Get 2 days of unlimited access
Class Notes (1,000,000)
CA (600,000)
UTM (20,000)
CCT (1,000)
CCT206H5 (100)
Lecture 11

CCT206H5 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Video Lesson, E-Commerce, Nepotism


Communication, Culture and Technology
Course Code
Lucas Thung

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Week 7, Class 11
Michael Geist
Facebook’s fine print trumps privacy law
o B.C. Court of Appeals couldn’t appeal Facebook case because their terms and conditions
said that all proceedings have to be handled in California
Smart on Facebook’s side for ensuring same jurisdictional rules for any issues
contractual certainty
California does not offer same level of privacy protection as Canada
Prevents Canadian law from applying to Facebook
Online terms overriding domestic legal protections
o Courts siding with Facebook because clients agreed to the conditional clause
But dangerous road to be letting online, unnegotiable, unread terms and
conditions trump local laws and rights
B.C. Court of Appeals upholds global deletion order against Google
o Canadian court wanting to control Google’s database globally – no one in the world can
see results from a certain search
One jurisdiction trying to decide for the world
B.C. court has jurisdiction because Google is used in B.C.
But doesn’t mean worldwide control of Google
Claim that collecting information in province grants jurisdiction
o Opens door to courts asserting jurisdiction over many websites
These types of things have happened before (Yahoo France) and are not seen as
generally dangerous to the association of nations
Should Canadian courts decide what the world gets to see online
o Courts need to be able to assert jurisdiction to prevent ungovernable Internet, but
might also become over-regulated with conflicting laws
o Case was Canadian company that claimed another had used their trade secrets and bait
and switch tactics
Google agreed to remove search results from their site, but refused
to block the sites from its worldwide index
Other countries should have no awareness of the competing product no
commercial impact
Also, can use other search engines to view sites, so even worldwide block on
Google isn’t effective
o Implications are any court potentially has jurisdiction in worldwide Internet use
Either Google can selectively decide which court orders it wishes to follow, or
local courts would begin deciding what the rest of the world can access online
Legal conflicts online and potential suppression of freedom of speech
Global Deletion Orders
o Risk of every state having right to jurisdiction over Google is flaw in their doing business
on a global scale rather than flaw from territorial competence

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Having one preferred court, such as requiring orders done in California, does not
solve problem because still jurisdiction issues B.C. issues should not be solved
with California law
Calvin Ayre’s domain seized by US homeland security
o Was promoting illegal internet gambling
o US law focused on funds being moved around outside of the US
Says outside countries can’t just “flout” US laws by “not being in the US”
Domain name was registered under Vancouver domainclip
.com operator Verisign (HQ in California)
US law can be asserted over any domain registered under .com, .net, .org, .biz,
Bangoura v. Washington Post
Bangoura sued Washington Post and 3 of its reporters in 2 newspaper articles he alleges are
o Articles published 1997, Bangoura was employed by UN in Kenya
o Sued 6 years later after becoming an Ontario resident
Should Ontario assume jurisdiction?
Court ruled yes, even though no connection between Ontario with case
or Washington Post
o Defamation most affects person where they live
o Bangoura accused of sexual harassment, financial improprieties and nepotism during
tenure with UN in Ivory Coast from Washington Post
At time of article, only 7 Post subscribers in Ontario
Canadian Perspective: Internet Jurisdiction
Do Not Call Registry Video (go through all lecture videos)
Better to have more or less laws? (essay question)
Consider cultural and historical reasoning for countries with lots or few laws (North Korea v.
o Consider both arguments
o Relate to course topics
Depends on size of country certain laws may not apply (if they are pre-Internet, for instance)
o Modern day matters
Minimalist approach: things happen at faster rate than new laws can be passed
Therefore all laws are a little outdated new crimes always happening
and laws take time to pass
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version