Post Tagged with: "google"

Did a Canadian Court Just Establish a New Right to be Forgotten?

The European Union shook up the privacy world in 2014 with the creation of “the right to be forgotten“, creating a system that allows people to seek the removal of search results from Google that are “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.” The system does not result in the removal of the actual content, but rather makes it more difficult to find in light of the near-universal reliance on search engines to locate information online.

Since the European decision, Google has received nearly 700,000 requests for the removal of links from its search database resulting in the evaluation of 1.8 million URLs. Moreover, privacy authorities in Europe – led by France’s national regulator – have adopted an aggressive approach on the right to be forgotten, ruling that the link removal should be applied on a global basis.

My Globe and Mail op-ed notes that while the Canadian courts have grappled with the question of removing links from the Google search database (a key case on the issue is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada), there has been little sense that Canada would establish its own right to be forgotten. That may have changed last week as the Federal Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling that paves the way for a Canadian version of the right to be forgotten that would allow courts to issue orders with the removal of Google search results on a global basis very much in mind.

February 7, 2017 — 6 comments — Columns

Google by Travis Wise (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/rEx9kx

How the Supreme Court Can Avoid Turning the Internet Into an Online Wild West

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in a case that strikes at the heart of law in the online world. Google v. Equustek Solutions stems from claims by Equustek, a Canadian company, that another company used its trade secrets to create a competing product and engaged in misleading tactics to trick users into purchasing it.

After struggling to get the offending company’s website taken offline, Equustek obtained a British Columbia court order requiring Google to remove the site from its search index. Google voluntarily removed search results for the site from Google.ca search results, but was unwilling to block the sites from its worldwide index. The B.C. court affirmed that the order applied on an international basis, however, issuing what amounted to global takedown order.

The Supreme Court hearing, which attracted intervenors such as the Wikimedia Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as the music and movie industry associations, focused on issues such as the effectiveness of a Google-targeted order, where the responsibility for identifying conflicting laws should lie, and the fairness of bringing an innocent third-party such as Google into the legal fray.

My Globe and Mail opinion piece notes that largely missing from the discussion was an attempt to grapple with perhaps the biggest question raised by the case: In a seemingly borderless Internet, how do courts foster respect for legal rules and avoid vesting enormous power in the hands of Internet intermediaries who may ultimately find themselves picking and choosing among competing laws.

December 13, 2016 — 5 comments — Columns

The Nine. by Jamie McCaffrey (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/eA1qcp

Google v. Equustek: The SCC Hearing on Internet Jurisdiction and Free Speech

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in Google v. Equustek Solutions, a hugely important Internet case with implications for Internet jurisdiction and free speech online. I wrote about the lower court and appellate court decisions and I have a forthcoming piece in the Communications of the ACM on the case. I attended yesterday’s hearing and live tweeted some of the main exchanges between counsel and the court. As my final tweet of the hearing indicated, I have no idea where the court is heading in this case. A storified version of my hearing tweets is posted below.

December 7, 2016 — 13 comments — News

New Google AdWords Keyword Tool by TopRank Online Marketing (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/81NvSK

BC Court Ruling Offers Strong Defence of Internet Keyword Advertising

The success of Internet giant Google has largely been based on something small: Internet advertising that use tiny keyword-based ads to generate billions of dollars in revenue. Given Google’s massive audience, advertisers have been willing to pay for search-based ads that deliver clicks back to their websites. Those ads appear as sponsored results alongside the organic, relevancy-based search results.

The Google model involves an auction process in which advertisers bid to place their ad against results based on the search terms entered by users. Under the model, whoever is willing to pay the most for a given term or search query has their ad appear as a “sponsored link.” Whenever a user clicks on the sponsored link, the marketer pays Google the bid amount. Each click may only cost a few pennies, but with millions of clicks every day, the keyword advertising business is a multi-billion dollar business.

My weekly technology law column (homepage version) notes that Google’s keyword advertising approach has been a huge commercial success, but it has long raised legal concerns over whether trade mark owners have rights in their marks that extend to their use as keyword advertisements. For example, would it be a trademark violation for Bell Canada to purchase keyword ads using terms such as Telus or Rogers so that its ad would appear alongside search results for the competition?

September 10, 2015 — 8 comments — Columns

Net Neutrality rally by Alistair (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/4RFiJd

Why Canada’s Net Neutrality Enforcement is Going at Half-Throttle

Canada’s net neutrality rules, which require Internet providers to disclose how they manage their networks and to treat content in an equal manner, were established in 2009. The policy is administered by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which releases quarterly reports on the number of complaints it receives and whether any have been escalated to enforcement actions.

At first glance, the reports on the so-called Internet traffic management guidelines suggest that net neutrality violations are very rare. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that last year, there were typically a few complaints each month and all were quickly resolved. The CRTC does not disclose the specific targets or subject matter of the complaints.

Yet according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the complaints and their resolution give cause for concern. There are generally two types of complaints: those involving throttling technologies that limit speeds to render real-time services unusable or treat similar content in different ways, and quality-of-service issues that seem like throttling to the customer.

August 10, 2015 — 7 comments — Columns