Key Points

• Geo-location technology enables internet content providers to identify the location of users, allowing them to give effect to national laws which restrict access to content without needing to apply those laws in other jurisdictions.
• While geo-location technology can be circumvented, restricting access to online content is not an area of absolutes; the rights which justify restricting access to online content—privacy rights and personal rights against defamation—must be balanced against competing rights of access to information and freedom of expression.
• No single jurisdiction can balance the relevant competing rights globally as they vary across jurisdictions, hence, a technology which is effective against a large number of users in a jurisdiction is an important factor when assessing whether an extraterritorial application of law is justified.
• Geo-location technology has been largely ignored by the CJEU, most recently in Google v CNIL and Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook where a broad discretion was afforded to national authorities to restrict access to online content worldwide.
• In a complex balancing of rights context, geo-location technology allows for strong protection of privacy and personal rights without requiring global effects, and so, worldwide orders from national courts removing online content amount to an illegitimate extraterritorial effect.

中文翻译：

---

地理定位技术：限制对在线内容的访问，而不会产生非法的域外影响

关键点

• 地理定位技术使互联网内容提供商能够识别用户的位置，使他们能够实施限制内容访问的国家法律，而无需在其他司法管辖区适用这些法律。
• 虽然可以规避地理定位技术，但限制对在线内容的访问并不是一个绝对的领域；限制访问在线内容的权利——隐私权和反对诽谤的个人权利——必须与获取信息和言论自由的竞争权利相平衡。
• 没有任何一个司法管辖区可以在全球范围内平衡相关竞争权利，因为它们因司法管辖区而异，因此，在评估域外法律适用是否合理时，对一个司法管辖区内的大量用户有效的技术是一个重要因素。
• CJEU在很大程度上忽略了地理定位技术，最近在Google 诉 CNIL和Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek 诉 Facebook 案中，国家当局拥有广泛的自由裁量权，以限制对全球在线内容的访问。
• 在权利的复杂平衡背景下，地理定位技术可以在不需要全球影响的情况下对隐私和个人权利进行强有力的保护，因此，国家法院在全球范围内删除在线内容的命令构成了非法的域外效力。