Slashdot Mirror
Google Seeks To Throw Out UK Safari Tracking Suit
judgecorp writes "In the latest twist to the saga of Google's tracking of Safari users, the tech giant has asked to have a U.K. lawsuit dismissed. Google says it is bound by California laws, so plaintiffs will have to come to the U.S. and sue there. Law firm Olswang is bringing the suit on behalf of British users whose Safari browser settings were overridden to help Google target ads; it argues that international organizations should respect the laws that apply where their customers live."
Consistent with their tax stance, at least. :-)
I read this headline as 'Google seeks to dispose of a suit (wearable) invented in the UK and intended to be used for tracking [animals] by people on safari' which made me wonder why Google would toss a (potentially) perfectly good stealth tracking suit. I wish I had a safari tracking suit...
Microsoft learned this in the '90s, and paid the price in the 2000's when nobody would partner with them on phones.
Now it's Google's turn. Their making this type of argument looks really bad.
Could Google form its own floating country and abide by their own rules?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They utilized an exploit to track Safari users on purpose. Google has falled.
The crime itself was committed wherever the Safari browser was executed, be it in the UK, US, or elsewhere. That is where the act was done and that is where it should be punished.
This is simply a legal maneuver. The UK court is unlikely to approve such a request, and even though IANAL, I suspect old Google has several very competent attorneys behind this motion. When one is a defendant in the courtroom, it is prudent to ask for advantage at every opportunity.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Bottom line: Google answers to the Chinese legal system (when it comes to censorship) but not to the British legal system (when it comes to privacy).
Ironically Google stood alone in fighting China and refused to censor...for a whole host of reasons(well China hacked them). It is an embarrassment they were left in the cold by the likes of Apple/Microsoft who do evil.
Its market share in China is now 1.7% The Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-censorship covers most of the saga.
ok...here's the vid from Damn Yankees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kjQmgm0r4g
When I read the headline I thought Google had developed a Safari Suit with inbuilt GPS tracking, and they were trying to throw it away...
How about they just obey the law in a country they operate in, and while they're there they could pay their fucking taxes too. >:(
UK safari tracking suit?
Typical American attitude. Our laws and ideals apply everywhere. We are the world.
Every company that sells products in a region has to meet the standards of the region to sell their products. Why should software services be treated any differently?
You want to do business in China, you follow Chinese law. You want to do business in the UK, you follow UK law.
You don't want to follow the local laws, you don't get to do business.
Plain and simple.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
A lot of people seeing this sort of case ask a question like: can Google really decide where lawsuits must be filed?
I don't know the law about this in England, but in Belgium it seems the answer is: if the judge finds it not to be abusive.
In a case like this, where the "injured" party is financially small and the amount of damages per injured party will also be small, I wouldn't be surprised if Google's clause was found inapplicable.
But as I said, I don't know the relevant law in England. Just saying that besides yes and no, the answer could also be "it depends".
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
We see what happens when patent trolls are permitted to establish the venue for trial. East Texas, baby! The judges are in our pocketses, Precious!
As has already been pointed out, no contract trumps the law. No law permits you to effectively strip me of my rights by making it difficult (or possibly even impossible) to get to the court of your choosing. No law allows one court jurisdiction to rule the world. Google cannot write any contract or EULA that trumps British law.
They MIGHT be able to introduce California law into cases heard in Great Britain. I say, they MIGHT. They would have to argue the case, point by point, and wait for decisions on each point, to be made by the judge in the case, IN BRITAIN!!
Screw all those pencil necked needle dick freaks in corporate lawyer suits.
That said, I tend to side with Google, because, most of the time they are more right than other corporations. It's to bad that Google can't understand that unwanted tracking is unethical and immoral. To bad they don't understand that it should be illegal as well. If you want to track me, but I object, go get a warrant from a judge.
Wait, what? Google has no standing with which to get a warrant?
Case closed.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Do No Evil!
(Unless it's on your own terms, stated within the boundary of the laws)
1. Have international web based platform that makes money by breaking laws in other countries.
2. Use your home jurisdiction and lobbying to make you immune from lawsuits.
3. Profit!!!
Why is Snark Required?
Don't be evil! Google is the most Evil of them all these days! They are yesterdays Microsoft!
My first thought after reading Headline was that Google came up with a new revolutionary uniform (wear, suit) for Safari travelers/hunters, obsoleting the brittish traditional one.
So, and I'm just going by American laws, but... why not go ahead with the courtroom proceedings? If Google doesn't show up, then the defendants win, and then - hell I don't know what they (the British system) do to those that do not pay up. Go arrest the higher-ups at the local Google office? Extradite the higher-ups from America?
Why is it a different set of rules for big corporations? If this were a case of, person A suing person B, and person B didn't show up to court, and lost, then didn't pay up, what do they do to person B over there?
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
What makes you think that having to have jurisdiction for the contract in the UK means you can't have one?
Therefore if contract agreements apply ONLY in california, then there is no UK copyright to infringe, since the copyright being enforced is in california. Which isn't the UK.
If I then go to california, Google may then issue a request for the police to pick me up to face charges, but to do so in the UK requires a contract to me that uses UK copyright law to get the UK courts to enforce the copyrights.