This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/google-challenges-high-court-decision-on-alleged-secret-monitoring-9911411.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Google challenges High Court decision on alleged secret monitoring Google in court again over ‘right to be above British law’ on alleged secret monitoring
(about 3 hours later)
Google is embroiled in allegations that it has spied on Britons, in a complex legal fight over whether the internet giant should face justice in the British courts. A battle by Google to establish that it is above British law resumed today in a landmark trial that will decide whether or not it can be held accountable by its users in this country.
In a hearing which began in the Court of Appeal today, Google is challenging a decision by a High Court judge earlier this year that the British courts are the “appropriate jurisdiction” to hear a case in which Google is accused of secretly monitoring users of the Safari internet browser. Facing allegations that it used “clandestine” tracking to monitor British users of the Safari web browser, the internet giant unsuccessfully argued earlier this year that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to try the claims.
The claims have been brought by a group known as Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, which includes Judith Vidal-Hall, the former editor of Index on Censorship magazine, and IT security company directors Robert Hann and Marc Bradshaw. It is now trying to have the decision overturned, with lawyers for Google saying that the group which brought the case should have launched its claims in the United States, where the company is based.
They are accusing the internet company of bypassing security settings on the Safari browser so that it could to track their activity and target them with personalised advertisements. The claims have been brought by a group known as Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking, which includes Judith Vidal-Hall, a former editor of Index on Censorship magazine, and IT security company directors Robert Hann and Marc Bradshaw. The case is being fought on behalf of about 100 people in Britain and, if it is won, could open Google up to claims from millions more people who were using Apple equipment in 2010.
The “clandestine” tracking and collation of internet usage, between summer 2011 and spring 2012, has caused distress and embarrassment, according to the group - which filed a Group Action lawsuit against Google in 2013. The company is accused of bypassing security settings on the Safari browser so that it could track activity and target users with personalised advertisements.
During a High Court hearing in London earlier this year, Google argued that the claims for misuse of private information should have been launched in the United States, where the company is based. The clandestine tracking and collation of internet usage, between summer 2011 and spring 2012, has caused distress and embarrassment, according to the group – which filed a group-action lawsuit against Google in 2013.
This was a “misconceived” attempt to block a trail and the company should “answer to British justice” according to the group. Dan Tench, a partner at the law firm Olswang, which is representing the group, insisted: “The Court of Appeal hearing will decide whether British consumers actually have any right to hold Google to account in this country.
And Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in January: “'I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant's claims for misuse of private information.” He added: “The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the above claims.” “This is the appropriate forum for this case – here in England where the consumers used the internet and where they have a right to privacy.”
But Antony White QC, representing Google, told the Court of Appeal: “The judge wrongly dismissed the appellant's application to set aside service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction, and his ruling should be reversed.” The group said that Google’s argument that the claims should have been launched in the US was a “misconceived” attempt to block a trial and the company should “answer to British justice”.
And Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing the Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking group, argued the judge was right to rule that misuse of private information was a tort - a civil wrong - for the purposes of deciding whether it could be heard in Britain. Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in January: “I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant’s claims for misuse of private information.” He added: “The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the… claims.”
In a statement, a Google spokesperson said: “A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety in the US. We don’t think that this case meets the Court’s standards required for it to be heard, which is why we are appealing it.” But Antony White QC, representing Google, told the Court of Appeal yesterday: “The judge wrongly dismissed the appellant’s application to set aside service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction, and his ruling should be reversed.”
But Dan Tench, a partner at law firm Olswang, which is representing the group, insisted: “This is the appropriate forum for this case, here in England where the consumers used the internet and where they have a right to privacy.”  However, Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing the Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking group, argued the judge was right to rule that misuse of private information was a civil wrong for the purposes of deciding whether it could be heard in Britain.
The hearing will determine “whether British consumers actually have any right to hold Google to account in this country,” he added. A Google spokesperson said today: “A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety in the US. We don’t think that this case meets the Court’s standards required for it to be heard…”
The appeal was adjourned today, with a date to be arranged in the New Year for further argument on the remaining issues. The complex appeal, in which the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham has intervened, is expected to continue into tomorrow when the judges are likely to reserve their ruling until early 2015.