TechDirt.com published an article this morning that deals with what has been a growing trend around the world. Countries wanting to dictate terms to Google. A Canadian court has ruled that it can order Google to block websites globally. This all started with one company accusing another of selling counterfeit goods.
From the article:
Almost exactly a year ago we wrote about a troubling lawsuit in British Columbia, where a court ruled that Google needed to block access to a website globally. The case involved one company accusing another of selling counterfeit or copied equipment, and despite Google not even being a party to the case, said that Google needed to make sure no one could find the site in question via Google anywhere in the world. As we noted, this had tremendously problematic consequences. For example, China doesn’t think anyone should be able to learn about the protests in Tiananmen Square. Can it now order Google to remove all links to such references globally? That result seems crazy. And, of course, there was a separate issue of how the court even had jurisdiction over Google, seeing as it does not have any operations, staff or servers in British Columbia. Google stepped in to protest the injunction at the appeals court.
the appeals court basically accepts the lower court’s confused understanding of things:
While Google does not have servers or offices in the Province and does not have resident staff here, I agree with the chambers judge’s conclusion that key parts of Google’s business are carried on here. The judge concentrated on the advertising aspects of Google’s business in making her findings. In my view, it can also be said that the gathering of information through proprietary web crawler software (“Googlebot”) takes place in British Columbia. This active process of obtaining data that resides in the Province or is the property of individuals in British Columbia is a key part of Google’s business.
Google says that even if it is concluded that it carries on business in British Columbia, the injunction was not properly granted, because it did not relate to the specific business activities that Google carries on in the Province. In my view, the business carried on in British Columbia is an integral part of Google’s overall operations. Its success as a search engine depends on collecting data from websites throughout the world (including British Columbia) and providing search results (accompanied by targeted advertising) throughout the world (including British Columbia). The business conducted in British Columbia, in short, is the same business as is targeted by the injunction.
Read the full article on Tech Dirt
With the greatest respect,I do not mean to get “Political” But I see all the time raids by FBI in the UK, extraditions from the UK and many many examples the USA contending that it has jurisdiction whereever it can prove a link with the USA. Now reverse that and you can see how it will be quite easy for China ,Canada et al to argue that it to has jurisdiction anywhere that there is a connection with their Country.
this is an exact match-analogy on how the EU sees nationality and duals. the only other analogy i could think, would be an embargo.
wait, Doesnt the US already penalizes foreign companies on foreign soils should they dare to do business
with an us-embargoed country ?
How is that any different than Canada’s ruling ? just saying as well …
Just wait for North Korea to order Google to globally block all negative reference to North Korea.
I hope this post doesn’t disappear like the ICM post did.
I think at best, any country could compell “global” blocking of websites based on geological location of the enquirer (this content is not available in your geolocation) though limited to ISP implementation, perhaps Google caneven be compelled to comply on that front.
However, they could not be compelled to institute restrictions on individual’s outside Canada without infringing on the rights of another countries population…at least not without placing their own population at risk of interference by foreign countries.
Especially when they so clearly set precedent.
Not to mention the issues regarding VPNs and the concept of a “free internet”
If the website in question happens to be hosted in Canada, then that would certainly be a valid request for global blocking, though all the website would need to relocate servers outside Canadian control.
And what happens when another court or country orders them to UNblock it?
It would be better to have a mechanism that allows courts to legally place such orders at the domain level and shut it that way. While some of the GTLD operators accept court orders and impliment them it is entirely voluntary if they don’t reside in the order granting country.
I do see an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court coming. I really think the courts have got this wrong and simply don’t understand the ultimate consequences of what they’re ordering. The China and North Korea examples others have mentioned are excellent examples of what will come.