8 ms·

This wouldn't be the first time a government is requiring Google to modify their search results. This case parallels the "right to be forgotten" cases brought a

This wouldn't be the first time a government is requiring Google to modify their search results. This case parallels the "right to be forgotten" cases brought against them by the EU several years ago. There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent. In the US, with the murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals occurring at an alarming rate with increasing public outrage, it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her constitutional rights being violated (i.e inability to find employment, friendship, etc), and companies such as Google being forced to comply with the court's rulings.

Analemma_ 9y ago
It's not going to be the last time either. Sovereign countries are waking up to the dangers of letting the internet be run by 5 huge American companies, and they're not going to continue to take "the internet is global, your sovereignty isn't" as answer for why their laws and court orders can't be enforced. This is the beginning of widespread internet Balkanization, for better or worse.
- escapetech 9y ago
  Yes, with matters like censorship and human rights abuses being allowed to continue under the guise of "national sovereignty" and "states rights", then yes, the Balkanization of information flow is the only outcome we can expect.
dmix 9y ago
> There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent. Yes, this sounds bad for the internet in many ways. One recent particular case comes to mind of this guy who is suing Encyclopedia Dramatica (a 4-chan style wiki with a satirical and intentionally humorous backstory for most internet memes). The banner on top of their site asking for donations for a legal battle now says: >> "JONATHAN MONSARRAT FILED A SLAPP SUIT AGAINST US. " SLAPP = https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public... This is a guy who had a profile on the wiki because he was internet famous setting up a fake dating site while a student at MIT in order to get preference to message all girls who signed up. He was investigated for harassing girls. http://hlrecord.org/2003/04/dating-service-creator-accused-of-harassing-students/ http://hlrecord.org/2003/04/dating-service-creator-accused-o... He's also a known lawsuit troll who is trying to repair his name in search engines via DMCA claims and lawsuits. He has also sued online commenters who spoke ill about him: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/08444123372/jonathan-monsarrat-drops-ridiculous-lawsuit-against-online-commenters.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/08444123372/jonat... More about the latest lawsuit here: http://theralphretort.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-in-danger-of-closing-after-750k-lawsuit-5024017/ http://theralphretort.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-in-danger-o... This just offers people like him another outlet to waste peoples time in court. But in practice the Streisand Effect has the opposite effect of actually helping him protect his name so I really wonder what practical benefits this really provides anyone. It seems like there are far more illegitimate reasons for this to be used than good ones. And considering there is no automated way to filter these I'm much more inclined to say there should NOT be a centrally controlled way to remove things from being listed on Google in this way. Even with this particular court case if a business moves away or shuts down then Google's algorithms will eventually downgrade the ranking of the companies presence online in relation to that location. If they want a global presence then it's up to them to outrank other sites by getting press or for Google to properly flesh out the better sites. This is a problem that is obviously better solved by Google's engineers than the courts.
ams6110 9y ago
People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.
- deepsun 9y ago
  Should be not <found "not guilty">, but <not found "guilty">, I believe.
  - nerdponx 9y ago
    "Not guilty" is a common enough phrase in English that you can use it like an adjective and native speakers will know what you mean. Pedantically, you might want to spell it "not-guilty".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    "not guilty" is the usual verdict. One is either "guilty" or "not guilty"; the latter is legally innocent, there is no third state.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  Google isn't portraying otherwise they are a neutral 3rd party providing a conduit for others to communicate. Having an unbiased conduit is essential for the truth else the conduit for nearly all information in the world will say only what people with money and influence say is correct. Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet. The right to be forgotten is a cure worse than the disease.
  - 9y ago
kbenson 9y ago
> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person and this is high in many search results, or people are defamed through libel and the jurisdiction doesn't allow allow for a legal remedy? I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended? Freedom of speech is complicated, and not absolute in the United States. We have laws for libel and slander to prevent just this sort of thing, and I don't usually see those being called a bad idea. Perhaps that should be an indication that this issue isn't as black and white as it's often portrayed, and deserves a more moderate, considered solution.
- abc_lisper 9y ago
  the only thing one can do now is to change their name :(
- escapetech 9y ago
  > but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person. You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Nothing imaginary about baseless claims. False allegations are common enough that allegations shouldn't be reported until proven, but they are.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record? > The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU. That's one potential danger. Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.
redm 9y ago
"court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her constitutional rights being violated" "Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought." So if they are found innocent, it wasn't Murder thus the scenario your suggesting is not valid. The principle of Innocent until Provent Guilty still applies and is a fundamental tenant of American law.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  You're confusing murder and manslaughter. Murder requires a level of intent. Manslaughter does not.
  - redm 9y ago
    I believe you misunderstood my point/opinion. The original comment stated a murderer (alleged in this case) is tried and found innocent of Murder by a court of law and then, due to this ruling, may take down information to the extent it defames them. My point was that if a Judge/Jury acquited the alleged murderer, then they are, by definition, not guilty of murder. Of course, it's rarely that black and white, i.e. OJ Simpson or someone getting off on a technicality, but since were discussing this at a high and abstract level, the alleged murderer should not be considered and treated as a murderer. Furthermore, my second point was that everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and be innocent until proven guilty. The fictitious person in question should never have been called a murderer in the first place, just an alleged murder.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      I believe I did misunderstand your point. Thank you for the clarification.
mrout 9y ago
It's not a government doing anything. Courts are not part of 'the government'.
greglindahl 9y ago
Google has been ordered to do stuff by courts many times -- that's not new. The unusual thing about this case is that Google is being ordered by Canada to do something worldwide, for a bunch of people who have nothing to do with Canada.

Analemma_ 9y ago

It's not going to be the last time either. Sovereign countries are waking up to the dangers of letting the internet be run by 5 huge American companies, and they're not going to continue to take "the internet is global, your sovereignty isn't" as answer for why their laws and court orders can't be enforced. This is the beginning of widespread internet Balkanization, for better or worse.

escapetech 9y ago
Yes, with matters like censorship and human rights abuses being allowed to continue under the guise of "national sovereignty" and "states rights", then yes, the Balkanization of information flow is the only outcome we can expect.

dmix 9y ago

> There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent. Yes, this sounds bad for the internet in many ways. One recent particular case comes to mind of this guy who is suing Encyclopedia Dramatica (a 4-chan style wiki with a satirical and intentionally humorous backstory for most internet memes). The banner on top of their site asking for donations for a legal battle now says: >> "JONATHAN MONSARRAT FILED A SLAPP SUIT AGAINST US. " SLAPP = https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public... This is a guy who had a profile on the wiki because he was internet famous setting up a fake dating site while a student at MIT in order to get preference to message all girls who signed up. He was investigated for harassing girls. http://hlrecord.org/2003/04/dating-service-creator-accused-of-harassing-students/ http://hlrecord.org/2003/04/dating-service-creator-accused-o... He's also a known lawsuit troll who is trying to repair his name in search engines via DMCA claims and lawsuits. He has also sued online commenters who spoke ill about him: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/08444123372/jonathan-monsarrat-drops-ridiculous-lawsuit-against-online-commenters.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/08444123372/jonat... More about the latest lawsuit here: http://theralphretort.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-in-danger-of-closing-after-750k-lawsuit-5024017/ http://theralphretort.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-in-danger-o... This just offers people like him another outlet to waste peoples time in court. But in practice the Streisand Effect has the opposite effect of actually helping him protect his name so I really wonder what practical benefits this really provides anyone. It seems like there are far more illegitimate reasons for this to be used than good ones. And considering there is no automated way to filter these I'm much more inclined to say there should NOT be a centrally controlled way to remove things from being listed on Google in this way. Even with this particular court case if a business moves away or shuts down then Google's algorithms will eventually downgrade the ranking of the companies presence online in relation to that location. If they want a global presence then it's up to them to outrank other sites by getting press or for Google to properly flesh out the better sites. This is a problem that is obviously better solved by Google's engineers than the courts.

ams6110 9y ago

People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.

deepsun 9y ago
Should be not <found "not guilty">, but <not found "guilty">, I believe.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  "Not guilty" is a common enough phrase in English that you can use it like an adjective and native speakers will know what you mean. Pedantically, you might want to spell it "not-guilty".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  "not guilty" is the usual verdict. One is either "guilty" or "not guilty"; the latter is legally innocent, there is no third state.
michaelmrose 9y ago
Google isn't portraying otherwise they are a neutral 3rd party providing a conduit for others to communicate. Having an unbiased conduit is essential for the truth else the conduit for nearly all information in the world will say only what people with money and influence say is correct. Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet. The right to be forgotten is a cure worse than the disease.
- 9y ago

kbenson 9y ago

> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person and this is high in many search results, or people are defamed through libel and the jurisdiction doesn't allow allow for a legal remedy? I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended? Freedom of speech is complicated, and not absolute in the United States. We have laws for libel and slander to prevent just this sort of thing, and I don't usually see those being called a bad idea. Perhaps that should be an indication that this issue isn't as black and white as it's often portrayed, and deserves a more moderate, considered solution.

abc_lisper 9y ago
the only thing one can do now is to change their name :(
escapetech 9y ago
> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person. You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Nothing imaginary about baseless claims. False allegations are common enough that allegations shouldn't be reported until proven, but they are.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record? > The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU. That's one potential danger. Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.

redm 9y ago

"court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her constitutional rights being violated" "Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought." So if they are found innocent, it wasn't Murder thus the scenario your suggesting is not valid. The principle of Innocent until Provent Guilty still applies and is a fundamental tenant of American law.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
You're confusing murder and manslaughter. Murder requires a level of intent. Manslaughter does not.
- redm 9y ago
  I believe you misunderstood my point/opinion. The original comment stated a murderer (alleged in this case) is tried and found innocent of Murder by a court of law and then, due to this ruling, may take down information to the extent it defames them. My point was that if a Judge/Jury acquited the alleged murderer, then they are, by definition, not guilty of murder. Of course, it's rarely that black and white, i.e. OJ Simpson or someone getting off on a technicality, but since were discussing this at a high and abstract level, the alleged murderer should not be considered and treated as a murderer. Furthermore, my second point was that everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and be innocent until proven guilty. The fictitious person in question should never have been called a murderer in the first place, just an alleged murder.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I believe I did misunderstand your point. Thank you for the clarification.

mrout 9y ago

It's not a government doing anything. Courts are not part of 'the government'.

greglindahl 9y ago

Google has been ordered to do stuff by courts many times -- that's not new. The unusual thing about this case is that Google is being ordered by Canada to do something worldwide, for a bunch of people who have nothing to do with Canada.