Google argues lawsuit concerning UK privacy should be brought in California
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
If the courts decide otherwise then Google has quite a lot of assets here in the UK in the form of Google UK Limited - obviously tiny compared to the US parent but still a pretty substantial organization by any objective measure.
I tend to side with the claimants (I believe that is the correct term in England - it is pursuer here in Scotland) that as they have a .co.uk site and substantial operations here in the UK they should be directly subject to litigation in the UK. If they were a US only operation then fair enough - it would seem silly to sue them here in the UK, but they have long outgrown that status.
Google "operates" in the UK, the second biggest market for advertising revenue yet manages to book their profits in Ireland because that's where their sales are "signed". Yet even that Dublin office has no profit as they have expenses to pay to the tune of billions in IP to a patent-holding Google subsidiary in Bermuda.
This must me a wake up call to quite a lot of people. It used to be that it was only poor countries that got shafted by foreign corporations (e.g. Dow Chemical, Bhopal disaster in India). Now, it's -gasp- happening to us too!
And if you need someone to point for you the difference between this no harm money/publicly seeking bullshit lawsuit, and chemical spill disasters then you lack all perspective.
Directing attention to the government is a false dichotomy which makes it seem like you're trying to protect Google from scrutiny. Both can be guilty. We don't pardon thieves because they aren't as bad as murderers.
Also nobody being forced to use google's services is irrelevant. The question is whether Google deceived those who did make that choice.
If you think the best remedy is for users to make their own choice about using Google services, don't you want these behaviors to be exposed and publicly scrutinized so that users can make an informed decision?
That seems a bit odd in a legal way. If a user breaks into Google servers, we don't care where the server is located. Why should the location of the server matter if its the server operators that do the crime? Shouldn't the same laws rule everyone equally?
"All claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts. " Which basically says if you use Google services you agree that any dispute you have with Google will be litigated in a California court. This particular clause has been upheld several times for Google.
If Google were a US only corporation then this would be a moot point, but as the aren't they are subject to the laws and courts of the countries where they operate. Given that they are actually in court someone clearly thinks there is a stateable case - it'll be interesting to see what the court decides.
Edit: Here is an update from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10520755/Briton...
A state could likely decide that by doing business in that state (eg, having offices located there) that Google was subject to its laws when dealing with residents of that state.
Contracts of adhesion aren't always enforceable.
There are cases in which the jurisdiction argument is valid, but it's made pretty much regardless.
That does sum up my view on it too.
If there is a case to answer, then given that Google are here in the UK then they are bound to operate within UK law and answer it.
We've long gone beyond the point at which we can pretend that there is no UK presence.
A billion quid and 4500 employees. Seems a bit much for a country in which you don't make any profit, no?
Follow the rules everyone follows, you aren't above the law and certainly do not deserve to be treated as a special entity.
Pay your taxes, respect privacy and stop pretending to be saint.
If that is true, then why is Google being sued and not the U.K. government?
Google is being sued because it broke the law.
The U.K. Government enacted an unpopular policy that was not illegal. The remedy for this is the ballot box, not the courts.
I'd imagine this would be perfectly legal if Uruguay has legal provisions that state that shipping weed to other countries is legal. I'd also imagine that if they didn't have such a clause, they'd soon run afoul on various international trade treaties. So good luck... :)
I'm sure California doesn't have a provision that says collecting user information for people in the UK is legal.
In short, the laws of one region are only concerned with that region, they don't care what happens outside that.. so Google using CA's laws on UK residents is like me using Uruguay's laws on CA residents.
I've always thought a good way to get this stupidity into the headlines would be if this would be if say Saudi Arabia started charging every female that drives a car in the world, or if Australia started charging people for driving on the Right side of the road in North America. Applying the laws of one country onto people in another country is absurd.
Google is arguing about jurisdiction in front of a judge, why is the author doing publicity work for the plaintiff? and why is a routine legal argument news?
The NSA appears to have tapped 3rd party fiber links, and not Google directly. Google is now encrypting data across those links, moving all client access to use https, and advocating for http/2.0 (based on SPDY) to allow only encrypted connections.
Hell, when the UK Prime Minister publicly takes sides in ongoing celebrity court proceedings and announces that he is on "Team Nigella", I think that many journalists probably shrug their shoulders and give up attempting any pretence of balance around court.