Feed aggregator

An American Attorney in Canada (Part 1: Copyright)

IPBlog (Calgary) - Thu, 2014/08/28 - 09:00
By Richard Stobbe Okay, so maybe it's neither as romantic as Gershwin's "An American in Paris", nor as historical as Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court," but many US lawyers do find themselves facing legal issues in Canada. US practitioners who deal with Canadian legal matters must take note ...

A Hangout On Air Conversation with SBA Administrator Maria Contreras-Sweet

Google Public Policy BLOG - Wed, 2014/08/27 - 09:32
Posted by Soo Young Kim, Head of Marketing, Get Your Business Online

There are 28 million small businesses in the US, and small businesses represent almost half of US private-sector jobs. What kind of support and resources does our government provide to make sure these small businesses thrive? Where can we find tips on how to start or grow a business? What funding opportunities are there?
On Wednesday, August 27th, the leader of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and the voice of small business in President Obama’s Cabinet, Maria Contreras-Sweet, will join the Google Small Business Community for a Hangout on Air to share tips and insights for small businesses.
Since being appointed by President Obama, Administrator Contreras-Sweet has made a priority to meet and hear from small businesses. On Wednesday, she will answer questions directly from small businesses through Hangouts. Over the past two weeks, thousands of small business owners from all over the US, representing various backgrounds, experiences, and businesses, have submitted questions for the Administrator covering funding for businesses to technology.
Five small business participants will be joining the Hangout on camera along with the Administrator. One of the attendees, Brantley Crowder, is the director of e-commerce for Savannah Bee Company. Savannah Bee Company started in 2002 with a single beehive and a mission to support regional beekeepers by selling their honey and making honey-related health and beauty products. They started delving into digital with their website which launched in 2010 to support their stores in Charleston and Savannah.
The Hangout has participants like David Winslow, writing, “the SBA is beginning to make headway in an effort to lead the Government into a friendlier, more engaging place!”
Join the SBA Administrator tomorrow at 1:30 PM PT / 4:30 PM ET in the Google Small Business Community, a public community, which gives business people direct access to experts and industry leaders like Contreras-Sweet. The event will also be accessible live on the Google+ Your Business YouTube channel, in the event invitation, and the SBA website, and the video will be posted for viewing post-event.
RSVP to view the broadcast and submit your questions for a chance to have them answered live, on-air during the Hangout.

Adversarial Compatibility: hidden escape hatch rescues us from imprisonment through our stuff


My latest Guardian column, Adapting gadgets to our needs is the secret pivot on which technology turns, explains the hidden economics of stuff, and how different rules can trap you in your own past, or give you a better future.

Depending on your view, the stuff you own is either a boon to business or a tremendous loss of opportunity.

For example, your collection spice bottles in your pantry means that I could possibly sell you a spice rack. On the other hand, it also means that I can’t design a special spice rack that only admits spice bottles of my own patent-protected design, which would thereby ensure that if you wanted to buy spices in the future you’d either have to buy them from me or throw away that very nice spice rack I sold you.

In the tech world, this question is often framed in terms of “ecosystems” (as in the “Google/Chrome/Android ecosystem”) or platforms (as in the “Facebook platform”) but whatever you call it, the discussion turns on a crucial different concept: sunk cost.

That’s the money, time, mental energy and social friction you’ve already sunk into the stuff you own. Your spice rack’s sunk cost includes the money you spend on the rack, the time you spent buying fixings for it and the time you spent afixing it, the emotional toil of getting your family to agree on a spice rack, and the incredible feeling of dread that arises when you contemplate going through the whole operation again.

If you’ve already got a lot of sunk costs, the canny product strategy is to convince you that you can buy something that will help you organise your spices, rip all your CDs and put them on a mobile device, or keep your clothes organised.

But what a vendor really wants is to get you to sink cost into his platform, ecosystem, or what have you. To convince you to buy his wares, in order to increase the likelihood that you’ll go on doing so – because they match the decor, because you already have the adapters, and so on.

Adapting gadgets to our needs is the secret pivot on which technology turns [The Guardian]

(Image: David Joyce, CC-BY-SA: Story, Lumix G1 Adapter Breakdown, Chad Kainz, CC-BY)

Tech Review’s annual science fiction issue, edited by Bruce Sterling, featuring William Gibson


The summer annual features stories "inspired by the real-life breakthroughs covered in the pages of MIT Technology Review," including "Petard," my story about hacktivism; and "Death Cookie/Easy Ice," an excerpt from William Gibson's forthcoming (and stone brilliant) futuristic novel The Peripheral.

Other authors in the collection include Lauren Beukes, Chris Brown, Pat Cadigan, Warren Ellis, Joel Garreau, and Paul Graham Raven. The 2013 summer anthology was a huge hit -- Gardner Dozois called it "one of the year’s best SF anthologies to date, perhaps the best."

The 2014 edition is out this month, available direct from MIT Tech Review.

Twelve Tomorrows | MIT Technology Review

Intellectual Asset Management Best Practices – Part 1

IPBlog (Calgary) - Mon, 2014/08/25 - 11:00
- By Richard Stobbe Does your organization have “intellectual assets”? Regardless of what your organization does – whether it is a service-based business, or in the manufacturing sector, whether it is driven by cloud-based software or bricks-and-mortar locations, whether it is a multinational or a local start-up – chances are good that ...

Louvain – 25 August 1914

Fair Duty by Meera Nair - Sun, 2014/08/24 - 14:36

Librarians and historians alike may well feel somber as we approach the 100th anniversary of the Le sac de Louvain, a collective punishment meted out by German forces to the people of Louvain for seeming resistance to the German presence. Included among the sites of destruction was the library of the University of Louvain. Set ablaze the night of 25 August 1914, by the next morning its contents had been reduced to ashes.

In 2013, Mark Derez, Archivist of University Archives and Art Collection Leuven (Louvain), presented the story of that destruction, response, and reconstruction. An abbreviated version of his presentation was published in 2014 by the WWI Daily. Derez writes:

The destruction of Leuven had not been unique – in four Belgian provinces, 18,000 houses were destroyed and 5,000 Belgian civilians were killed … [But] there was an emotional element at work… Of all the atrocities committed, that which spoke most to the imagination was the devastation of the university library, for in no way could it have been considered a military target. … [This assault] produced a worldwide stream of solidarity. While the war was still on, twenty-five committees were formed in neutral and Allied countries to collect money and books.

Among those who took it upon themselves to encourage donations of books by Americans and American libraries, was Theodore Wesley Koch. A scholar of Dante, and an internationally respected librarian, Koch’s appreciation of the benefit wrought by libraries for the public was all too evident. As Librarian for the University of Michigan, he had introduced measures that allowed students to borrow books (previously only the professoriate enjoyed that privilege) and allowed public access to the periodical collection.

In a publication titled The University of Louvain and its Library, produced in London and Toronto in July 1917, Koch details the history of the university and the depth and breadth of the library’s contents. It began with a bequest of 852 volumes in 1627, “rich in history and theology,” from former student Laurent Beyerlinck. Subsequent patrons and librarians worked together through a period of nearly 300 years to amass over 250,000 items including rare manuscripts, incunabula, and university archival material beginning with the original papal bull authorizing its foundation.

Koch draws particular attention to the work of C.F. de Nelis, appointed as University Librarian in 1752, whose first act was to: “… ask the Government to require Belgian printers to send to the University Library at least one copy of every book printed by them (p.17).” (A condition that sounds very much like that included within the Statute of Anne (1710), where publishers were to remit nine copies of each book produced, “printed upon the best paper,” to various university libraries.)

The library was successfully reconstructed, inside and out. But it opened in 1928 to both acclaim and controversy. Architect Whitney Warren had sought to design not merely a modern library in neo-renaissance style, but also a war memorial replete with a bell tower whose carillon would ring forth patriotic anthems. Derez describes in detail the clash between those who sought to demilitarize the halls of learning and those who wanted the atrocities to be immortalized. So too does Matthew Battles in Library: An Unquiet History (2003). The final design and play list stopped short of overt jingoism but was memorial enough to attract unpleasant attention from Germany in the next world war. Merely 12 years after it opened, the library was once again destroyed in the 1940 shelling.

The library has since been rebuilt again to Warren’s design. Complete with its bells.

The rallying of the international library community in support of public benefit continues to this day. Preservation of our past, and preparation for our future, were prominent topics of discussion at the satellite conference and the annual conference of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) held in Strasbourg and Lyon over the past few weeks. In her opening remarks, IFLA president Sinikka Sipilä spoke of strong libraries as integral to strong societies; and emphasized that “access to information supports development by empowering people to exercise their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, learn and apply new skills and make decisions and participate in an active and engaged civil society.”

To that end, the Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development was unveiled on 18 August 2014; it calls upon Member States of the United Nations to ensure that information access, sharing, and use are incorporated in the post-2015 development agenda. Details are here; at the time of this writing, 134 organizations have given their support.

 


Risk Management - a roundtable discussion

IPBlog (Calgary) - Fri, 2014/08/22 - 13:00
Field Law sponsored the Canadian Lawyer magazine's in-house general counsel roundtable, moderated by Jennifer Brown: see this link. The participants - from the University of Calgary and technology-driven companies Pason Systems Corp. and Trican Well Services - discuss how risk management is addressed in their organizations. Calgary - 07:00 MST

Chrome now available for download in Cuba

Google Public Policy BLOG - Wed, 2014/08/20 - 17:55
By Pedro Less Andrade, Director of Government Affairs & Public Policy, Latin America
U.S. export controls and sanctions can sometimes limit the products available in certain countries. But these trade restrictions are always evolving, and over time, we’ve been working to figure out how to make more tools available in sanctioned countries. In the past couple years we’ve made Chrome downloadable in Syria and Iran. We’re happy to say that Internet users in Cuba can now use Chrome too, and browse the web faster and more safely than they could before.

Innovation in Canada

IPBlog (Calgary) - Wed, 2014/08/20 - 17:00
By Richard Stobbe A recent survey of the top patent producing corporations in Canada (see this link, courtesy of our colleagues at IPPractice.ca) shows a few interesting trends: Despite its fall from grace over the past 4 or 5 years, BlackBerry remains among the top innovators in the country. The top five patentees ...

Neal Stephenson and Cory speaking at Seattle’s Town Hall, Oct 26


We're getting together to talk about Hieroglyph: Stories and Visions for a Better Future , a project that Stephenson kicked off -- I've got a story in it called "The Man Who Sold the Moon."

The project's mission is to promote "Asimovian robots, Heinleinian rocket ships, Gibsonian cyberspace… plausible, thought-out pictures of alternate realities in which... compelling innovation has taken place." Tickets are $5.


Neal Stephenson and Cory Doctorow: Reigniting Society’s Ambition with Science Fiction

Re: Drool all over the trailer for Doctor Who's season 8 premiere

Russell McOrmond on Disqus - Fri, 2014/08/15 - 06:43

Has there been a posting yet about when regular season episodes will be airing on Space? Will it continue Sat 30th, and each Saturday after for a while?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re: The Elusive Prime Ministerial Library

Russell McOrmond on Disqus - Tue, 2014/08/12 - 12:43

(Sorry -- was only pointed to this recently)

We don't have an office similar to the president in Canada, and I wouldn't want to given even more excessive emphasis on the leader of the party in power than they already have.

I find the emphasis given to party leaders during and after elections to already be excessive. I'm in support of policy changes that reign in these party leaders (especially PMO, OLO, etc), and opposed to concepts like presidential-style libraries coming to Canada.

If we want to discuss the creation of political era specific libraries, that is a separate issue.

My London Worldcon schedule


I'll be joining thousands of fans and hundreds of presenters at Loncon 3, the 72nd World Science Fiction Convention, later this week. I hope to see you there!

Weds, Aug 13
* 18h: Group signing at Forbidden Planet, Shaftesbury Ave, with Chris Achilleos,
Madeline Ashby,
Gregory Benford,
Adam Christopher,
Wesley Chu,
Phil & Kaja Foglio,
Anne Lyle,
Ramez Naam,
Kim Newman,
V. E. Schwab,
Charles Stross,
Mike Shevdon and
Danie Ware

Thurs, Aug 14
* 15.00-16.30 - Panel: Digital Vigilantes, Capital Suite 2 (ExCeL);
with: Kin-Ming Looi, Lilian Edwards, David Dingwall, Neil McKellar

Fri, Aug 15
* 11.00-12.00 - Panel: The Pleasures of a Good, Long Info-Dump, Capital
Suite 7+12 (ExCeL); with: Jack William Bell (M), Kim Stanley Robinson,
M. Darusha Wehm

Sat, Aug 16
* 12.00-13.30 - Panel: Fresh Perspectives: Comic Books for Young People,
London Suite 3 (ExCeL); with: Emily Wagner (M), Inko, Kaluas AE
Mogensen, Smuzz

* 14.30-15.00 - Reading, London Suite 1 (ExCeL)

* 16.00-17.00 - Kaffeeklatsch, London Suite 5 (ExCeL), with Anne Lyle

* 20.00-21.00 - The Sidewise, Prometheus, Seiun and Golden Duck Awards,
Capital Suite 8+11 (ExCeL)

Sunday, Aug 17
* 09.00-10.00 - Stroll with the Stars, front of Aloft (ExCeL), with:
Judith Clute, John Clute, Farah Mendlesohn, Joe Haldeman, Gay Haldeman,
Elizabeth Hand, Tricia Sullivan, Jonathan Strahan

Monday, Aug 18

* 12.00-13.30 - Panel: Brave Young World, Capital Suite 13 (ExCeL);
with: Heather Urbanski (M), David Farnell, Gillian Redfearn

* 13.30-15.00 - Panel: Young Adults in Fandom, Capital Suite 10 (ExCeL);
with: Kelley Armstrong (M), Monika Drzewiecka, Meg Frank

Disrupting elections with Kickstarter-like campaigning apps


The UK parliamentary farce over #DRIP showed us that, more than any other industry, the political machine is in dire need of disruption.


In my latest Guardian column, How the Kickstarter model could transform UK elections, I suggest that the way that minority politicians could overcome the collective action deadlock of voters being unwilling to "throw away" their ballots on the parties they support, and so holding their nose and voting for the mainstream party they hate least, or not voting at all, by taking a page out of Kickstarter's playbook:

Here's how that could work:

"Yellow Party! Well, I love what you stand for, but come on, you haven't got a snowball's chance. It's throwing away my vote."

"Oh, I'm not asking you to vote for me! Not quite, anyway. All I want you to do is go on record saying that you would vote for me, if 20% of your neighbours made the same promise. Then, on election day, we'll send you a text or and email letting you know how many people there are who've made the same promise, and you get to decide whether it's worth your while.

"The current MP, Ms Setforlife, got elected with only 8,000 votes in the last election. If I can show you that 9,000 of your neighbours feel the same way as you do, and if you act on that information – well, we could change everything."

This threshold-style action system is at the heart of Kickstarter (pledge whatever you like, but no one has to spend anything unless enough money is raised to see the project to completion) and it's utterly adaptable to elections.

In democracies all over the world, voting is in decline. A permanent political class has emerged, and what it has to offer benefits a small elite at the public's wider expense.

How the Kickstarter model could transform UK elections

Documentary on the making of the Homeland audiobook with Wil Wheaton

Skyboat Media produced this great little documentary about Wil Wheaton's recording sessions for the audiobook of my novel Homeland, in which he had to read out Pi for four minutes straight, read out dialog in which the narrator had a fanboy moment about meeting Wil Wheaton, and many other fun moments.

Growing America’s Businesses Online

Google Public Policy BLOG - Thu, 2014/07/17 - 12:57
Posted by Jim Lecinski, Vice President, Customer Solutions
Over the past few months, we’ve had the chance to talk to businesses all over the country and hear stories of how they’ve become successful. For many, it’s pretty simple: the Internet. The web is helping businesses and communities across the U.S. to grow and succeed. In fact, last year Google’s search and advertising tools helped provide $111 billion of economic activity for more than 1.5 million businesses—advertisers, publishers and nonprofits—across the U.S.
Take Go2marine, a boat supply company located on Bainbridge Island, off the coast of Washington State. Because of their remote location, bringing traffic to their website using Google AdWords plays an important role in their ability to sell their 250,000+ boat supplies to customers in 176 countries. When it’s winter in the U.S., they rely on customers located in other parts of the world where it’s boating season, with the web bringing them business from any place, in any season.
Or meet Don Morton, who taught reading, writing and language in lower-income neighborhoods in my home town of Chicago for nine years. In 2005, he began creating his own materials to supplement what the school system provided. Realizing that his worksheets could be useful for students and teachers everywhere, he created ereadingworksheets.com to provide his worksheets for free. Don started using Google AdSense to offset his costs by placing ads next to his content, and today he’s able to work full-time on his website and make an impact on students around the world.
These are just two examples of enterprising people making the most of Google tools to find new customers, connect with existing ones and grow their businesses; you can find plenty more of them in our Economic Impact Report. Our tools help connect business owners to their customers, whether they’re around the corner or across the world from each other. And when businesses flourish, it’s good news for the rest of us. Recent data shows that businesses that are online are expected to grow 40 percent faster and hire twice as many workers as businesses that aren’t. Every year, it gets clearer that the web helps lead to more successful businesses, stronger economies, more vibrant towns, and more prosperous communities.
Learn more about our economic impact in all 50 U.S. states, and how businesses are finding success through the web. Whether it’s a part for a boat or a grammar worksheet, we’re proud to play a role in giving businesses the tools they need to do more--to grow and thrive and connect with customers and communities all over the world.

the $500 million tip of the TPP iceberg

Fair Duty by Meera Nair - Sun, 2014/07/13 - 23:19

Last week, international negotiators met in Ottawa to further discuss the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. With the usual shroud of secrecy, few details regarding agenda and outcomes were released for public consumption. Nevertheless, based on a leaked copy of the chapter relating to intellectual property, there is sufficient reason for concern with respect to copyright. As reported last week (see Electronic Frontier Foundation here, Michael Geist here, Public Knowledge here, and VICE here) Canada’s copyright regime is likely to be challenged on at least two fronts:

  • the role of internet service providers (will they remain as neutral providers or become key figures in policing the internet?)
  • copyright duration (will Canada’s life-plus-fifty term give way to life-plus-seventy?)

Geist reminds us that the TPP will touch more than copyright; Canada’s privacy and patenting regimes are also implicated. Indeed, the question of Canadian sovereignty with respect to patenting is already at risk, via Eli Lilly’s $500 million challenge to the Canadian government regarding the loss of two secondary-use patents. The means by which Eli Lilly has launched its claim is a consequence of the Investor-State Dispute (ISD) mechanism of NAFTA.

Courtesy of Dennis Lowe and National Geographic

Our made-in-Canada copyright regime has been painstakingly crafted over ten years of deliberative thought; to watch it cast aside will be difficult. But more deleterious will be further entrenchment of the ISD mechanism through the TPP. Yet this issue has received little attention in Canada. Perhaps in part because the topic is not sexy; Investor-State Dispute sounds painfully dull. The phrase cannot be summarily equated to freedom of expression, invasion of privacy, or even the dubious claim that a hit television series could not have been made under the TPP. ISDs are constructed with arcane language that seemingly has little to do with everyday life, but they are potentially lethal as is being demonstrated by Eli Lilly.

Eli Lilly provides the bizarre spectacle of a corporation suing a government because a court decision did not favour the corporation. It has vehemently insisted that the decision of Canadian courts not to uphold two secondary-use patents is a violation of investor safeguards provided through NAFTA; specifically, those relating to minimum standard of treatment, non-discrimination, and expropriation. That the courts rejected the patents because the drugs concerned did not live up to the standard of utility set by Canadian law, was not reasonable according to Eli Lilly. To take action against Canada required contorting the ISD chapter of NAFTA, despite the fact that the chapter in question does not apply to intellectual property. The entire event would read like a lurid novel, if novels were written about intellectual property and national sovereignty.

In a report dated to March 2013, Public Citizen provides a meticulously researched account of Eli Lilly’s actions and the operation of ISDs within trade agreements. At that time, Canada was only facing a $100 million challenge (Eli Lilly has since upped the ante); even so, Public Citizen did not miss the irony at hand:

… while Canada faces an investor-state challenge from Eli Lilly, the country has joined negotiations to establish the TPP, which would expand the investor-state system further. To date, Canada alone has paid more than $155 million to foreign investors after NAFTA investor-state attacks on energy, timber, land use and toxics policies. Underlying Eli Lilly’s claim against Canada is the notion that government patent policies and actions are subject to the investor privileges provisions of the agreement.

Public Citizen observes that Eli Lilly’s actions marks the first occasion of an intellectual property challenge occurring under the auspices of NAFTA’s ISD provisions. Our previous “first”, the first challenge of any kind, does not offer much comfort, resulting as it did in a loss both monetarily and for public health. Briefly, in 1997 a ban on the gasoline additive MMT was repealed by the Canadian government in response to opposition by Ethyl Corporation, the American producer of the additive. At the time, Public Citizen wrote:

The Canadian government settled the NAFTA suit yesterday agreeing to pay Ethyl $13 million in damages and to cover the company’s legal costs. It will also proclaim publicly that MMT is “safe” in direct contradiction of the view of its national environmental protection agency.

With respect to Eli Lilly’s present action, Michael Geist and E. Richard Gold (Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University) have both indicated that the corporation’s chances of winning are slim. Notably, in a briefing session recently held in Washington DC, Gold indicates that “… no competent tribunal could rule in Eli Lilly’s favor”. We can only hope that both Geist and Gold are correct. But competence might prove a relative term; so far, arbitration tribunals have not distinguished themselves in weighing public interest (as a domestic court of law would) into the decision-making process. (Public Citizen has thoroughly documented past arbitration decisions, with added detail for some of the more egregious outcomes.) Moreover, even if Canada secures a win, that does not necessarily exclude involvement in costs.

The Washington DC briefing session was hosted by the firm of Stern, Kessler, Goldstein and Fox on 5 June 2014, with all the presentations posted online. I am hard pressed to choose a favorite but Simon Lester (Trade Policy Analyst, Cato Institute) raises the issue of Canada’s increasing involvement with ISDs. Despite some indication from the Canadian government that CETA (the impending trade deal with the European Union) will mitigate the ISD risks, Lester notes that Canada is simply trying to “tweak the language” to ensure that court decisions cannot be challenged. “…  what I have seen written is that the only changes are that no claims can be made under expropriation, but there are more avenues [of claim]… the slight tweaks that Canada wants to make are probably not enough.”

If the Canadian government is not decisively protecting sovereignty within a bilateral trade negotiation, it is unlikely that we will do better in the multi-national forum of the TPP.

There is much more that could and should be written about ISDs but, for now, Lester shall have the last word. In his presentation, he asks an important question: “Normally, the Supreme Court gets the final word. But apparently, there’s an international court system above the domestic Supreme Court system.  … Is everybody okay with that?”

 

 

 

 

 


Homeland wins the Prometheus award!


I am delighted and honored to announce that my novel Homeland has won the Prometheus Award for best novel, tying with Ramez Naam's excellent novel Nexus. I am triply honored because this is the third Prometheus I've won -- the other two being for Little Brother and Pirate Cinema. My sincere thanks to the Libertarian Futurist Society; I'll see you at the Worldcon in London this year to accept it!

Searching for the right balance

Google Public Policy BLOG - Fri, 2014/07/11 - 10:30
In May, the Court of Justice of the European Union established a “right to be forgotten." Today, we published an op-ed by David Drummond, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer, in the U.K.'s The Guardian, Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, France's Le Figaro and Spain's El Pais, discussing the ruling and our response. We're republishing the op-ed in full below. -Ed.

When you search online, there’s an unwritten assumption that you’ll get an instant answer, as well as additional information if you need to dig deeper. This is all possible because of two decades worth of investment and innovation by many different companies. Today, however, search engines across Europe face a new challenge—one we’ve had just two months to get our heads around. That challenge is figuring out what information we must deliberately omit from our results, following a new ruling from the European Court of Justice.

In the past we’ve restricted the removals we make from search to a very short list. It includes information deemed illegal by a court, such as defamation, pirated content (once we’re notified by the rights holder), malware, personal information such as bank details, child sexual abuse imagery and other things prohibited by local law (like material that glorifies Nazism in Germany).

We’ve taken this approach because, as article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

But the European Court found that people have the right to ask for information to be removed from search results that include their names if it is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive.” In deciding what to remove, search engines must also have regard to the public interest. These are, of course, very vague and subjective tests. The court also decided that search engines don’t qualify for a “journalistic exception.” This means that The Guardian could have an article on its website about an individual that’s perfectly legal, but we might not legally be able to show links to it in our results when you search for that person’s name. It’s a bit like saying the book can stay in the library, it just cannot be included in the library’s card catalogue.

It’s for these reasons that we disagree with the ruling. That said, we obviously respect the court’s authority and are doing our very best to comply quickly and responsibly. It’s a huge task as we’ve had over 70,000 take-down requests covering 250,000 webpages since May. So we now have a team of people individually reviewing each application, in most cases with limited information and almost no context.

The examples we’ve seen so far highlight the difficult value judgments search engines and European society now face: former politicians wanting posts removed that criticize their policies in office; serious, violent criminals asking for articles about their crimes to be deleted; bad reviews for professionals like architects and teachers; comments that people have written themselves (and now regret). In each case, someone wants the information hidden, while others might argue it should be out in the open.

When it comes to determining what’s in the the public interest, we’re taking into account a number of factors. These include whether: the information relates to a politician, celebrity, or other public figure; if the material comes from a reputable news source, and how recent it is; whether it involves political speech; questions of professional conduct that might be relevant to consumers; the involvement of criminal convictions that are not yet “spent”; and if the information is being published by a government. But these will always be difficult and debatable judgments.

We’re also doing our best to be transparent about removals: for example, we’re informing websites when one of their pages has been removed. But we cannot be specific about why we have removed the information because that could violate the individual’s privacy rights under the court's decision.

Of course, only two months in, our process is still very much a work in progress. It’s why we incorrectly removed links to some articles last week (they have since been reinstated). But the good news is that the ongoing, active debate that’s happening will inform the development of our principles, policies and practices—in particular about how to balance one person’s right to privacy with another’s right to know.

That’s why we've also set up an advisory council of experts, the final membership of which we're announcing today. These external experts from the worlds of academia, the media, data protection, civil society and the tech sector are serving as independent advisors to Google. The council will be asking for evidence and recommendations from different groups, and will hold public meetings this autumn across Europe to examine these issues more deeply. Its public report will include recommendations for particularly difficult removal requests (like criminal convictions); thoughts on the implications of the court’s decision for European Internet users, news publishers, search engines and others; and procedural steps that could improve accountability and transparency for websites and citizens.

The issues here at stake are important and difficult, but we’re committed to complying with the court’s decision. Indeed it's hard not to empathize with some of the requests we've seen—from the man who asked that we not show a news article saying he had been questioned in connection with a crime (he’s able to demonstrate that he was never charged) to the mother who requested that we remove news articles for her daughter’s name as she had been the victim of abuse. It’s a complex issue, with no easy answers. So a robust debate is both welcome and necessary, as, on this issue at least, no search engine has an instant or perfect answer.

Posted by David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

How to save the CBC, making it a global online participatory leader



In my latest Guardian column, What Canada's national public broadcaster could learn from the BBC, I look at the punishing cuts to the CBC, and how a shelved (but visionary) BBC plan to field a "creative archive" of shareable and remixable content could help the network lead the country into a networked, participatory future.

The CBC, at least, has only limited delusions about the importance of commercialising its archives, especially when that comes at the expense of access to the archives for Canadians. Canada is a young nation, and the CBC has been there with Canadians for about half of the country's short life. The contents of the CBC's archives are even more central to the identity of Canadians that the BBC's is to Britons.

If the CBC is to be cut and remade as a digital-first public service entity, then a Canadian Creative Archive could be one way for it to salvage some joy from its misery. There's nothing more "digital first" than ensuring that the most common online activities – copying, sharing, and remixing – are built into the nation's digital heritage.

What's more, the CBC's situation is by no means unique. In an era of austerity, massive wealth inequality, industrial-scale tax-evasion and totalising market orthodoxy, there's hardly a public broadcaster anywhere in the world that isn't facing brutal cuts that go to the bone and beyond.

All of these broadcasters have something in common: they produced their massive archives at public expense, for the public's benefit, and have made only limited progress in giving the public online access to those treasures.

What Canada's national public broadcaster could learn from the BBC

Syndicate content