That said, I don't think one should be so naive to think the Canadian court thought 'the cloud' was a server IN Canada.
Certainly not, but courts generally don't infer evidence in a ruling. If Google didn't raise the location of the servers as a defence, then the court won't consider it as relevant. You see wording in legal rulings all the time that goes like "It very well could be that , but no such evidence has presented to this court." I suspect it's usually done to prevent surprise evidence from showing up in an appeal.
It may very well have been a strategic decision on Google's part if they thought their other arguments were stronger. Oops.
It is not clear to me, however, if both the subsidiary google.com AND google.ca, both or neither have any servers in Canada, and/or if both or neither are legal entities with a headquarter registered in Canada.
Google Canada definitely exists as a legal entity; they have offices in Toronto, Montreal (where they're also building their Canadian data center) and IIRC Waterloo.
When push comes to shove, a country can only order to delete something from servers that are on their terrotory, that was my exact point.
What happens when Google doesn't bring up the location of the servers as a defence?
One of the interesting points that the plaintiff jumped on in their filing to the SCC is that Google never actually testified as to where any of the servers were; not google.ca, not google.com. They made a lot of noise about the impacts being worldwide as if that was the deciding factor in jurisdiction, but they never actually specifically identified that the order would involve deleting stuff from servers outside of Canada.
Whether they intentionally withheld that from the court or just assumed that it would be obvious is debatable, but neither is a good legal strategy.
Google.com for their part, should leave the fuzzy 'cloud' defense, and concentrate on the border thingy.
The other point I would like to point out is the new format removed snippets of the stories
This is my biggest complaint with it, actually. Headlines are worthless (especially with the trend towards cutesy or clickbait headlines) and without the snippets to provide some context and engagement, I'm just finding myself clicking on fewer articles. I bet many news sites have seen a dive Google News traffic in the last 48 hours.
If the team is outside Canada, and the servers (of google.com) are out of Canada, then the court has nothing to say anymore.
I think that Google's problem is that google.ca is actually hosted outside of Canada (which isn't a stretch given that they don't have any data centers here and how Canadian infrastructure tends to connect southwards rather than cross-country).
That put Google in an ugly position.
Standing up in front of a Canadian (this really goes for any other country) court and saying "fuck you, you're not allowed to issue orders against google.ca" wouldn't go over well, even if that was technically reality. I'd expect the best case scenario to include google.ca being redirected to the text of a contempt order.
But if Google accepts that a Canadian court is allowed to issue orders against google.ca then they're in exactly the scenario they're in, which is that they've apparently established a business model which has no effective jurisdictional separation between google.ca and google.*
They've been walking a fine line between "put everything in a big happy cloud" and "pretend we care about borders" for quite a while and they got called on it.
In any case, it's irrelevant now. They can't appeal any higher within Canada and the SCC isn't likely to revisit this decision any time soon. I hope Google's Plan B is a lot better than their Plan A wasn't.
If you own a cat or dog, go to the dollar store and get a cheap set of dry measuring cups. Then measure out the food!
You missed a step.
First, figure out the calorie requirements of your pet (there's calculators available on the web), then use the kcal/cup values listed on the bag to determine how much you should be measuring out, then measure out the amounts.
Google subsidiaries that are country specific typically have their servers in that country itself and fall under the national law of that country.
That would be a good way to run things, if they did it that way. They didn't make that argument though. A couple things came up in their testimony on this case.
1. it didn't disclose the location of any google.ca or google.com servers in its testimony, nor did it attempt to make arguments based on distinct locations of servers.
2. it did disclose that the process of removing links from google.ca happens outside of Canada and is handled by the same team that handles removals from google.com and other country-specific sites.
In other words, any orders made against google.ca by Canadian courts are already extraterritorial, and the distinction that Google makes internally between google.ca and google.* in handling removal requests is, effectively, nothing more than a flag in a cloud database rather than along actual geographical boundaries.
I've never had a single one. I'm a bit disappointed. And now that they've arrested the four perpetrators I guess I'll never be blessed with a Microsoft support scam call (or maybe that summary is just a bit high on the click-baiting hyperbole scale?)
It de facto IS declaring jurisdiction over other countries, since they do not restrict their order to google.ca, but to the whole of google, even on servers NOT within their borders.
Right.
Let's break it down.
Do you believe that a Canadian court has the legal right to order Google to delist something from Google.ca?
The feeding guidelines on dog food bags are typically double what an average dog actually needs, even for active dogs.
The only time I've come even close to feeding manufacturer recommended amounts was with 2-3 year old dogs doing weekly flyball tournaments, agility trials, and practices, plus training and hard daily conditioning.
Right, their access in nature to fruits is extremely limited by seasonality
True. Although it's not that short of a season, and you can add things like nuts and roots to the list which have a high shelf life... I spent a good chunk of the spring filling in holes in the lawn where my dogs were digging up buried walnuts.
Corn is popular with some dogs, too.
I would suspect that domestic dogs may have even evolved improved carbohydrate metabolism from their long association with people
The coyotes seem to switch to an almost exclusively apple diet in the fall (hundreds of acres of orchards), so I'm thinking it's not exclusive to domestic dogs.
Dogs do thrive on a carnivorous diet, and if you want to see lean muscle then a raw meat diet is definitely going to get your dog there easier and with less side-effects (i.e. allergies) than Ol' Roy, but I tend to worry way more about how many calories they eat than whether they're eating an optimal diet.
I have a corgi (which are known for overeating) and her food bowl is always full. Because I buy her quality food she only picks at it and maintains a healthy weight.
You can sometimes get away with free feeding if you have a single dog (but don't try it with a Beagle). In fact, single dogs are often underweight because they're under no pressure to eat everything at a time.
It usually doesn't work in multi-dog households.
The main argument against free feeding is that it makes it a lot harder to catch health problems, and in emergencies you have trouble answering questions like "when did your dog last eat?"
It's not claiming jurisdiction over other countries. It's claiming jurisdiction over a multinational corporation which has operations within its borders, which allows it to order Google to do stuff, and that it's Google's job to show that it can't or shouldn't comply with that order.
Google whiffed their part. I have no idea why. The courts essentially told them exactly what they needed to do to get the order narrowed, and they... didn't.
If Google has any operations actually in Saudi Arabian jurisdiction, they'd better get their shit together and come up with better arguments than "but we're not *really* Saudi Arabian..."
A big part of it is that people are incredibly ignorant of how much exercise a healthy dog actually needs. They think that if they walk until the human is tired then the dog got a good workout. Which is a bit like an olympic athlete training for an event by going for a walk with his grandmother.
A large part of the problem, though, is pet food feeding guidelines. If you feed a typical pet what the bag says, 90% of the time you'll get an obese pet. Heck, if you feed most active dogs what the bag says, you'll get a fat dog.
And it's the intention and explicit mention of a national court saying it has jurisdiction even over other sovereign countries which is absurd. Don't you get that?
Jurisdiction over Google, and the right to order a remedy which might impact other countries unless someone could show evidence that the order violates laws in those countries.
Court: "okay Google, you say we can order a takedown on Google.ca, so why not Google.* ?"
Google: uh... because... um, it would be bad?
The original ruling is from 2014... somehow since then Google couldn't be bothered to drop into a US court somewhere and get a "no, fuck *you* Canada" order?
Google is in fact being ordered to delete the search results in all their servers, worldwide, not just on the servers that serve Canada
It's the same servers.
This has come up before with this case in the lower court decisions. Google applied the filtering for Google.ca on all their search servers, including those that handle Google.com; generally speaking, Google's search servers don't exist separately for each country (the setup they had with China might be the only exception), they just have a bunch of extra filtering rules that get applied to all their servers.
At that point, they lost the argument that it was too hard to apply the same filtering to non-Canadian servers because they already applied to filtering to all their servers worldwide. What they hadn't done was flip the flag from "Canada-only" to "everyone", but there was no technical reason they couldn't.
I suspect they might have been able to make a better case if Google.ca was actually a physically separate entity (located in Canada, even), but they built their Cloud without borders...
I'm not entirely thrilled with the ruling and I haven't the foggiest idea how anyone can fix it, but it was inevitable that some country would hit them with this.
They're not ordering Google to delete results everywhere in the world; just on systems under their control. Which ends up being on the exact same servers they deleted the results for Canada (since google.ca and google.com are the same systems).
They put themselves under Canadian legal jurisdiction, so they can obey the order or they can leave. Which, IIRC, is what they did with China.
I'm not sure it's the best ruling, but short of lobbying the government to change the laws they're not going to change the result.
If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information...
Yeah. My immediate thought is that it might even be intentional; having known and and easy-to-exploit vulnerability in a non-essential system would be a really great way to weed out these kinds of idiots. I don't think it's unreasonable for intelligence agencies to test their employees in one form or another.
Slashdot Mirror
The recommendations on the bag is a major part of why there's an obesity epidemic in pets.
Certainly not, but courts generally don't infer evidence in a ruling. If Google didn't raise the location of the servers as a defence, then the court won't consider it as relevant. You see wording in legal rulings all the time that goes like "It very well could be that , but no such evidence has presented to this court." I suspect it's usually done to prevent surprise evidence from showing up in an appeal.
It may very well have been a strategic decision on Google's part if they thought their other arguments were stronger. Oops.
Google Canada definitely exists as a legal entity; they have offices in Toronto, Montreal (where they're also building their Canadian data center) and IIRC Waterloo.
What happens when Google doesn't bring up the location of the servers as a defence?
One of the interesting points that the plaintiff jumped on in their filing to the SCC is that Google never actually testified as to where any of the servers were; not google.ca, not google.com. They made a lot of noise about the impacts being worldwide as if that was the deciding factor in jurisdiction, but they never actually specifically identified that the order would involve deleting stuff from servers outside of Canada.
Whether they intentionally withheld that from the court or just assumed that it would be obvious is debatable, but neither is a good legal strategy.
Definitely.
Certainly not. They were promoted to lead design on both of the Windows 8 user interfaces.
This is my biggest complaint with it, actually. Headlines are worthless (especially with the trend towards cutesy or clickbait headlines) and without the snippets to provide some context and engagement, I'm just finding myself clicking on fewer articles. I bet many news sites have seen a dive Google News traffic in the last 48 hours.
I think that Google's problem is that google.ca is actually hosted outside of Canada (which isn't a stretch given that they don't have any data centers here and how Canadian infrastructure tends to connect southwards rather than cross-country).
That put Google in an ugly position.
Standing up in front of a Canadian (this really goes for any other country) court and saying "fuck you, you're not allowed to issue orders against google.ca" wouldn't go over well, even if that was technically reality. I'd expect the best case scenario to include google.ca being redirected to the text of a contempt order.
But if Google accepts that a Canadian court is allowed to issue orders against google.ca then they're in exactly the scenario they're in, which is that they've apparently established a business model which has no effective jurisdictional separation between google.ca and google.*
They've been walking a fine line between "put everything in a big happy cloud" and "pretend we care about borders" for quite a while and they got called on it.
In any case, it's irrelevant now. They can't appeal any higher within Canada and the SCC isn't likely to revisit this decision any time soon. I hope Google's Plan B is a lot better than their Plan A wasn't.
You missed a step.
First, figure out the calorie requirements of your pet (there's calculators available on the web), then use the kcal/cup values listed on the bag to determine how much you should be measuring out, then measure out the amounts.
Or maybe that's just me...
That would be a good way to run things, if they did it that way. They didn't make that argument though. A couple things came up in their testimony on this case.
1. it didn't disclose the location of any google.ca or google.com servers in its testimony, nor did it attempt to make arguments based on distinct locations of servers.
2. it did disclose that the process of removing links from google.ca happens outside of Canada and is handled by the same team that handles removals from google.com and other country-specific sites.
In other words, any orders made against google.ca by Canadian courts are already extraterritorial, and the distinction that Google makes internally between google.ca and google.* in handling removal requests is, effectively, nothing more than a flag in a cloud database rather than along actual geographical boundaries.
What and where, exactly, do you think google.ca is?
I've never had a single one. I'm a bit disappointed. And now that they've arrested the four perpetrators I guess I'll never be blessed with a Microsoft support scam call (or maybe that summary is just a bit high on the click-baiting hyperbole scale?)
Right.
Let's break it down.
Do you believe that a Canadian court has the legal right to order Google to delist something from Google.ca?
The only time I've come even close to feeding manufacturer recommended amounts was with 2-3 year old dogs doing weekly flyball tournaments, agility trials, and practices, plus training and hard daily conditioning.
True. Although it's not that short of a season, and you can add things like nuts and roots to the list which have a high shelf life... I spent a good chunk of the spring filling in holes in the lawn where my dogs were digging up buried walnuts.
Corn is popular with some dogs, too.
The coyotes seem to switch to an almost exclusively apple diet in the fall (hundreds of acres of orchards), so I'm thinking it's not exclusive to domestic dogs.
Dogs do thrive on a carnivorous diet, and if you want to see lean muscle then a raw meat diet is definitely going to get your dog there easier and with less side-effects (i.e. allergies) than Ol' Roy, but I tend to worry way more about how many calories they eat than whether they're eating an optimal diet.
You can sometimes get away with free feeding if you have a single dog (but don't try it with a Beagle). In fact, single dogs are often underweight because they're under no pressure to eat everything at a time.
It usually doesn't work in multi-dog households.
The main argument against free feeding is that it makes it a lot harder to catch health problems, and in emergencies you have trouble answering questions like "when did your dog last eat?"
It's not claiming jurisdiction over other countries. It's claiming jurisdiction over a multinational corporation which has operations within its borders, which allows it to order Google to do stuff, and that it's Google's job to show that it can't or shouldn't comply with that order.
Google whiffed their part. I have no idea why. The courts essentially told them exactly what they needed to do to get the order narrowed, and they... didn't.
If Google has any operations actually in Saudi Arabian jurisdiction, they'd better get their shit together and come up with better arguments than "but we're not *really* Saudi Arabian..."
A big part of it is that people are incredibly ignorant of how much exercise a healthy dog actually needs. They think that if they walk until the human is tired then the dog got a good workout. Which is a bit like an olympic athlete training for an event by going for a walk with his grandmother.
A large part of the problem, though, is pet food feeding guidelines. If you feed a typical pet what the bag says, 90% of the time you'll get an obese pet. Heck, if you feed most active dogs what the bag says, you'll get a fat dog.
Judging from the coyote scat I see around my place and what my dogs eat outside, fruit is a pretty popular source of nutrients and carbs.
Jurisdiction over Google, and the right to order a remedy which might impact other countries unless someone could show evidence that the order violates laws in those countries.
Court: "okay Google, you say we can order a takedown on Google.ca, so why not Google.* ?"
Google: uh... because... um, it would be bad?
The original ruling is from 2014... somehow since then Google couldn't be bothered to drop into a US court somewhere and get a "no, fuck *you* Canada" order?
My gut feeling is that asking WIPO to rule on an overbroad court decision related to IP is a bit like throwing gasoline on a match.
It's the same servers.
This has come up before with this case in the lower court decisions. Google applied the filtering for Google.ca on all their search servers, including those that handle Google.com; generally speaking, Google's search servers don't exist separately for each country (the setup they had with China might be the only exception), they just have a bunch of extra filtering rules that get applied to all their servers.
At that point, they lost the argument that it was too hard to apply the same filtering to non-Canadian servers because they already applied to filtering to all their servers worldwide. What they hadn't done was flip the flag from "Canada-only" to "everyone", but there was no technical reason they couldn't.
I suspect they might have been able to make a better case if Google.ca was actually a physically separate entity (located in Canada, even), but they built their Cloud without borders...
I'm not entirely thrilled with the ruling and I haven't the foggiest idea how anyone can fix it, but it was inevitable that some country would hit them with this.
If a US court, or congress, orders it, then yes.
Being a multi-national corporation with a business presence all over the world sometimes puts them in touch positions.
They're not ordering Google to delete results everywhere in the world; just on systems under their control. Which ends up being on the exact same servers they deleted the results for Canada (since google.ca and google.com are the same systems).
They put themselves under Canadian legal jurisdiction, so they can obey the order or they can leave. Which, IIRC, is what they did with China.
I'm not sure it's the best ruling, but short of lobbying the government to change the laws they're not going to change the result.
Yeah. My immediate thought is that it might even be intentional; having known and and easy-to-exploit vulnerability in a non-essential system would be a really great way to weed out these kinds of idiots. I don't think it's unreasonable for intelligence agencies to test their employees in one form or another.
Their competitors. I mean, have you tried Bing?
That and people don't go to Amazon to search for non-Amazon sources of a product.