Canada Supreme Court orders Google censorship worldwide
BartSimpson @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:19 am
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canad ... SKBN19J27N
$1:
Full title: Canada's top court rules Google must block some results worldwide
Canadian courts can force internet search leader Google to remove results worldwide, the country's top court ruled on Wednesday, drawing criticism from civil liberties groups arguing such a move sets a precedent for censorship on the internet.
In its 7-2 decision, Canada's Supreme Court found that a court in the country can grant an injunction preventing conduct anywhere in the world when it is necessary to ensure the injunction's effectiveness.
"The internet has no borders - its natural habitat is global," the Supreme Court wrote in its judgment. "The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates - globally."
Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc, did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The case stems from claims by Equustek Solutions Inc, a small technology company in British Columbia that manufactures network devices, that distributor Datalink Technologies Gateways relabeled one of its products and sold it as its own online and acquired trade secrets to design and manufacture a competing product.
In 2012, Equustek asked Google to remove Datalink search results until the case against the company was resolved. While Google removed over 300 specific web pages associated with Datalink, it did so only on the Canadian version of its search engine.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia subsequently ordered Google to stop displaying search results in any country for any part of Datalink's websites.
In its appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada, Google had argued that the global reach of the order was unnecessary and that it raised concerns over freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court rejected Google's argument that the right to freedom of expression should have prevented the order from being issued.
"This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values," the court wrote in its ruling. "We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods."
The global reach was necessary, according to the court, because if the removed search results were restricted to Canada alone, purchasers both in and out of Canada could easily continue to find and buy from Datalink.
OpenMedia, a Canadian group campaigning for open communications, opposed the ruling.
"There is great risk that governments and commercial entities will see this ruling as justifying censorship requests that could result in perfectly legal and legitimate content disappearing off the web because of a court order in the opposite corner of the globe," said OpenMedia spokesman David Christopher.
Google cannot appeal the Supreme Court ruling. If the company has evidence that complying with the order would force it to violate other countries' laws, including interfering with freedom of expression, it can apply to the British Columbia court to alter the order, the Supreme Court said, noting Google has not made such an application.
Canadian courts can force internet search leader Google to remove results worldwide, the country's top court ruled on Wednesday, drawing criticism from civil liberties groups arguing such a move sets a precedent for censorship on the internet.
In its 7-2 decision, Canada's Supreme Court found that a court in the country can grant an injunction preventing conduct anywhere in the world when it is necessary to ensure the injunction's effectiveness.
"The internet has no borders - its natural habitat is global," the Supreme Court wrote in its judgment. "The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates - globally."
Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc, did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The case stems from claims by Equustek Solutions Inc, a small technology company in British Columbia that manufactures network devices, that distributor Datalink Technologies Gateways relabeled one of its products and sold it as its own online and acquired trade secrets to design and manufacture a competing product.
In 2012, Equustek asked Google to remove Datalink search results until the case against the company was resolved. While Google removed over 300 specific web pages associated with Datalink, it did so only on the Canadian version of its search engine.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia subsequently ordered Google to stop displaying search results in any country for any part of Datalink's websites.
In its appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada, Google had argued that the global reach of the order was unnecessary and that it raised concerns over freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court rejected Google's argument that the right to freedom of expression should have prevented the order from being issued.
"This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values," the court wrote in its ruling. "We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods."
The global reach was necessary, according to the court, because if the removed search results were restricted to Canada alone, purchasers both in and out of Canada could easily continue to find and buy from Datalink.
OpenMedia, a Canadian group campaigning for open communications, opposed the ruling.
"There is great risk that governments and commercial entities will see this ruling as justifying censorship requests that could result in perfectly legal and legitimate content disappearing off the web because of a court order in the opposite corner of the globe," said OpenMedia spokesman David Christopher.
Google cannot appeal the Supreme Court ruling. If the company has evidence that complying with the order would force it to violate other countries' laws, including interfering with freedom of expression, it can apply to the British Columbia court to alter the order, the Supreme Court said, noting Google has not made such an application.
BartSimpson @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:23 am
I'm sorry to say this but Canada's Supreme Court can go fuck itself. I'm fine with them saying what can or cannot be allowed in Canada but this order doesn't amount to even a handfull of fuckall anywhere else in the world.
I look forward to the people from Google asking the Trump Administration for a hand in telling your court to shove this order up its collective ass.
DrCaleb @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:33 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'm sorry to say this but Canada's Supreme Court can go fuck itself. I'm fine with them saying what can or cannot be allowed in Canada but this order doesn't amount to even a handfull of fuckall anywhere else in the world.
So, you don't think Trademarks in Canada apply in the rest of the world, but the US thought the rest of the world should respect it's copyright rules through such treaties as the TPP?
And I know you aren't in favour if it, but the US did send an FBI tac team plus helicopters to deliver a copyright infringement charge to Kim Dotcom in New Zealand. Then proceeded to sell off his seized assets in other countries because he has the audacity to fight his extradition to the US, where he's never been!
I don't think, in that light, that a Canadian Companies trademark should get any less respect.
DrCaleb @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:36 am
The US government is also suing Microsoft for data on it's servers in Ireland, because the US feels it's courts should have rulings worldwide.
Pot, this is kettle . . .
DrCaleb @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:46 am
Also, the title is misleading. It's not 'censorship'. As the court wrote: "This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values," the court wrote in its ruling. "We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods."
BartSimpson @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:11 am
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'm sorry to say this but Canada's Supreme Court can go fuck itself. I'm fine with them saying what can or cannot be allowed in Canada but this order doesn't amount to even a handfull of fuckall anywhere else in the world.
So, you don't think Trademarks in Canada apply in the rest of the world, but the US thought the rest of the world should respect it's copyright rules through such treaties as the TPP?
And I know you aren't in favour if it, but the US did send an FBI tac team plus helicopters to deliver a copyright infringement charge to Kim Dotcom in New Zealand. Then proceeded to sell off his seized assets in other countries because he has the audacity to fight his extradition to the US, where he's never been!
I don't think, in that light, that a Canadian Companies trademark should get any less respect.
I already said the US is dead wrong with the Kim Dot Com issue. Ditto on Ireland, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Just because my country is run by assholes doesn't mean your country has to do the same shit.
And this is not about copyright or trademark infringement, this is about censoring the search results of a search engine.
DrCaleb @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:08 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'm sorry to say this but Canada's Supreme Court can go fuck itself. I'm fine with them saying what can or cannot be allowed in Canada but this order doesn't amount to even a handfull of fuckall anywhere else in the world.
So, you don't think Trademarks in Canada apply in the rest of the world, but the US thought the rest of the world should respect it's copyright rules through such treaties as the TPP?
And I know you aren't in favour if it, but the US did send an FBI tac team plus helicopters to deliver a copyright infringement charge to Kim Dotcom in New Zealand. Then proceeded to sell off his seized assets in other countries because he has the audacity to fight his extradition to the US, where he's never been!
I don't think, in that light, that a Canadian Companies trademark should get any less respect.
I already said the US is dead wrong with the Kim Dot Com issue. Ditto on Ireland, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
I know you don't, but . . .
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Just because my country is run by assholes doesn't mean your country has to do the same shit.
And this is not about copyright or trademark infringement, this is about censoring the search results of a search engine.
And this is not about copyright or trademark infringement, this is about censoring the search results of a search engine.
Yes, it is. From a similar article posted on the front page:
$1:
The case involved the company Equustek Solutions based in Burnaby B.C., which manufacturers networking technology. Equustek had successfully sued another company for relabelling its products and passing them off as their own.
The offending company left B.C. and Google voluntarily removed hundreds of webpages from its Canadian search results on Google.ca. But the material continued to show up on Google's global search results.
So Equustek obtained a further injunction from the court ordering Google to remove the websites from its global search results.
The offending company left B.C. and Google voluntarily removed hundreds of webpages from its Canadian search results on Google.ca. But the material continued to show up on Google's global search results.
So Equustek obtained a further injunction from the court ordering Google to remove the websites from its global search results.
http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=102136
It's about trademark, and enforcing that trademark globally. If Google wants to do business in Canada, then they can play by our rules. If not, they can leave like they did in China.
martin14 @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:10 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
So, you don't think Trademarks in Canada apply in the rest of the world,
Are you losing it ? Because they don't.
Until
$1:
but the US thought the rest of the world should respect it's copyright rules through such treaties as the TPP?
When other countries agree to it, then fine.
DrCaleb @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:22 pm
martin14 martin14:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
So, you don't think Trademarks in Canada apply in the rest of the world,
Are you losing it ? Because they don't.
Until
$1:
but the US thought the rest of the world should respect it's copyright rules through such treaties as the TPP?
When other countries agree to it, then fine.
They do. Pretty much every trade deal we sign includes mutual enforcement of intellectual Properties, Trademarks and Copyrights since 1925.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointer ... 02322.html
Most, if not all, of the western world respects each others laws with respect to these. Something trademarked in Canada will be trademarked in most of the rest of the world.
Including BC.
martin14 @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:34 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Most, if not all, of the western world respects each others laws with respect to these. Something trademarked in Canada will be trademarked in most of the rest of the world.Including BC.
Only because an application for the trademark will be made at the same time in
different jurisdictions.
And there is some leeway for precedent, to force changes when needed.
BartSimpson @ Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:33 pm
This issue is about censoring the results of a search page and that's a form of speech.
Google is not selling the infringing product.
DrCaleb @ Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:34 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
This issue is about censoring the results of a search page and that's a form of speech.
Google is not selling the infringing product.
Google is not selling the infringing product.
Once again, free speech is not served by the fraudulent advertising of goods. Google already voluntarily removed links to the products in Canada, all the courts did was make them enforce it for their entire database.
Canadian_Mind @ Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:29 am
I'm with Caleb and the Courts on this one. No one will be harmed by this ruling but the group that committed fraudulent activity.
BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:56 am
I'm sorry but Canada nor any other country has no fucking business trying to enforce their laws on the rest of the world.
How would you people feel if Russia or China enforced their speech laws on people in Canada? Are you going to extradite your citizens to their courts to face punishment for things that are not crimes in Canada?
Hey, better yet; remind me again how you people feel about the US extraditing Canadians who sell pot? 
DrCaleb @ Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:11 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'm sorry but Canada nor any other country has no fucking business trying to enforce their laws on the rest of the world.
They aren't. The court is enforcing a decision on a business that operates in Canada, with branches throughout the world. It can't continue to ignore a court order in a jurisdiction in which it legally operates.
I don't know any part of the world that gives free speech exceptions to things like child porn, advocating violence, and false statements, for example are not considered free speech anywhere that I've heard of. Nor is fraud. So it would be enforcing local rules, through a Canadian court.
Or would you prefer that a foreign company continue to profit off the hard work and reputation of another, just because they are beyond what you perceive as Canadian jurisdiction?
That's the problem with Globalization, there is no such thing as 'local' anymore.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
How would you people feel if Russia or China enforced their speech laws on people in Canada?
They can't. Once again, company operating in Canada must abide by Canadian Law. Not the same as the laws of another country being enforceable inside Canada.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Are you going to extradite your citizens to their courts to face punishment for things that are not crimes in Canada?
Hey, better yet; remind me again how you people feel about the US extraditing Canadians who sell pot?
Hey, better yet; remind me again how you people feel about the US extraditing Canadians who sell pot?
*cough*Mark Emery*cough*