Canadian Court: Yes, We Can Order Google To Block Websites Globally

from the that-seems-like-a-problem dept

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.

Unfortunately, the court has now ruled against Google, using the same sort of logic the lower court did -- basically arguing that because Google is available in British Columbia, the court has jurisdiction, and because it's trying to stop what it deems to be illegal actions from reaching Canada's shores, it has every right to order Google to block things worldwide, lest someone from British Columbia decide to type "google.com" into their browser to avoid the "google.ca." On the question of "doing business" in BC, 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.
In other words, if you don't want to be subject to the laws of BC (with control over your entire global operations) don't index websites based in BC? That's crazy. While I doubt it will happen, it's got to be tempting for some at Google to just say "okay, no more Google for BC or any website in BC."

Now as for the nutty idea that a court in BC has jurisdiction over all of Google's global operations, again, the court doesn't seem even remotely concerned about that. It's response is basically "yeah, so?"
Google raises the specter of it being subjected to restrictive orders from courts in all parts of the world, each concerned with its own domestic law. I agree with the chambers judge that it is the world-wide nature of Google’s business and not any defect in the law that gives rise to that possibility. As well, however, the threat of multi-jurisdictional control over Google’s operations is, in my opinion, overstated. Courts must, in exercising their powers, consider many factors other than territorial competence and the existence of in personam jurisdiction over the parties. Courts must exercise considerable restraint in granting remedies that have international ramifications.
And it notes that previous cases have said that, sure, BC courts have "worldwide jurisdiction."
At one time the courts of this Province refrained from granting injunctions that enjoined activities outside of British Columbia.... In 1988, however, the English Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to issue a worldwide Mareva injunction.... It is now over 25 years since the Supreme Court of British Columbia first issued a worldwide injunction.... The jurisdiction to do so was re-confirmed .... and is, today, well-established.
Google, quite reasonably, points out that while injunctions make sense against parties that actually break the law, it makes no sense to issue an injunction against a third party that has nothing to do with the party that actually broke the law. The court goes on a long and winding road saying "sure, but... in this case, it's okay."

Finally, the court addresses another concern raised by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, noting that banning access to a website worldwide has serious free speech consequences. Once again, the court says "sure, but, we don't care in this case."
For that reason, courts should be very cautious in making orders that might place limits on expression in another country. Where there is a realistic possibility that an order with extraterritorial effect may offend another state’s core values, the order should not be made.

In the case before us, there is no realistic assertion that the judge’s order will offend the sensibilities of any other nation. It has not been suggested that the order prohibiting the defendants from advertising wares that violate the intellectual property rights of the plaintiffs offends the core values of any nation. The order made against Google is a very limited ancillary order designed to ensure that the plaintiffs’ core rights are respected.

I note, as well, that the order in this case is an interlocutory one, and one that can be varied by the court. In the unlikely event that any jurisdiction finds the order offensive to its core values, an application could be made to the court to modify the order so as to avoid the problem.
In short, sure, banning speech around the globe from one court in British Columbia, Canada could have serious global free speech concerns, but... we really don't like this website, so we're not going to change the ruling. In fact, later in the ruling, the court basically says "hey, the idea that there may be some 'legitimate' speech on this website we're ordering blocked globally is totally speculative":
There has, in the course of argument, been some reference to the possibility that the defendants (or others) might wish to use their websites for legitimate free speech, rather than for unlawfully marketing the GW1000. That possibility, it seems to me, is entirely speculative. There is no evidence that the websites in question have ever been used for lawful purposes, nor is there any reason to believe that the domain names are in any way uniquely suitable for any sort of expression other than the marketing of the illegal product. Of course, if the character of the websites changes, it is always open to the defendants or others to seek a variation of the injunction.
And, thus, British Columbia believes it can order global blocking of any website its courts deem problematic in BC. One wonders if we'll start to see "censorship tourism" migrating to BC courts now that its doors are open for global censorship orders.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Chris, 12 Jun 2015 @ 5:41am

    I feel great shame as a Canadian at the hubris of this court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 5:46am

    Google should just block all of Canada from accessing their websites.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:19am

      Re:

      why not just target the isp's of the people behind this moronic choice instead of punishing the everyday citizens that have nothing to do with it

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:25am

        Re: Re:

        Because the citizens DESERVE to be punished for the government they just let run a muck.

        If you don't stop evil, then you will just get all up in your face.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Machin Shin (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          By that logic America just needs to be cut off from the internet entirely for the stupid stuff our government has been doing.

          Sad thing is, as much as I would hate loosing the internet, I almost think it would be a good thing. People here need to wake up and take back control of our government.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            that is how humans are. they must see a real tangible effect before they even pay things any mind, let alone making any informed decisions.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Pragmatic, 15 Jun 2015 @ 6:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It starts by holding your Congresscritters to account. Call and email your reps on those issues you deem important and keep an eye on what they vote for. If we all get into the habit of doing so we can keep them on their toes. As it is, there's not enough of us doing this.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 12:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          DESERVE? LMAO wow, I guess you DESERVE to have your ass spanked until you can not sit down for a month.

          If you don't stop evil commenters, they they will just get up in all of our faces.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 9:38am

      Re:

      No.
      Anyway, who uses google now anyway, startpage gets google results as if you were on google without the crap (and I got AdblockEdge and bunch of other mandatory addons, so they can't even personalize my search,which is the most controling aspect of google, it thinks everyone have one track minds with maybe 3 subjects of interest online, at best.That might be true for people in their late 50's and older, as for me, the internet has got me to learn how to get practically billingual (I'm french canadian).

      Use ixquick or duckuckgo for results not indexed by google. Supreme Court of Canada could intervene and put an end to this too, like they do with our current PM, even with his small majority he manages to get get 1/3 of his fascistic laws and edicts annulled by the our Santa Clauses (our SP, their dress is basically a santa claus costume without the hat heh. Gives me more fuel to vote BQ again since Duceppe is coming back at the head os a party, because first past the post elections and by percentage. Shit, we have 3 to 4 (2 were bitchslapped in 2008 and 2011, that time in 2011 it was for contempt of parliament..which automatically dissolves it and new elections start, but that time the fucker was prepared, with people who worked with karl Rove (yes, he brought in Bush Jr. election people in for money in return) and he still barely got the most ridings(districts for the american equivalent?,anyway), but that time he became Dictator of Canada with a majority that could have have been prevented, had the Liberals been less..well, they don't like the NDP because they are leftist party, while Liberals are Left to Centre Left, but add these 2 together and we could have had our first ever coaliation government, would have been worth it for us.

      By the way back on topic, like I said, the Supreme Court (of Canada, not the provincial SP)wont let that stand if the defendants are to pursue this. I think all of the internet is gonna be laughing off their asses, who's gonna stop people living in BC....for a quite Liberal/New Democratic Party, with also the sole Green Party seat, I'm surprised their court would be filled like small minded people like that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:07am

        Re: Re:

        "That might be true for people in their late 50's and older"

        No. It is no more true for them than it is for younger people.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:26am

        Re: Re:

        "Anyway, who uses google now anyway, startpage gets google results as if you were on google without the crap"

        So... if you use it you're still using Google, you're just using a different frontend.

        "the internet has got me to learn how to get practically billingual (I'm french canadian)."

        I'm pretty sure there were a lot of bilingual French Canadians before the internet as well. Congrats on using such a useful tool for actual education, though.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    avideogameplayer, 12 Jun 2015 @ 5:47am

    Google should just ignore the ruling...let's see what BC has to say about that...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Zonker, 12 Jun 2015 @ 12:29pm

      Re:

      BC Court: Didn't we order you to censor the internet globally for us? Why is it still uncensored?

      Google: Sure you did, but we don't care in this case.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bergman (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 11:40am

        Re: Re:

        Since Google has no servers, employees or anything else in BC, what would happen if Google did ignore the order? I mean, as far as I know, Google doesn't have any of those things in North Korea either. Nobody cares what a rogue state whines about.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Erin, 13 Jun 2015 @ 3:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          BC would have to push the ruling to a federal court as they have no jurisdiction over a company that has no presence in the province, no matter what they try to claim. They could try to apply fines or whatever but those could be ignored just as easily as the ruling itself. What's BC going to do? Apply a China-style firewall to block Googlebot? Which would then drag ISPs into the mix and start a whole new round of "why the hell are you punishing us for an unrelated crime?" questions.

          If they push it to a federal court and the federal court also agrees, then Google is in a bit more trouble. At that point they'd have to either comply or remove their local CDN and google.ca. Of course there's still the question of how much that would matter to Google. It would mostly hurt Canadian companies that rely on Google's advertising network, but it would have minimal impact on Google and minimal impact on searches (typing .com isn't that much harder than .ca!) Might have a significant impact on things like Youtube in Canada (CDNs are gone so we'd be streaming from the US.)

          Overall, short of one of those China-style provincial (or national, if it comes to that) firewalls that I mentioned, there's basically a whole lot of squat Canada could really do to enforce this because the internet is a global phenomena and unlike the similar situation in France, most Canadians wouldn't really care a whole lot if they had to use the US servers to do their searching.

          All that of course is assuming Google's willing to risk a war of attrition in order to stick by the principles of free speech. I somewhat hope they will as this is a horrendous precedent to set. Canada and France and wherever else don't seem to want to consider the fact that if we're applying our local censorship to China, China has a much stronger argument for enforcing their (significantly worse) censorship back on us.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 5:48am

    And what exactly are they going to do if Google refuses?
    Block them? That would be interesting.
    But let's say Google/Bing/Yahoo/... complies. How long will it take for someone to sue Google/Bing/Yahoo/... in US for stifling the free speech?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:00am

      Re:

      The court will no doubt Give Google to pay a fine perhaps of the daily kind for every day Google refuses to comply until Google complies and blocks the site in question.

      Whether the court can actually enforce a fine and force Google to comply and pay up is another matter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:07am

        Re: Re:

        Would the US comply with an asset seizure order from Canada against Google's US assets? The thinks that they can seize Assets in New Zealand that belong to assets Kim Dotcom who has never set foot in the US, so a request from Canada would be honored wouldn't it?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Aquifel, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The Canadian government cares greatly about how the US government feels about them. The US government barely cares at all about how the Canadian government feels about them, frequently forgets that they aren't some kind of US territory.

          I would bet a whole paycheck that the US would either not comply with an asset seizure order or, more likely, drag it out until the courts gave up.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:04am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If Canada does send a request to the US to have money/assets from Google as payment for any such fine you can sure bet the US will refuse to comply and grant such a request even though the US fully expects NZ to bend over with complying and granting with handing over all of Dotcom's money and assets etc.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2015 @ 5:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Google has a Canadian subsidiary, Google Canada Ltd, office, assets etc. It's not necessary for a Canadian court to seize Google's US assets, they have plenty in Canada and elsewhere.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:26am

      Re:

      "And what exactly are they going to do if Google refuses?
      Block them? That would be interesting."

      Yeah that was my first thought. They have no direct jurisdiction over Google, and the collateral damage inflicted against local companies by any such block would dwarf any punitive effect inflicted on Google. According to a rough calculation, BC represents 0.06% of the world's population. I'm sure Google will be fine without them for a while. A lot of local business could well suffer - but they're as much innocent bystanders as Google themselves..

      "But let's say Google/Bing/Yahoo/... complies. How long will it take for someone to sue Google/Bing/Yahoo/... in US for stifling the free speech?"

      Is there an American law the blocks a private company from doing this (I believe that the 1st amendment only covers US government censorship)? Especially since they're not blocking anything, they're just not providing a tool for the speech to be located as easily? The speech is still there, you just couldn't use Google's platform to locate it (but, as you rightly note, they have many competitors who have not been asked to block anything).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:34am

        Re: Re:

        The US courts are government so a US court order wouldn't stand.

        I could just see the algorithm suddenly deprecating every thing from BC and then .CA a few points. What do you mean the only Pizza shop in Nukko Lake BC is on the bottom of the second page of search results for Nukko Lake Pizza?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2015 @ 5:01pm

      Re:

      Google has several offices in Canada and has revenues, bank accounts etc so fining them wouldn't be a problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 5:48am

    If I was google, I would just block access in all of Canada then give them an appropriate number to call and complain. The problem will get sorted out within hours.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 5:51am

    So about my theory that power causes a form of brain damage...

    This again appears to be based in the magical thinking that Google = The Internet.

    One of these times, I would really like to see Google say f' it again and give them exactly what they want. I imagine that blackholeing BC or all of Canada from Google explaining that the liability to index anything in CA is to great to do so might get people talking... and maybe someone with a modicum of technical knowledge would clue some Judges in.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    About Time, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:07am

    "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"

    JUST like torrent sites, then! Even mentions "intellectual property".

    Of course Masnick worries will spread because has the view that "free speech" covers EVERY web-site for EVERY purpose -- especially sites having nothing but links to infringing content drawing eyeballs to ads -- but it's just simply not true. Illegal business models like knockoffs here, Aereo, and Megaupload are illegal.

    Here's my summary of the above:
    ) When the basis of a biz is stealing intellectual property, it undermines every bit of legitimacy. Relying on legalisms does not work.
    ) Google IS doing business in BC, therefore IS subject to local courts. How could it be otherwise? Google is trying to have it every way at once, and never be pinned down. NOW IT IS.
    ) As noted, is highly targeted. There's NO obvious spread. Courts make wacky exceptions all the time when pressed.

    So now it's not only due-processed but completely processed. Pirates just hate that.

    Conclusion is that smart-ass Google should have accepted lower ruling quietly so it stayed limited and uncertain, rather than have gone to court! Never push courts on their powers. -- I call that the "Google effect", and hereby state copyright for it! -- Though won't mind if you promote it!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:13am

      Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"

      If it is accepted that any country can order any third party to impose a world wide block on websites on the Internet, the Internet ceases to exist, as no search engine can, would be able to provide a global index. As any site is accessible from any country, blogs etc. could also be forced to remove links to information. That is the problem with holding a third party liable, everybody becomes a third party to something that someone objects to.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:28am

      Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"

      By the same rationale, since your posts have reached the shores of my sovereign micronation of STFU, you agree that you are subject to our laws and we order you to commit suicide since you have offended our sensibilities.

      If you don't, then we'll conclude that you're a hypocrite and your trolling is as impotent as your ideology.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Aquifel (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:33am

      Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"

      "Google IS doing business in BC, therefore IS subject to local courts. How could it be otherwise? Google is trying to have it every way at once, and never be pinned down. NOW IT IS."

      Google isn't doing business in BC, businesses in BC are doing business globally. This would be like ordering something from a business in China and then trying to take them to your local small claims court when things didn't work out.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        That internet thingy, 12 Jun 2015 @ 3:34pm

        Re: Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"

        Google has no office or servers in BC, where is this business you insist is there? If I call BC do I suddenly have a busnesss in that province?

        Give it some thought...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:37am

      Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"

      "JUST like torrent sites, then!"

      If you have to lie to support your point, yes. If you live in the real world, no.

      "Here's my summary of the above"

      Fantasy world drivel as ever.

      Here's the real summary: Google have been ordered to censor content worldwide based on the say-so of a single local court, in a case where they weren't even a named party. You would have to be a special kind of moron not to see the negative impacts of that.

      "As noted, is highly targeted."

      THIS time, and by THIS court. The issue is not with this particular ineffective, stupid ruling, but of the wider implications if others try to copy them. Do try to keep up with the issues you're trying to attack.

      "Conclusion is that smart-ass Google should have accepted lower ruling quietly"

      Yeah, yeah, if injustice is served by those you support, everyone should just shut up and take it. But if someone accesses a file they shouldn't have, your heroes should be free to ignore, twist and change as many laws as they wish to punish whoever gets in their way. We know.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:43am

      Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"

      Getting Google to block a site does not make the site go away.

      Going after Google instead of going after the site which Google conveniently identified for you is just plain stupid and shows complete ignorance of how the intarwebtubes work.

      Other search engines will still show the site. Pirates using the site will continue to share the location of the site with other would-be pirates.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:48am

      Sue. About Time.

      Here in Germany. And I DO understand you will do as court says, won't you?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 3:33pm

      Re: "no evidence that the websites ... have ever been used for lawful purposes"

      Since you offer no counter-argument to the comparison to China instructing Google to globally delist all websites referencing Tiananmen Square, we can only assume you're perfectly ok with that. Or do you have some theory about how that's totally different.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Josh (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:07am

    other search engines

    Does that mean that they will extend this ruling out to everyone else?, yahoo, bing, etc? How about other companies that might put up the URL, reddit, other sites?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:15am

      Re: other search engines

      Any site might link to something some country determines to be illegal, and therefore subject to an injunction to remove it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:50am

        Re: Re: other search engines

        It's worse than that. The court is saying that any original content that you might decide to put up on the internet should be subject to the laws of every nation on Earth simultaneously.

        If we take the court seriously (which we should not do), this means that it is impossible to put anything but the most trivial content on the net.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:52am

      Re: other search engines

      and wont other sites/blogs/etc such as this article also need to be blocked? when will it end!?!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Grumpy Disheartened Canadian, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:10am

    I, too, would love to see Google block access to their services for all of BC. On top of that, Google should also cease indexing all BC related websites and/or prevent these sites from appearing in searches.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:17am

      Re:

      It would be much easier for Google, and the other search engines to block all access from Canadian IP addresses. The problem is that might well suite your current leader, who seems to be determine to control all the information that your citizens can see.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Grumpy Disheartened Canadian, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:25am

        Re: Re:

        Sad and all too true. Praying he'll be ousted next election. You're right about blocking all of Canada as well. This would have a much larger impact and hopefully get the ball rolling on reforms sooner rather than later.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:17am

    That sword cuts both ways

    So can a ${countryX} court order Google to block all Canadian commercial sites because they represent immoral greedy Western blasphemous values and are illegal under ${theoryX} laws?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Grumpy Disheartened Canadian, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:30am

      Re: That sword cuts both ways

      If Google were to block BC (or all of Canada) from being indexed and disallow all access to Google services by Canadians, they could just say they had to do so because some lowly court in another country made them do it lol. Seems fair, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Smiling Canadians, 12 Jun 2015 @ 3:44pm

        Re: Re: That sword cuts both ways

        Happy VPN users will not see the blocks as an issue. Striking a left handed blow for privacy maybe?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:17am

    world gone mad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:20am

      Re:

      Its just the politicians and other power seekers gone mad. They really do hate it when people can talk to lots of other people, rather than listening to them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:29am

    Pig Guns

    Google needs to pull out the big guns.

    1st, they should make sure that the Streisand effect causes the blocked website to get more traffic than ever before.

    2nd, replace result links to the site with the word with Blame Canada playing in the background.

    3rd arrange for a sequel to the South Park movie to be made about this incident.

    and finally

    divert traffic away from canada and canadian made products.

    I suspect that would get a bit of attention.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dingledore the Flabberghaster, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:29am

    That's kind of why the concept of jurisdiction exists.

    What would happen if a court somewhere else issued a ruling insisting that Google must show this site in search results globally. Which court would have precedence?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Grumpy Disheartened Canadian, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:34am

      Re: That's kind of why the concept of jurisdiction exists.

      World War 3 begins when resolution is deemed impossible. Thanks a lot, BC! ;-)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:23am

      Re: That's kind of why the concept of jurisdiction exists.

      That. Google could throw a ton of shit in the fan by starting to apply decisions delivered elsewhere to the BC jurisdiction. When they complain just point that if they think their stuff id valid globally then they shouldn't complain of other countries messing with them. I'd love to see some mandated "Allah is great! Westerns have a pact with the devil!" phrase on Google main pages in BC or something (just to go with the current "Arabs are bad" stereotype).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 4:26pm

      Re: That's kind of why the concept of jurisdiction exists.

      "Which court would have precedence?"

      The one with the bigger army.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Christopher (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:41am

    You can issue injunctions all you want.

    Good luck enforcing them.

    --#

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 4:29pm

      Re: You can issue injunctions all you want.

      "Good luck enforcing them."

      Yeah, it's not like they have government power behind them or anything.
      /s

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:45am

    Let me get this straight

    If I can get my own regional court to pass a case granting global jurisdiction, and I can get my regional Supreme Court to uphold my right to have global jurisdiction, then I have global jurisdiction?

    Cool. Let me grab my checkbook.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:49am

    Back to basics

    There is nothing that says anyone must use a search engine. The underlying code for searching has been available for many many years - all the way back to SWISH and SWISH-E. Anyone can run their own web indexing engine, given a big enough drive farm to store the index. And with the price of drives these days, or using mega amounts of cloud storage (pun intended) - this becomes possible.

    They will eventually have to make it illegal to search. And illegal to use the internet.

    And the Phoenix of WWIV will rise from the ashes of the internet. Then what will they do? Outlaw modems?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jimmy (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 6:55am

    VPN

    I believe they feel they have to do this, since as we all know, all Canadians use VPNs to steal Netflix and would use said VPN to circumvent any blocking of sites from within Canada.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:00am

    If Google had any semblance of ethics they'd self-police themselves like every other legitimate company does. But instead they're now dealing with the hubris of their greed. Karma is a bitch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:09am

      Re:

      Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll........ Troooooooollllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:10am

      Re:

      "If Google had any semblance of ethics they'd self-police themselves like every other legitimate company does."

      Ah, the idiot brigade has backup. So, how does Google "self-censor" in this case, which two companies completely unrelated to it had a dispute it was not involved in?

      Yeah, yeah, you don't like Google. Leave that aside - in the real world, how would you expect this to be handled before the courts dragged them in on a case to they were not previously party in any way?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:17am

        Re: Re:

        Didn't you know, Google has magic powers and they can spot illegal or dodgy stuff automatically, it's just they're too lazy to go through all of it to block the stuff that they should magically know needs to be taken down. /s

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendants. But, the defendants continued to sell the offending goods over the Internet. The plaintiffs, unable to enforce their judgment, asked for Google’s help in blocking the website. Google de-indexed specific URL’s requested by the plaintiffs, but this “whac-a-mole” process was ineffective. When Google refused to de-index the offending websites from its search results, the plaintiffs brought a motion against Google for interim relief requiring Google to de-index the websites."

          Google is a completely shady company only concerned with making billions off of surveillance and selling crappy advertising. They brought this judgement upon themselves. Karma is a bitch.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 11:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So that site that Google is told to block is 100% illegal across the entire world? Google should have the right to remove sites like that? What next, should we give China or North Korea the right to tell Google what sites to block world wide? I think that Google is ethically right in that decision. If the BC courts want to have the site removed, go after the source not the person who makes the maps.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            JMT (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 3:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            But I bet you're still happy to use their free products every day.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 9:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I refuse to use anything related to Google.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 2:06am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And yet here you are.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "I refuse to use anything related to Google."

                Including facts and logic when commenting on stories related to them, and refusing to answer direct questions like the one I posed.

                You hate their business model so refuse to use their services? Cool, just like I do with numerous companies I dislike. However, I never feel the need to whine about them anonymously whenever they're mentioned. I wonder why you feel that need.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 9:28am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  According to the Copia link at the bottom of the homepage of Techdirt Techdirt is sponsored by Google amongst other companies that are mentioned. From this a person could make the argument that this site being sponsored by Google is in a way related to Google and as such the person who you replied to is wrong is stating "I refuse to use anything related to Google." being as this site is therefore related to Google because of sponsorship.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:12am

      Re:

      Hey, not a problem, I mean I'm sure that would be dirt cheap to do, so why don't you offer to handle it for them? Should be easy enough right, so I'm sure you'll be able to get through every single site they index and spot with 100% accuracy the ones that need to be de-listed, while agreeing to be held personally accountable for any mistakes you make.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bureau13 (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:44am

      Re:

      Must be a slow day in Mother Russia, no, comrade? No Putin threads to comment on today?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:23am

      Re:

      If Hollywood had any semblance of ethics they'd self-censor themselves and stop publishing things that people could copy.

      They would also stop focusing on Google and focus on websites actually engaged in infringement.

      Clue: there are search engines other than Google that let people find infringing content.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:22pm

      Re:

      Name one.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stan Feinstein, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:08am

    WOW

    The only countries more fascist than the US are: Australia > Canada >UK. Period. No discussion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:08am

    hopefully, Google will pull out of BC, just as it did with it's news service in Spain. how dare Canada think it can do something like this! anyone would think it was the USA!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:21am

    I doubth google would fuck over everyone in BC just because of one judge. Collective punishment is illegal and they would get sued.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:48am

      Re:

      Sued for not providing service to someone based on their location? Like NetFlix and other content companies do already?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DannyB (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:24am

        Re: Re:

        And for legitimate legal reasons!

        Netflix not providing service based on location is to comply with the law.

        Google cutting off Canada would be likewise.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PRMan, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:49am

      Re:

      So? They would no longer have standing since they don't operate in that jurisdiction.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Grumpy Disheartened Canadian, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:55am

      Re:

      Google reserves the right to delist and block anyone they want. They are a private business offering a free service after all, aren't they? Do they even have offices and servers in Canada? It's actually in Google's best interest to do so until this is resolved due to the high level of legal liability being imposed on them. Google wasn't even named and is just a third party to these shenanigans. As someone else pointed out, Google isn't doing business in BC, but rather BC is doing business globally. Why should Google take on any kind of legal liability for that?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 12 Jun 2015 @ 9:43am

      Re:

      Again, for what? After all, at that point they are no longer operating AT ALL in BC. Which by serving BC, is the basis of their argument. By no longer serving BC, Google, by all measures, have stopped operating in BC - thus by their own and any other argument, would fail to have jurisdiction.

      These types of lawsuits (where Google is given 'orders' despite not even being a party to the suit) have got to stop.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 12 Jun 2015 @ 9:43am

      Re:

      Again, for what? After all, at that point they are no longer operating AT ALL in BC. Which by serving BC, is the basis of their argument. By no longer serving BC, Google, by all measures, have stopped operating in BC - thus by their own and any other argument, would fail to have jurisdiction.

      These types of lawsuits (where Google is given 'orders' despite not even being a party to the suit) have got to stop.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 3:40pm

      Re:

      I'd love to hear what actual laws you think this would break. Google are a private company and are under no legal obligation to provide their services to anyone.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jimmy (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:29am

    Delist both

    Google should just delist both the legitimate and illegitimate sites in this case. Set their own precedent. If you want to use the courts to push us around, we aren't going to be doing you any favors either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:32am

    out_of_the_blue and antidirt just hate it when due process is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:45am

    Easy payment plan

    If Google get fined for failing to block globally, the they should pay that fine with deeds from the sun lady, and suggest the court visit their new property to insure that a proper survey of their new possession is accurate.

    This makes as much sense as the ruling.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:46am

    "In other words, if you don't want to be subject to the laws of BC (with control over your entire global operations) don't index websites based in BC?"

    Please explain how that is any different than what the U.S. does with regard to the internet. And with regard to money and banking.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PRMan, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:51am

      Re:

      Canada doesn't have the largest military in the world?

      No, you're right, it's actually not as bad as what the US is already doing to Kim Dotcom.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 7:53am

    All Google has to do is to pull the plug on serving Canada with Google/Youtbue, email etc. and boycott Canada. Then see how quickly this court ruling is reversed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:07am

    Does “Internet Law” Mean “US Law”?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:08am

    Does “Internet Law” Mean “US Law”?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Flames Attractor, 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:08am

    The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,

    and pirates want you dead:

    >>> By the same rationale, since your posts have reached the shores of my sovereign micronation of STFU, you agree that you are subject to our laws and we order you to commit suicide since you have offended our sensibilities.

    No one reasonable should comment here, hate is all you'll get. Don't be deceived by the pirates who write more mildly: they're just more subtle snakes, same opinion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:31am

      Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,

      No one reasonable should comment here...

      Where did you get the crazy notion that your comments are reasonable?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:10am

        Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,

        >>No one reasonable should comment here...

        >Where did you get the crazy notion that your comments >are reasonable?

        Good job, Gwiz! You took the bait and proved the troll exactly right! Thanks for making us all look stupid.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:12am

        Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,

        >>No one reasonable should comment here...

        >Where did you get the crazy notion that your comments >are reasonable?

        Good job, Gwiz! You took the bait and proved the troll exactly right! Thanks for making us all look stupid.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 11:38am

          Re: Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,

          Lol. Nice try Blue.

          You are pretty much the only one who uses the greater than symbol instead of quotation marks or italics when quoting someone (the only other person I know who does that is a Federal agent who's comments are infinitely more intelligent than yours).

          At least you admit you are a troll though, that's a start.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:10am

      Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,

      More like, "anyone defending abuse of authority on this site can expect to have their argument shredded by a well read audience".

      But hey, I say tomay-to, you say tomah-to.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 2:05pm

      Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,

      Where was the hate? If you didn't read the satire and absurdism in the original comment (that you couldn't be bothered to respond to directly instead of creating a new thread), you're going get real butthurt at a lot of comments that aren't meant to be as mean as your sensitive little ego perceives them to be.

      But since you consider yourself reasonable, why would you comment here? Are you martyring yourself to bring the gospel of authoritarian greed to the heathen pirates who don't worship your god Moloch whose blood is running money? We appreciate the evangelism for our cursed souls, but you really don't have to try so hard for our sakes, especially since not all of us are the evil pirates you think we are...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:12am

    Dear Canada

    I see your efforts to adopt the worst of what America has to offer is proceeding nicely. Good job.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 11:46pm

      Re: Dear Canada

      Like wow man! As if we care. Everyone's stoned in BC. Wanna toke? It's 100% BC Arctic Sun.

      And man, everyone knows the PM is a stoner, strung out in Parliament's collective high, sinking to an all-time low

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nicci Stevens (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:49am

    If this were, indeed, a legitimate tact of government, then, for example, a conservative Muslim country could force Google and other search engines to say, prohibit pages that involve alcohol advertising, birth control, civil rights, etc, or, other countries could limit speed that they would deem dissent to their government even if that speech did not actually include references to their government. In countries where it is illegal to say bad things about their [insert head of state here]. The chilling effects could be a sweeping "magnificence" of prior restraint throughout the world.

    How do these issues get solved in a truly fair and equitable way? One country cannot rule the Internet, though many keep trying. Perhaps there needs to be a world body that can adjudicate these things?

    The real answer, of course, is to reduce litigiousness, prevent courts form holding third party responsible for the bad acts of people those third parties have no control or responsibility over. Like that's gonna happen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:55am

      Re:

      In my opinion, the only way that nations can address this "problem" with even the slightest amount of legitimacy is to do what China is doing: firewall the internet off.

      As bad as that is, it's far better, more fair, and more reasonable than asserting that you have the right to control what is being done everywhere on the planet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 8:58am

    I think the US should pass a law that allows us to tax Canadian businesses on all their revenue, because they might have customers in the US. We should also make sure they know that all Canadian businesses are subject to US laws and court decisions on all activities, regardless of if they are in any way connected to the US.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 9:59am

    Google Translate

    Google Translate does not have an option to translate from Canadian to English.

    Therefore, Google is unable to understand the order.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JoeCool (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:41am

    Absurd

    "As well, however, the threat of multi-jurisdictional control over Google’s operations is, in my opinion, overstated."

    And then he proceeds to show it's NOT overstated. The court wasn't even listening to itself. How do people this stupid even survive day to day life??

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mike, 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:43am

    A fun solution would be to comply, but on the main Google page have a series of links of banned sites, with this one right at the top. Create a Streisand effect, to get this site even further visibility so that no future companies try these types of lawsuits or risk having the proposed banned site at the top of the Google banned links page.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 10:50am

    This is not the first troubling thing to come from Canada. Let us not forget Brian Adams.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 5:44pm

      Re:

      This is not the first troubling thing to come from Canada. Let us not forget Brian Adams.

      You wanted to come up with a distasteful musician from Canada, and you went with "Brian (sic) Adams"?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 11:19am

    Who needs the UN? The BC courts can handle it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    sam, 12 Jun 2015 @ 12:11pm

    It'll cost them

    Google should comply...then charge them the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost them to be the worldwide police on the search for that particular item.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jameshogg (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 12:30pm

    It says a lot that this court is going after Google on a global scale instead of their ISPs on a local scale.

    It is the ISPs that provide access to out-of-state Google domains which are not under the state's jurisdiction. They should be the prime target, not a body that is not within local jurisdiction.

    But irrational Google-hatred knows no bounds. I've said this a million times, there are very good reasons to be hostile to Google: its tax dodging, its monopoly powers, its corporate lobbying, all the traditional working-class-against-the-ruling-class stances etc. But it's incredible how they are the last things people want to bash Google for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jameshogg (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      And I highly doubt everybody has forgotten the said links that were ordered to be removed.

      And I highly doubt Google's links to THOSE links have been made to be removed either.

      We're living in a wish-thinking world if we think this will do anything to attack piracy. If we've learned anything from the stupidity of the war on drugs, it is that if there is a majority demand in a black market, it will always cause a supply for that black market no matter how many times you attack the supply. Some conservatives think you should deter against the demand in the drug war by bringing in harsher punishments for possessers, but everyone knows deterrents are all talk if you can't enforce them. What bloody fool thinks you can enforce a deterrent against an infringing downloader?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 12:53pm

      Re:

      It would be a far lot easier for the court to rule that all ISP's in the country should block access to the (in their eyes offending) like the UK and a few other countries in the EU where the court has ruled to block access to certain sites then it is to force a company outside of the jurisdiction of the country to block access to the site.

      By not getting the ISP's in BC to block access to the site people in BC can still very much access the site in question.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 2:13pm

    Good for the goose

    I don't think Google should pull out of Canada entirely. No, I think they should go with the court's new embrace of global law and instead bring every other country's blocking to them. Blocking such as UK's censorship regime, China's Great Firewall, etc.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 2:52pm

    This just in .....BC has disappeared from Google Maps leaving a huge gaping goatse .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 2:58pm

    Seems it's time for Web 3.0

    Legal code cannot possibly keep up with source code. This kind of idiocy is going to lead to a web that is impossible for anyone to control.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), 12 Jun 2015 @ 9:48pm

    My sensibilities as an American are officially offended by this ignorant trashy judge.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2015 @ 11:11pm

    Google Needs to put it's foot down HARD. Or else there is no end to this road of foolishness.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Keisar Betancourt (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 3:31am

    Do it.

    All Google really needs to do is remove all connections to jurisdictions that complain and public outcry will solve the problem for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 7:51am

    I'm guessing the British are kicking themselves that they didn't think of this first.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RealityBites, 13 Jun 2015 @ 9:36am

    Disconnect the cable to the attic

    The loons living in the USA's attic need their service disconnected.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 12:58am

    The ignorance on display in British Columbia's legal system, is terrifying. "We're the good guys, so we're allowed to censor globally!"

    Hahah! I'm sure China's and Iran's legal system considers themselves the "Good Guys" too. Ignorance!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jack, 14 Jun 2015 @ 3:49pm

    Not possible. Canadians are stupid.

    Google has no control over blocking websites. They are a search engine. Either they can find existing websites, or they can't. There is not "blocking them".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    limbodog (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 9:27am

    Been thinking about this one.

    I'm not sure I'm still upset about this. They are saying "If you want to do business in Canada, then these are rules we expect you to apply everywhere."

    What if, say, they said "If you want to do business in Canada, you may not be engaged in slave trading anywhere in the world." Would that be a problem?

    To use the China example, sure, China can attempt to censor the internet globally. That's the price of doing business in China. They have zero power over my local newspaper who doesn't have reporters in China.

    The real issue, to me, comes when a company like Google or Yahoo says "Ok, we'll comply with that and censor globally".

    And forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but couldn't any company just spin off a wholly-owned subsidiary called "GoogleCanada" which *does* follow the Canada rules (or China rules etc.) and have regular Google pull out of the country?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 10:31am

      Re: Been thinking about this one.


      What if, say, they said "If you want to do business in Canada, you may not be engaged in slave trading anywhere in the world." Would that be a problem?


      Seems like the same situation to me - the Canadian court has no jurisdiction over the rest of the world to enforce what happens there. They should only be permitted to enforce rules within their own jurisdiction. Besides that, I don't think this order is in the form of "if you want to do business in BC" it's just a flat out injunction - you shall block this content worldwide, period.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        limbodog (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 10:34am

        Re: Re: Been thinking about this one.

        > Besides that, I don't think this order is in the form of "if you want to do business in BC" it's just a flat out injunction - you shall block this content worldwide, period.

        Right, however that amounts to the same as "if you want to do business here you must..."

        Because if Google wasn't doing business in Canada, they wouldn't even need to respond, right?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 12:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: Been thinking about this one.

          Because if Google wasn't doing business in Canada, they wouldn't even need to respond, right?

          There is no meaningful way in which Google is doing business in British Columbia (theoretically, the jurisdiction of this court). They have no servers, no facilities of any kind, and no employees there. Yes, they could just ignore the order, but for good reasons they like to play nice with courts and work with them rather than blowing them off.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2015 @ 12:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Been thinking about this one.

            Google has offices in Canada. It's not the US where a court order in one state is unenforceable in aother.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jun 2015 @ 11:51am

    So now Google is a "rogue website"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    albert, 17 Jan 2016 @ 4:27pm

    court order

    Datalink was a distributor of Equustek product and secretly developed a copy known as the GW1000 with the assistance of a prior employee of Equustek. BC Supreme Court orders have been issued which should prevent Datalink from operating its business and a warrant for the arrest of Morgan Jack, the only known employee, director, and shareholder has been issued. As is evident, Datalink has lied to its primary supplier, the courts, governments, customers and others.More info on http://www.equustek.info & http://www.equustek.com

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.