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

Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#81

Post by annnnd »

Confusion wrote: post #61
vacri wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Only if you're in their jurisdiction. And Google isn't a person to jail. And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person. However, it would be better to state the argument given by the law professor in the article: "what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database". Find something that the…

And Google isn't a person to jail. Which nicely illustrates one of the major problems of having granted corporations 'legal person' status: the punishments for various crimes were originally intended to punish natural persons and have never been sufficiently adapted to punish corporations. What's a proper punishment for flagrant contempt of the court by a corporation? And corporations have a way of making these thing…

> the punishments for various crimes were originally intended to punish natural persons and have never been sufficiently adapted to punish corporations

Good point! :)

Jail == cannot conduct business for X years?

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#82

Post by seacious »

DanBC wrote: post #10
johnchristopher wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site. I am not convinced by that line of thoughts, though. > Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop sel…

To further the analogy - it would be like telling McDonalds to not sell food to this person but ignoring In'n'Out Burger and Burger King. I understand the point about forcing Google to stop sellin advertising to this person. I am confused about how a disappeared person continues to pay for services from Google; why didn't anyone get a court order to force Google to release information about the infringer? {edit: i di…

I wonder if this will eventually lead to google making use of a decentralized federated search strategy where they provide the technology to everyone who wants their site to be findable by means of google, but do not actually produce the results themselves. From a technological pov that would certainly be far more challenging than their current system, but it might make them less of a target legally.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#83

Post by danielweber »

tezza wrote: post #34
kryptiskt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like something from here would apply: "Contempt of Court includes the following behaviours: - Fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding - Refuses or neglects to obey a subpoena - Willfully disobeys a process or order of the Court - Interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the authority or dignity of the Cour…

I agree, out and out Contempt of Court. Further, the Judge themselves is in charge of deciding whether Contempt of Court has occurred. No possible jury to convince or appeal to, just the judge. They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Contempt of Court is very serious.

Yes, how could doxxing the judge possibly backfire? /s

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#84

Post by ovis »

peterarmstrong wrote: post #69
phloxicon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having consent, a person who can be replied to instead of ano-reply and a mandatory unsubscribe doesn't sound so bad to me. What are the main arguments against it?

Mandatory unsubscribe is totally fine, obviously. But CASL includes making confirmation, welcome and update emails opt-in, or else risking an up to $10 million dollar fine. Yes, really. Even if you're not a Canadian business, this will apply to you if you email Canadians. Yes, really. Say goodbye to your opt-out email drip courses.

Wouldn't confirmation and welcome emails fall under "implied consent"? http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com500/infograph3.htm

Seems like update emails might too, depending on the circumstances.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#85

Post by JohnTHaller »

tezza wrote: post #34
kryptiskt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like something from here would apply: "Contempt of Court includes the following behaviours: - Fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding - Refuses or neglects to obey a subpoena - Willfully disobeys a process or order of the Court - Interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the authority or dignity of the Cour…

I agree, out and out Contempt of Court. Further, the Judge themselves is in charge of deciding whether Contempt of Court has occurred. No possible jury to convince or appeal to, just the judge. They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Contempt of Court is very serious.

Contempt of the law by the judge should be a defense against contempt of court. In an ideal world, that is.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#86

Post by coldpie »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
Natsu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some part of me wonders what would happen if they were to turn off Google to Canada for a day and list the judge's phone number as the person to complain to. (Probably one very angry judge, but I wonder...)

I've been party to a court session where the defendant tried to pull something like that. Let's just say I would advise against it, 'career limiting move' does not even begin to describe it.

Man, I'd love to hear this story.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#87

Post by mseebach »

johnchristopher wrote: post #6
bambax wrote: post #2

This is insane. The plaintiff, Equustek Solutions Inc., says the main defendant, Morgan Jack, sells networking devices that infringe on their trademark. The defendant sells these things online; the plaintiff wants his websites to be dereferenced from Google. The court agreed and asked Google to remove the links on all its properties worldwide (not just google.ca). But what does Google have to do with this? Why does t…

Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site. I am not convinced by that line of thoughts, though. > Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop sel…

> Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site.

Google is in the ad business in the same way a newspaper or a magazine is: Selling ads is the major source of income. Every time someone says that Google is an ad business, for calibration remind yourself that so is the New York Times.

Anyway, Google linking (in the regular results section, not ads) to the website of a given business is similar to a newspaper or magazine stating in editorial content that a certain business exists and what its address is. That is obviously not "selling ads" in any way, shape or form.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#88

Post by jacquesm »

coldpie wrote: post #86
jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been party to a court session where the defendant tried to pull something like that. Let's just say I would advise against it, 'career limiting move' does not even begin to describe it.

Man, I'd love to hear this story.

No doubt, but I don't think it would be appropriate to stick the knife in even further. The case was a complete victory and we ended up drafting the settlement agreement one sided. There is nothing to gain by further destroying the reputation of the other side. Live & let live. I'm fairly sure they learned their lesson ;)

I do remember making a very explicit 'note to self': Do not under any circumstances piss off a judge during a court session.

Feel free to ignore that, if you do please do blog about it.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#89

Post by [deleted] »

vacri wrote: post #46
tezza wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, out and out Contempt of Court. Further, the Judge themselves is in charge of deciding whether Contempt of Court has occurred. No possible jury to convince or appeal to, just the judge. They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Contempt of Court is very serious.

They can have you imprisoned in under a day. Only if you're in their jurisdiction. And Google isn't a person to jail. And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person. However, it would be better to state the argument given by the law professor in the article: "what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database". Find something that the…

[deleted]

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#90

Post by rayiner »

mseebach wrote: post #87
johnchristopher wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site. I am not convinced by that line of thoughts, though. > Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop sel…

> Well, it's often said around here that we should consider Google to be in the ad business, right ? Then following that logic Google is actually advertising illegal stuff by providing links to Morgan Jack's website on Google's own site. Google is in the ad business in the same way a newspaper or a magazine is: Selling ads is the major source of income. Every time someone says that Google is an ad business, for calib…

Yes, everyone would do well to remember the NYT is in the ad business too.
Post reply on HN