Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 249 posts

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#231

Post by 52-6F-62 »

uiri wrote: post #51
52-6F-62 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it). Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specifi…

Part I of the Constitution of Canada (1982) is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter outlines that these Rights and Freedoms may have reasonable limits placed upon them in accordance with the principles of a free and democratic society. This alone - reading each constitution - demonstrates the fundamental difference in approach that each country's legal system takes to its freedoms.

Yes! Thanks. It was Part 1, Section 2 I was referring to initially and mixed my terms.

I think your takeaway is quite true. Personally, I don't think we've yet resolved which approach is better, though as you can probably tell by my other comments I'm leaning toward Canada's. That's open to change, but not yet.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#232

Post by 52-6F-62 »

syshum wrote: post #226
DKnoll wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really flipped the script, eh? Marching down a city street saying you hate an entire religion is threatening. I said intolerance won't make you many friends here, which I'm sure you've discovered.

Self Awareness Zero.... So if I oppose all Religion, if I believe All Religion is a threat to the safety, security, and mental health of people. If I believe indoctrinating children into any religion to be a form of child abuse. And I wish to give a talk, or wish to write a book on said subject, you believe I should be barred from speaking or publishing said book in Canada as "hate speech"

It's not that binary here. You seem to believe that the law should be binary on the subject, but you have to realize that the circumstances where it would be applied may not be interpreted so.

In this circumstance I think it would come down to tone, and perceived intent. If you were to march with hateful picket signs screaming obscenities in front of a church on Sunday you might be asked to leave by the police for reasons besides hate speech.

First, you'll likely be confronted by people passing by who think you're being an asshole.

If you were renting a hall, or holding a speech at a university about your researched theories on why we should change something in our society or petitioning government and other social groups, you wouldn't have a problem (except maybe personal. Fundamentalist/Evangelist groups can get as bad here as in the US)

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#233

Post by btilly »

syshum wrote: post #224
btilly wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the key difference. The presumption in Canada is that there is a balance to be found between different kinds of rights, and the government can be trusted to do a reasonable job of finding it. I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise. The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection agains…

>I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise. Because history has proven time and time again that government can not, and should not be trusted. >The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection against the government. The presumption in the USA is that rights are not enumerated at all, we do not ha…

If you read more carefully, you'd have realized that you're about 25 years late to express your point of view to me..but thank you anyways for presenting standard American dogma. Which I am quite familiar with, and I know the history, legal theory, and legal practice far better than most Americans. Possibly better than you do.

And no, the USA does not say that rights are limited to the ones enumerated in the Constitution. However the ones enumerated in the Constitution do have special legal status.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#234

Post by ABCLAW »

qb45 wrote: post #195
ABCLAW wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I touched upon this, but honestly this is a very, very large subject that requires familiarity with the Berne Convention and TRIPS/ACTA in order to fully explain. In the Canadian decision, the de-listing order is contingent on that order not being contrary to compliance requirements elsewhere in the world. However, the SCC doesn't have knowledge of all of those laws, nor should it. Accordingly, it stated the burden u…

> crystal clear trademark violations Nope, it's about alleged trade secrets, not trademarks. http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht... > The current international trademark framework means that the majority of nations in the world would actually require compliance with this order Given the above, I'm not sure if it's still true. And even if it was, I fail to see why Canadian court should be allo…

Unfortunately, the evidence you've brought to the table actually doesn't agree with your position, but you aren't trained enough to understand it yet.

Read the link you cited, specifically paragraph 5. Look up passing-off as a tort, then look up Subsection 7 c) of the Canadian Trademarks Act.

There are often trade-secret dimensions in situations where a supplier is committing trademark infringement, but this is a clear situation where there's PLENTY of trademark infringement going on.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#235

Post by vkou »

ptaipale wrote: post #219
vkou wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under which legal framework? Common law? Civil law? Old Testament law? Sharia law? The framework laid out by the Constitution of the Soviet Union? The US codex of law, circa 1953? Circa 2007? Circa Citizens United? Should everyone get a chance to vote for choosing it? Should we decide based on population of respective countries? Or do a one-country-one-vote thing? Maybe one dollar of GDP, one vote? Why should Chinese…

This is a fairly trivial thing compared to, say, the Paris accord about climate & emissions.

It's really not. The Paris agreement focused on the particulars of one case. Deciding a single case is much easier then building a legal framework out of whole cloth.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#236

Post by kbenson »

thirdsun wrote: post #191
kbenson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims a…

> I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended? In my opinion it should. It makes much more sense to fight the actual source of the offending content, those 20 SEO optimized sites containing false information or the company that counterfeits those products (in Google's case). By forcing Google to alter its ind…

It isn't an either or. You want to do both, because doing one or the other doesn't really solve the problem created. If you can't get the perpetrator for some reason, at least having a way to mitigate the damage is useful. In some cases that might be de-listing in the search engine, in others it might be making a service provider take action. The trick is to not give it undue power so it can be used as a bludgeon where it doesn't make sense, and that balancing act is actually the hard part, IMO.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#237

Post by danjoc »

lsaferite wrote: post #130
danjoc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't their site. From the article: "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." When the evil corp lost in Canada, it moved out of the country and continued the same practice. Frankly, I'm disappointed in Google for fighting this in the first place. SMH. Imagine…

I'm confused how buying a product, relabeling the product, then selling it is illegal? I know I sound naive, but really, what's illegal about that?

If you buy the Mona Lisa, do you believe you have the right to sign your name on it and claim credit for painting it? It's called "reverse passing off." That is illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_passing_off#Reverse_pa...

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#238

Post by qb45 »

ABCLAW wrote: post #234
qb45 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> crystal clear trademark violations Nope, it's about alleged trade secrets, not trademarks. http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht... > The current international trademark framework means that the majority of nations in the world would actually require compliance with this order Given the above, I'm not sure if it's still true. And even if it was, I fail to see why Canadian court should be allo…

Unfortunately, the evidence you've brought to the table actually doesn't agree with your position, but you aren't trained enough to understand it yet. Read the link you cited, specifically paragraph 5. Look up passing-off as a tort, then look up Subsection 7 c) of the Canadian Trademarks Act. There are often trade-secret dimensions in situations where a supplier is committing trademark infringement, but this is a cle…

Sorry, I must have missed this part. FWIW, they don't seems to do it anymore.

Re: Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm's website from searches

#240

Post by mrout »

mowenz wrote: post #155

>"We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods." That precise argument may be well-intentioned, but it threatens free speech because it sets a precedent placing a burden of acceptable effects and results of free speech. In other words, should Tiamen Square be de-indexed globally because free speech in China does not require it. Should torrent tracke…

>In other words, should Tiamen Square be de-indexed globally because free speech in China does not require it. Should torrent trackers be de-indexed--free speech does not require illegal file sharing, after all? What about bit torrent clients? Tor browser?

The Canadian courts are not saying 'you must remove these results', not really. They're saying 'you must remove these results or not operate in Canada', effectively.

If China said 'hey google, remove Tianammen Sq from all of your results, not just China' Google could simply refuse to do so. If they did, they probably want to get the hell out of China.

If a court somewhere ruled that torrent clients should be removed from all global search results, then it would be up to Google whether they want to continue operating in that jurisdiction. If they do, then they are subject to the laws of that jurisdiction.

Should torrent trackers be de-indexed? Who cares? It's not about should. It's not about what is ideal. It's about what is and is not.

Post reply on HN