreed with both lower courts in a 7-2 decision.
The court is dismissive of any concerns about how an order from one country to block things on the internet globally might be abused -- calling the concerns "theoretical" and unproven. That may not last very long. First, let's look at the decision itself, and then the horrific possible consequences for free speech and innovation.
Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction, is theoretical. If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application. In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it is not equitable to deny E the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible.
This is a nifty trick: because you can't show that this order might offend freedom of expression laws somewhere else in the world, let's just assume it's fair to apply absolutely everywhere. But... that's not the issue. It's not for a Canadian court to determine if its rulings obey the laws in other countries. A Canadian court has jurisdiction over Canada. And that's it. This is not about balancing theoretical harm v. real harm, this is about jurisdiction.
The court tries to get around the jurisdictional question by saying because Google is available in Canada, somehow that makes it okay to censor globally, and further, notes that the lack of borders on the internet require such a result (ignoring how this will almost certainly create massive problems down the road):
The problem in this case is occurring online and globally. The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally. As Fenlon J. found, the majority of Datalink’s sales take place outside Canada. If the injunction were restricted to Canada alone or to google.ca, as Google suggests it should have been, the remedy would be deprived of its intended ability to prevent irreparable harm. Purchasers outside Canada could easily continue purchasing from Datalink’s websites, and Canadian purchasers could easily find Datalink’s websites even if those websites were deindexed on google.ca. Google would still be facilitating Datalink’s breach of the court’s order which had prohibited it from carrying on business on the Internet. There is no equity in ordering an interlocutory injunction which has no realistic prospect of preventing irreparable harm.
This sounds nice, but makes no sense. First, again, a Canadian court only has jurisdiction over Canada. If the irreperable harm is happening elsewhere, then that's not the Canadian court's jurisdction and it has no say in the matter. The fact that purchasers outside Canada can find Datalink's website isn't a matter for Canadian courts. This may sound unfair -- as the court seemed to think -- but take two seconds to flip the script and think about how this would work with a ruling in China about stories concerning Tiananmen Square, or in Saudi Arabia about LGBTQ rights -- saying that Google had to de-index such sites in Canada, because they violated local law.
The second scary part about the ruling is that it's not just saying that Google needs to de-index sites shown to involve infringement, but that it needs to de-index an entire site because other pages on that site might, at some future point, infringe. Really. The two dissenting judges pointed out how problematic this aspect is in the ruling, and how it actually gives Equustek even more than it was seeking.
The December 2012 Order gives Equustek more than the injunctive relief it sought in its originating claim. Rather than simply ordering the modification of Datalink websites, the December 2012 Order requires the ceasing of website business altogether.
And that creates an additional problem. Since Equustek is getting more than it wanted, and because the defendant in the original case has ignored the court process, it's likely that this "temporary" injunction will effectively become a permanent one:
In our view, little incentive remains for Equustek to return to court to seek a lesser injunctive remedy. This is evidenced by Equustek’s choice to not seek default judgment during the roughly five years which have passed since it was given leave to do so.
Thus, the dissent notes, this is, in effect, a permanent injunction. And, it doesn't come close to the standards necessary for such a permanent injunction -- specifically in dragging a third party (i.e., Google) into the remedy:
As we will outline below, the Google Order enjoins a nonparty, yet Google has not aided or abetted Datalink’s wrongdoing; it holds no assets of Equustek’s, and has no information relevant to the underlying proceedings. The Google Order is mandatory and requires court supervision. It has not been shown to be effective, and Equustek has alternative remedies.
And, it fears that Google will be forced to continue to monitor and de-index any new website set up by Datalink:
The Google Order requires ongoing modification and supervision because Datalink is launching new websites to replace delisted ones. In fact, the Google Order has been amended at least seven times to capture Datalink’s new sites (orders dated November 27, 2014; April 22, 2015; June 4, 2015; July 3, 2015; September 15, 2015; January 12, 2016 and March 30, 2016). In our view, courts should avoid granting injunctions that require such cumbersome courtsupervised updating.
Finally, the dissent points out that it appears Datalink has assets in France, and Equustek could easily go after them there, and that would be a remedy that leaves Google out of the process.
Unfortunately, the dissent does not really delve into the problematic nature of a Canadian court claiming it can force a website to de-list sites globally. I already provided the Chinese/Saudi Arabian examples above, but Canadian law professor Michael Geist goes much deeper:
Google will obviously abide the ruling, but as I noted last year, what happens if a Chinese court orders it to remove Taiwanese sites from the index? Or if an Iranian court orders it to remove gay and lesbian sites from the index? Since local content laws differ from country to country, there is a great likelihood of conflicts. That leaves two possible problematic outcomes: local courts deciding what others can access online or companies such as Google selectively deciding which rules they wish to follow. The Supreme Court of Canada did not address the broader implications of the decision, content to limit its reasoning to the need to address the harm being sustained by a Canadian company, the limited harm or burden to Google, and the ease with which potential conflicts could be addressed by adjusting the global takedown order. In doing so, it invites more global takedowns without requiring those seeking takedowns to identify potential conflicts or assess the implications in other countries.
Geist also notes that this is part of the "drip drip drip" nature of mutliple rulings chipping away at free expression online:
This last paragraph noting that Google already removes links to certain content (hate speech, child pornography, and copyright takedowns) highlights the cumulative effect of court decisions and regulations that individually may seem reasonable but which quickly move toward takedowns of all kinds. In fact, the majority cites the international support for Internet injunctions with global effect as a justification for its own order. The net result is the expectation of all countries and courts that they may issue global takedown orders regardless of the impact on Internet users outside the jurisdiction or on Internet intermediaries.
Furthermore, Geist highlights where the court went wrong in saying that because it's "easy" for Google to de-index a site worldwide, there's no burden. But the technical burden is not the issue. The legal burden is:
Of course, the inconvenience does not come from the technical side of removing search results, which is indeed trivial. The real inconvenience comes from conflict of laws and the potential for global takedown orders coming from across the planet, thereby opening the door to other countries choosing what Canadians might be able to find in search results. Those issues – along with the need to identify the laws in other countries in order to avoid conflicts – do involve significant inconvenience and expense.
Indeed, a ruling like this likely will give Google more power over others, because Google has a large legal team that can handle this. Most other sites do not. Smaller sites cannot scour the globe to find out where such global takedown orders are legal and where they are not.
Another Canadian lawyer, Howard Knopf, is even more forward in pointing out how this will be abused by Hollywood:
I can just see the RIAA and MPAA salivating that the thought of getting global injunctions against Google at an interlocutory hearing from a trial judge in British Columbia. Will the mere fact that copyright subsists in BC - as it does virtually everywhere - be sufficient to get the injunction? One can imagine that few if any defendants would appear in such proceedings.
And, worse, he points out that even if Canadian trial judges see through that ploy, the RIAA & MPAA can just go jurisdiction shopping for other locations where courts will cite this case as a reason they can issue preliminary global injunctions. Canada just handed anyone who wants it a tool for global censorship. Anyone from authoritarian regimes to Hollywood may now begin to use it.
I recognize that some Google haters are cheering on this ruling because they will cheer on anything that makes Google look bad -- and the RIAA/MPAA types are celebrating this new power over Google. But this is extremely short sighted. Enabling countries to reach across borders to censor the internet does not end well. You are giving veto power over speech to the most repressive regimes, just because you dislike a company. If that's your view, you should perhaps check your priorities more carefully. And this goes doubly for the RIAA and MPAA. Those two organizations both used to fight for free speech. They both used to fight for the ability of musicians and filmmakers to express themselves. This tool that they helped create (they were involved in this case, pushing the view that the court eventually sided with), will be turned around and used to censor music and movies worldwide -- and the legacy recording and film industries will have no one to blame but themselves.
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, global, hollywood, injunction, jurisdiction, right to be forgotten, trademark
Companies: datalink, equustek solutions, google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“__________
Dear Canada:
You're Canada. We're Google. Who can the world afford to live without?
Humbly Yours,
Google
__________
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It occurs to me
After all, if compliance with laws is global without regard for jurisdiction or sovereignty...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It occurs to me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EU Problems
Given that the company that's being de-listed has French assets it's not as far fetched as you think. The EU has a massive anti-Google crusade going right now, and don't seem to be thinking about long term consequences.
At this point, it looks like Google's best option is to pull out of Canada entirely, and get a US court to rule that the Canadian ruling is overly broad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You mean like this?? https://readwrite.com/2012/02/01/wikileaks_move_servers/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We need a law
The Canadian court has already said they'd reconsider if Google shows an actual conflicting law somewhere.
So - the US Congress should pass a law making it illegal for a US person to remove something from the US-accessible Internet solely based on a foreign court order or law.
The effect would be limited to the US, but it would intentionally setup a conflict with the laws of other countries (in this case, Canada).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: We need a law
Laws and Government authority comes with implicit can's and can't. Google has all the power they need to do what needs to be done here. It is entirely up to google if it will fold like a piece of paper or tell Canada that it can pound sand.
Google could really flex its muscle if it wanted and block all of Canada from it's services for this.
So much for Canada being a "nice" country to live in. If not for the USA, Canada would have been invaded and taken over a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meanwhile...
Canada has the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act to prevent this sort of thing happening in the opposite direction.
It's a reaction to American anti-Cuba laws that over-reach their borders to stop Canadian companies - including Canadian subsidiaries and branches of U.S. companies - from trading with Cuba. Canada forbids companies from complying with those laws and orders them to notify the Canadian government if pressured to do so.
I'm not sure how well that's worked out; just last week the American Honda Finance Corporation paid an $87,255 fine because their Canadian subsidiary leased cars to the Cuban embassy in Ottawa.
So...
Will America pass a law mandating fines for American companies that comply with foreign orders affecting freedom of speech in America? One that states that while Google Canada may comply, but Google US must not?
And like Honda Finance, will Google be forced to decide which country's law to break, and pay the fines as a cost of doing international business?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: We need a law
People running smaller websites (like, say, me) can't.
When the international commerce and free expression of Americans is chilled by claims of extraterritorial authority by other countries, this old mugwump thinks it's appropriate for the US government to act.
Canada is within its rights to demand removal from servers within Canada. And they can build a Great Firewall of Canada, if they really want to.
But they can't tell people in other countries what they do within their own country.
(The US is far from innocent when it comes to extraterritorial claims, but that goes to the hypocrisy of what I'm proposing. Not its appropriateness.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: EU Problems
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Meanwhile...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: We need a law
The only danger of that has come from America. It invaded twice, in 1775 and 1812. (More, if you count militia invasions like the Fenian raids, Patriot War and "Dickson Filibuster".)
All failed.
But the rebuilt White House looks very nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not that the court should have done anything at all, but wouldn't going after the hosting company been better? Or, you know, maybe the company actually doing something wrong (Datalink)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: We need a law
The size of the website is not the issue here. Just like I can insult the King of Thailand all I want while in the USA and they can't do anything to me, I just can't be stupid by taking a trip over to that country so they can physically put their hands on me.
"Canada is within its rights to demand removal from servers within Canada. And they can build a Great Firewall of Canada, if they really want to."
Of course, I am not saying that Canada can't do that. I am just saying that Google should preempt them make them really feel the pain and follow that up with making the search result the first thing everyone sees for a little while just to rub it in.
"(The US is far from innocent when it comes to extraterritorial claims, but that goes to the hypocrisy of what I'm proposing. Not its appropriateness.)"
Oh, trust me... I fully understand that America is one huge full of itself nation. I am American myself and this nation is rotten to its fucking ass core. We have loads of willfully blind, self righteous, and bigoted ass people acting like they are all seeing, wholesome, and free thinking. I used to be a stupid tool like the rest but I changed that. Now I am hated by both sides for not drinking someone's fucked up cool-aid.
Canada can do whatever the fuck it wants... In its own borders. All Google has to do, is leave them and Canada loses all power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about the other search providers?
Seems like this is symbolic and very focused on Google.
I like the idea of just delisting all Canadian government web sites. Karma baby, Karma.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: We need a law
That, or they would be forced to become America instead of us. America is a super power for a reason, Canada is not for a reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Making search engines better
That way, any court that tries this trick will have to ask all search engines to comply with its order, or go pound sand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And start seeing about laying off the local help and importing some out of country workers.
Let's see how fast the courts reverse this decision...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
There's a mountain of very real and well documented connections between Trump and Russia, and Trump's team and Russia. And that's not counting what the FBI hasn't shared.
Someone at CNN "faked" yet another connection. CNN retracted it within a day, and accepted the resignations of three journalists.
Contrast that with Fox News's conspiritard wingnuttery on murder of Seth Rich. They kept repeating it for a week after it was shown to be fake. No resignations or firings. A false accusation that would result in retractions in firings at CNN is standard practice and an hourly occurrence at Fox.
CNN is "leftist?" Only if you believe that "facts have a left-wing bias." The network is merely insufficiently biased to the right for the Tea Party / Breitbart / gullible inbred crowd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Meanwhile...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
Wha....?
Canada is part of the British Commonwealth. It was run by Britain during all the invasions mentioned above, only gaining independence in several steps starting in 1867.
The US only became a military superpower in WWII. And even then Canada maintained a strong military for decades after. (It retired its last aircraft carrier in 1970.) It still has strong military ties to Britain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile...
And this story shows local government bullying a multinational business.
Your claim does not check out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And while we're fantasizing, Canada could seize the assets of Google Canada. And the Canadian subsidiaries of Americans companies like Honda Finance when they comply with American extra-territorial laws.
Better to be reasonable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
Or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
__________
Dear Canada:
You're Canada. We're Google. Who can the world afford to live without?
Humbly Yours,
Google
__________
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's a Shame the Canadian Supreme Court Doesn't Know...
I mean you wouldn't sue Chicago because someone's door violates the DMCA. You'd make the home owner exceptionally miserable instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: We need a law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: We need a law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's a Shame the Canadian Supreme Court Doesn't Know...
Huh?
Are you under the impression that people are suing Google to make it de-list their own websites?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
What's that got to do with putting pressure on Thailand?
But Google shouldn't have to leave Canada. It should have the option of continuing to do business in Canada, and complying with Canada's laws in Canada, without being sanctioned for violating Canadian law outside of Canada.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
Every nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-90 0-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
Yes, that's why Donald Trump won. Because people are tired of name-calling and lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Again, Google runs into the buzz saw, instead of taking a hint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Again, Google runs into the buzz saw, instead of taking a hint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The easiest way around this is the simpleist
Sure, it's technically blackmail, I suppose...but well worth the fun and hijinx it might cause...and since Google is NOT based in Canada, and is not subject to Canadian laws unless it specifically pertains to that country, I don't think they'd have any way to fight back... Just think of it as another SOPA campaign...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cool story, bra
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ok, Canada has clearly defined borders, and as they openly admit, the Internet does not. Am I the only one that thinks that the Canadian court here just admitted they don't have jurisdiction?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
Only at Trump rallies did the press fear for their safety as Trump whipped the crowd into a frenzy while pointing at the press area and declaring them his enemies and enemies of America.
Only Republicans - Trump in particular - declared everyone in one religion and everyone from one country - both well-represented in America - to be either terrorists or rapists and murderers.
Only Trump has a white supremacist chief advisor (Bannon) and a non-metaphorical Nazi (Gorka) as another.
Only Trump and his fellow Republicans promised post-election carpet bombing and the resumption of torture.
But sure, not because folks at Trump rallies follow a violent ideology. Trump just wanted to inject a little enthusiasm into an otherwise placid and contemplative group of people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
Or take the blue pill and keep losing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
You'll always find extremist outliers on both the left and right. But only the leadership of one side of the campaign was encouraging them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No. No you are not the only one who thinks that. Damn it I have some phone calls to make...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Again, Google runs into the buzz saw, instead of taking a hint.
Knuckle-draggers like you really don't seem to think things through at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Size is the issue....brings on the problems
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Competition usually helps; consolidation generally hurts competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
[ link to this | view in thread ]
item one is a court in one country cannot rule
on the rights of users in another country to access content or websites
based in another country .
IF canada wants to ask block websites in canada they could use other legal means or ask canadian isps to block them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Another way would be Google block Govt sites for LGBT diversity and things blasphemous in Iran and display a flashy note to Canadians citing that specific ruling as the reason they are being blocked based on Iran law. That would be amusing to watch too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Meanwhile...
The linked article says they were fined, not that they paid the fine. They hadn't at time of publication, and paying the US fine would break Canadian law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Making search engines better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's a Shame the Canadian Supreme Court Doesn't Know...
You know what? I can't figure out what it supposed to be de-listed. I just know whatever it is should be the site owner's responsibility, not Google's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a Shame the Canadian Supreme Court Doesn't Know...
Nonetheless, I'm not sure how that would work. Presumably the offending site is on foreign soil and not subject to Canadian law; otherwise, the courts could just have the whole site taken down, no robots.txt needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
The good news for us is that there is an effectively infinite supply of people who'd rather live here than live wherever they are, so we can effortlessly replace all of those who are too good for us without ever noticing their departure, with people who are glad to be here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Meanwhile...
Stories the next day indicated that the fine had been paid. I just couldn't find a good enough non-paywalled article.
And starting yesterday Google wrecked its Google News search, limiting searches to ill-fitting categories and removing the date-related search abilities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet censorship
This is not a case of censorship or regulation. I was personally burned by this datalink outfit. Equustek, to their great credit, replaced the illegal knockoffs with their fine product,at cost! 1st class outfit.
This is a case of Google being dirtbags. They had all the information available, and KNEW that they were facilitating defrauding a small business. The counterfeiting case had already been to court. Did Google do the right thing? Hell no, they acted like...well, Google does.
If you searched for an Allen Bradley to IP gateway, The top links Google listed were for a Datalink unit, even though Google already knew that the units were cheap illegal knockoffs of an Equustek product. Equustek worked hard and long to get Google to fix the problem, but Google basically flipped them the bird. Finally a Canadian court ordered Google to stop referring customers to the illegal product, Google did, but only in Canada.
I personally don't think the court should have ordered Google to remove the links globally, they should have fined Google 1/2 billion dollars punitively to give them an overdue attitude adjustment. It's not all that much based on Google's revenue, but enough to get their attention.
Google needs to start acting like a responsible company. when presented with clear, irrefutable evidence that they are enabling criminal activity, they need to do the right thing without a court forcing them to. Datalink was probably paying Google to get listed first, which is why Google didn't want to block them.
Once you know the whole story, the outrage isn't the court order, it's that Google made it necessary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
I was personally burned by Datalink's cheap pieces of crap thanks to Google. Instead of a global delist order, I would have preferred a HUGE punitive fine to help Google learn to do the right thing when presented with irrefutable evidence of criminality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
Then they should go to one.
The thing about legal precedent is that slippery slope arguments are valid to make.
So you agree with this specific ruling? Fair enough. It looks to me like everybody here agrees that Canada has the right to regulate Google's content on Canadian websites.
But do you really not see any possible situation in which allowing nation X to control content that's hosted in nation Y would be a problem?
I'm sorry to hear that. I almost bought a composite adapter for my GameCube on Amazon once, because that was the result that came up even though I'd searched for a component adapter.
One: Google is not a court of law. It is not qualified to determine what is "irrefutable evidence of criminality".
Two: I can't speak for Canada, but here in the US we've got laws protecting people and websites from liability for linking to third-party content. Even if that content is criminal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Internet censorship
Then, uh, who exactly are you arguing with?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: We need a law
We had to fight the Brits for our Independence, you guys fought us, and they gave you yours. Nobody ever said that they were slow learners, aye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
Canada enjoys considerable security from invasion, not sure if it's because the US would immediately react to any attempt, or because nobody really wants to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
At what point do we start to worry that Google, as a whole, might actually be alive? Not 'US corporations are people' alive: I mean 'Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own' alive. I'm sure this is one of those ideas that's been analyzed to death already and I was going to do a search for it, but then I started worrying that that might be something The Google watches out for...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Be very careful setting precedent, you never know who will use it
Google needs to start acting like a responsible company. when presented with clear, irrefutable evidence that they are enabling criminal activity, they need to do the right thing without a court forcing them to.
As several other people have pointed out pro-LGBT content is in conflict with the laws in other countries(Russia and Iran being the examples that people mentioned). As such one could easily make the argument that providing links to such content is 'enabling criminal activity', as it's linking to illegal content.
Given that, and expanding upon the idea that services like Google should be required to de-list globally, were Google presented with 'irrefutable evidence that they are enabling criminal activity' by linking to such content, would you likewise agree that they should be obligated to remove such links globally, and if not why not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Making search engines better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need a law
I have a big problem with Canada threatening Google with fines for what Google does outside of Canada.
This is a Canadian claim of extraterritorial power, which is inconsistent with the idea of sovereign nations not interfering in each others' internal affairs.
Unfortunately, current US law doesn't protect Google from that (so far as I know).
If it is indeed about "clear commercial fraud", that should be dealt with by a treaty agreement to mutually respect court decisions in limited and well-defined cases. Not with an extraterritorial claim.
The US is bad (very, very bad) about extraterritorial claims, too (anything re money laundering or drugs, for a start).
But two wrongs don't make a right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google should stop indexing Equustek as well
By the way, I'm Canadian and think the court really fucked up on this one. Probably not their fault though as they don't understand all the technology involved and the various quirks that go with it. We could really use a Judge Alsup here, or at least some judges who realize when they're out of their depth and will call in some experts when needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google should stop indexing Equustek as well
Yeah, de-indexing sites as retaliation for legal action sounds like a great idea that couldn't possibly backfire at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: We need a law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: We need a law
Under existing federal laws, any foreign court order that would be unconstitutional under the US constitution is automatically null and void within the borders of the US.
If US courts rule a given type of delisting to be unconstitutional under US law, then that delisting would be null and void if applied to a company inside the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: EU Problems
[ link to this | view in thread ]