Re: "Google also uses the Buganizer tool as a way of managing workflow"
Nope. According to LinkedIn, she's a "specialist on the legal online operations team". Can't see any legal training mentioned.
21 posts • joined 23 Nov 2012
Don't really see how this is the same. MS in Ireland is a separate legal entity and does not do any business in the US; it does conform to laws in Ireland where it actually conducts business. If MS Ireland did business in the US, then I would expect it would conform to the laws there as well. WhatsApp in the US does business in Brazil and as such should be expected to confirm to the local laws. This is no different from any company doing business internationally, just because the company is registered in a different country, doesn't mean they can ignore all the laws of the country they're doing business in.
Not sure how Google's stance here could be legal?
I am not a lawyer but if I imported something which didn't meet my country's safety standards then the company who imported it is still liable if something happened (not sure about the manufacturer). *
If I view (import data) something which is not legal in my country via Google (the data importer) then surely they would still be liable - talk of "we didn't directly target your country" are surely irrelevant - they allowed access and therefore still must be liable (?) - I can understand if they tried to disallow access but were circumvented (US based VPN endpoint etc.) *
Given the abopve, I would have expected the "right to be forgotten" to be based on the searcher's geo location rather than just which url you search from.
(* I realise the analagy is not great but http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/net-us-ups-pharmacies-settlement-idUSBRE92S0DX20130329 (UPS to forfeit $40 million over illegal online pharmacy shipments) would tend to suggest that there may be some liabilty to Google.com here)
An index is only useful when it indexes what is important. If you look at the back of any reference book, you do not see entries for every possible word, only those that matter. Google obviously thinks the same otherwise it wouldn't be delisting all kinds of dross from it's organic search index.
The ruling includes references to "in the public interest" & this should be the litmus test for what would be considered important enough to not be excluded.
"Google will not pay and the rivals will pay.' It's not true - it's the same treatment"
Does he mean Google [Product]* will pay Google AdWords to display its product ads?
Not sure how this is the same treatment as the expense (Google [Product] will be offset by the income (Google AdWords), they could even claim more expenses in dealing with the "Ad" and thus reducing their (non-existant) tax-bill. All the rivals meanwhile have a real expense when buying the ads...
*i.e. Google Maps pays for Ads on Google Search using Google AdWords.
"unless they are carrying out illegal activities"
Given that the government is concerned these sites are fooling people into believing they are the official hmrc means of doing a tax return then I think "carrying out illegal activities" definitely comes into play.
The issue of the warning being above the fold is that, it is above the fold on a desktop monitor not a tablet or smart phone. My stepdad got caught out paying extra for the congestion charge through a third party in this way.
"Since when was "Ignorance", an excuse for the Law?"
Tell that to Apple, they're the one's who broke it
FTC chairwoman from the article says "You cannot charge consumers for purchases they did not authorize."
Just because Apple says that entering your password means you've authorized all purchases for 15 minutes doesn't mean that the actual law is going to agree with them...
The idea that Chinese manufacturers cut corners and produce poor quality goods simply because of the price they agree with foreign buyers is a complete myth. It's a cultural trait; they view the ability to produce a lower cost fake which can fool someone as a great achievement. They do this not only with foreigners but with themselves as well. Suggest you read something like "Poorly Made In China" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Poorly-Made-China-Insiders-Production-ebook/dp/B004G5Z2A8/) if you want to know what really goes on.
"How does that have anything to do with net neutraility? AFAIAC net neutrality means that packets are considered equal indepedenly of their type/origin/destination."
Did you not read this bit?
"Telstra, for example, offers a movie download service and would obviously prefer it offers a better user experience than iTunes"
Presumably "better user experience" in this case means dumping iTunes movie packets in favour of Telstra movie packets...
"This is on a par with a nine-year-old kid being arrested for stealing a few sweets from the Pic-and-Mix at Wilkinsons."
Given she didn't even download the song & her Dad bought it for her the following day - it's actually more akin to trying to pick up a sweet and finding her hands too small. Tells Daddy who buys her the sweet. Then getting arrested for stealing - totally bizarre.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019