Nigerian porn chart sites

Rated 4.94/5 based on 945 customer reviews

This week's five-eyes meeting has issued its communique, promising to get the tech sector to solve the problems of online terrorism and encrypted communications.

As is the way of political communiques, there's a carefully-crafted lack of detail (sufficient, for example, for plausible deniability) about what exactly is planned.

The decision is part of a troubling trend around the world of courts and other governmental bodies ordering that content be removed from the entirety of the Internet, not just in that country's locale.

On the same day the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision issued, a court in Europe heard arguments as to whether to expand the right-to-be-forgotten worldwide.

It ruled that because Google was subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian courts by virtue of its operations in Canada, courts in Canada had the authority to order Google to delete search results worldwide.

The court further held that there was no inconvenience to Google in removing search results, and Google had not shown the injunction would offend any rights abroad.

It may have seemed like 2016 was never going to end, but here we are at the beginning of what we’re hoping will be a happy and healthy 2017.

Brutal Kangaroo: Wikileaks Exposes How CIA Hacks Computers Not Connected To Internet The Supreme Court of Canada ignored those concerns.

Although Google was not named in the lawsuit, it voluntarily took down specific URLs that directed users to the defendants’ products and ads under the local (Canadian) domains.

But Equustek wanted more, and the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that Google had to delete the entire domain from its search results, including from all other domains such and uk.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision, and the Supreme Court of Canada decision followed the analysis of those courts. Issuing an order that would cut off access to information for U. users would set a dangerous precedent for online speech.

EFF intervened in the case, explaining [.pdf] that such an injunction ran directly contrary to both the U. In essence, it would expand the power of any court in the world to edit the entire Internet, whether or not the targeted material or site is lawful in another country.

Leave a Reply