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

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#101

Post by ctdonath »

davidw wrote: post #91
Confusion wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That is in fact their raison d'être. This looks like an example of @ziobrando's "Bullshit asymmetry principle" in action. You whip out some bullshit (unless I'm really misunderstanding what you are saying) in a one liner with no citations, but to refute it, someone would have to talk about the history of corporations, legal theories around them, compare and contrast with societies that never developed a similar ide…

Thank you. I have long been trying to pin down the description of, and term for, that principle. http://t.bigboxcar.com/post/87256202522/bullshit-asymmetry-p...

There's still a corollary in need of succinct definition/labeling: in context of a casual discussion, you make a fair point in a one liner with no citation, then someone criticizes it (in effect) for lacking peer-reviewed encyclopedic depth & thoroughness. (Ex.: "this car does 0 to 60MPH in 10 seconds" "uh, NO, you're not taking relativity into account! and you didn't cite any certified testing labs!" and from social context you feel compelled to elaborate on why your comment was sufficient, while the other loudly labels you a liar, ignores your objections, and marches off to disrupt other sane conversations.)

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#102

Post by Tyr42 »

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…

Earlier, Google already agreed to remove their website, as defined by some 350 urls. But the defendant started auto generating new urls, which had to go back to the judge (I think) to be blocked. Google was fine with blocking specific urls worldwide by court order.

Now, the ruling requires google to block them, even if they change the url. That's the new upgrade that required the ruling.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#103

Post by peeters »

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…

How about drawing parallels to a similar situation? A child porn ring manages to stay online via using ever-changing URLs and relying on Google's indexing. Prosecutors of course go after the people maintaining the network. But Google still has a moral and legal obligation to stop indexing the network if feasible.

I'd say at the end of the day it's a matter of degree. In both situations, a content provider has been deemed illegal is leveraging Google to stay afloat. But while in one case Google's obligation seems like a no-brainer due to its heinous nature, the other elicits less passion.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#104

Post by opendais »

peeters wrote: post #103
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…

How about drawing parallels to a similar situation? A child porn ring manages to stay online via using ever-changing URLs and relying on Google's indexing. Prosecutors of course go after the people maintaining the network. But Google still has a moral and legal obligation to stop indexing the network if feasible. I'd say at the end of the day it's a matter of degree. In both situations, a content provider has been de…

Using that logic...

Russia can ban all LBGT sites on Google because it has been deemed illegal.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#105

Post by Confusion »

ctdonath wrote: post #101
davidw wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is in fact their raison d'être. This looks like an example of @ziobrando's "Bullshit asymmetry principle" in action. You whip out some bullshit (unless I'm really misunderstanding what you are saying) in a one liner with no citations, but to refute it, someone would have to talk about the history of corporations, legal theories around them, compare and contrast with societies that never developed a similar ide…

Thank you. I have long been trying to pin down the description of, and term for, that principle. http://t.bigboxcar.com/post/87256202522/bullshit-asymmetry-p... There's still a corollary in need of succinct definition/labeling: in context of a casual discussion, you make a fair point in a one liner with no citation, then someone criticizes it (in effect) for lacking peer-reviewed encyclopedic depth & thoroughness. (E…

Which is why I'm not going to challenge the accusation of 'bullshit'. I don't think the principle applies here.

It does suggest I need to clarify that I believe that it is both the great strength and the great weakness of corporations.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#106

Post by tempestn »

briandh wrote: post #66
tempestn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was the defendant in this case, so they had little choice but to go to court. Let alone the consequences to their Canadian business, US and Canadian courts cooperate in enforcing judgements, so they couldn't ignore it regardless. (Of course they are choosing to appeal, which is optional but obviously a good idea given the pain this precedent could cause.)

> Google was the defendant in this case No they weren't. In fact, the decision linked at the top of the thread specifically refers to Google and Google Canada as "non-parties".

Ah, right you are. Google was a non-party, but was named and served: "Non-parties affected by Mareva injunctions are not normally before the Court, because applications of that kind are brought without notice. Google was named in this application, served with materials, and attended the hearing."

So the rest of the comment stands, but you are correct that they were not a defendant.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#107

Post by peeters »

opendais wrote: post #104
peeters wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about drawing parallels to a similar situation? A child porn ring manages to stay online via using ever-changing URLs and relying on Google's indexing. Prosecutors of course go after the people maintaining the network. But Google still has a moral and legal obligation to stop indexing the network if feasible. I'd say at the end of the day it's a matter of degree. In both situations, a content provider has been de…

Using that logic... Russia can ban all LBGT sites on Google because it has been deemed illegal.

That's not my logic at all. The GP asked what this has to do with Google. I'm saying there are clearly scenarios where Google has a responsibility to limit access to content, even content they don't provide. In my opinion, it is not tenable to say "let the courts go after the child pornographers, but Google shouldn't be asked to block access to their content".

And notably, I'm not even arguing that Google should ever be ordered to block sites worldwide. The GP's argument has NOTHING to do with the worldwide nature, on the contrary, that it is worldwide was only parenthetical in the comment. The same argument would stand even if the decision only affected Canada. It argues against involving Google at all, and that's what I'm debating.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#108

Post by gorklin »

tempestn wrote: post #44
gorklin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck regulating my encrypted anonymized connection.

The regulation would be on the other end. Tor won't help you when your favorite site shuts down because they can't comply with conflicting court orders from Canada and Australia (or wherever).

Sure it will -- they could run it (at some loss of bandwidth) as a hidden service. When "my favorite site" gets court orders, they can take down their official server, and spin it up somewhere else behind a Tor hidden service.

Yeah, I know -- Hidden Services need some work. As I understand, the problem is solvable, it just needs a few more heads thinking about it to get solved.

Re: Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide

#109

Post by gorklin »

toyg wrote: post #45
gorklin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck regulating my encrypted anonymized connection.

If they can't regulate it, they will ban it.

The software response to a "crypto ban" would be wide-scale steganography, I would guess pretending to be unencrypted HTTP. Good luck banning encryption!
Post reply on HN