Back in the 1990s – a lifetime ago in internet terms – the Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells published several books charting the rise of information networks. He predicted that in the networked age, more value would accrue in controlling flows of information than in controlling the content itself. Read the rest of this entry »
I have written about the case of Google Inc vs Equustek Solutions several times over the past couple of years (for example, here, here, and here). This series of blog posts tracked the evolution of the case. Read the rest of this entry »
If you’ve ever wondered if your phone is spying on you, you’re not alone. One of the most hotly debated topics in technology today is the amount of data that firms surreptitiously gather about us online. You may well have shared the increasingly common experience of feeling creeped out by ads for something you recently discussed in a real life conversation or an online interaction. Read the rest of this entry »
“Reconciling the right to privacy and the protection of personal data with the right to information and freedom of expression in the age of the Internet is one of the main challenges of our time.” With these words, Advocate General Szpunar opened the first of two important opinions involving Google and the right to be forgotten he delivered yesterday, 10 January 2019. Read the rest of this entry »
When dealing with Google, it is good to bear in mind that their erasure policy is both erratic and random. The Right to be Forgotten seems to depend on the individual who is dealing with a request and whether they have had a good or bad day. There have been a number of odd – indeed, downright inconsistent decisions over the past six months which illustrate the problem. Learning on the job does not quite capture it. Read the rest of this entry »
Most of us resignedly consent to the use of cookies in order to use internet sites, vaguely aware that these collect information about our browsing habits in order to target us with advertisements. It’s annoying, but does it do us any harm? That is the question that came up before Warby J in a preliminary application for a representative claim in the case of Lloyd v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 2599 (QB). Read the rest of this entry »
The House of Lords Communications Committee has launched an inquiry into how the regulation of the internet should be improved. Oral and Written evidence has been provided to the Committee by a very wide range of companies, NGOs and individuals from a variety of perspectives. Read the rest of this entry »
The Trkulja defamation franchise is into its fourth instalment, with the latest victory against the Google Empire coming with a stirring outcome arising from Mr Trkulja’s debut appearance in the High Court ([2018] HCA 25). Read the rest of this entry »
Google is at it again. According to press reports in the New Zealand Herald, Google refused to comply with a New Zealand court order to suppress details and remove content related to a local murder trial because, according to a representative of Google NZ, “Google LLC, was a separate legal entity incorporated in the US, meaning New Zealand’s courts and laws held no power over it.” Tell that to the Supreme Court of Canada. Read the rest of this entry »
It would be the ultimate under-statement to say that recent events concerning the appalling breaches of privacy permitted and indeed orchestrated by Facebook have raised public awareness to new heights over what happens when internet intermediaries are allowed to do just about whatever they want. Read the rest of this entry »
