3 ms·

With the information available in this article, it sounds like Google's claim is that they were not notified of the granted name suppression. It also sounds lik

With the information available in this article, it sounds like Google's claim is that they were not notified of the granted name suppression. It also sounds like name suppression isn't a matter of course in every criminal case, which would mean you shouldn't expect Google to suppress names without direct knowledge of a suppression order. This is not a claim that "it's all the machine's problem it's nothing to do with us", but rather that "we can't take an action we're not aware we are required to take, and it's on you to make us aware".

bhartzer 8y ago
>>Google's claim is that they were not notified of the granted name suppression Yes, that's correct. But Google's policy, as far as I know, is that they publish the information and then, if presented with a court order, they remove it. That's not the right thing for them to do in this case, as once the information is out there it's out there. It's useless to retract it or remove it once it's out there and they've published. Google needs to change it's policy--or at least they should be proactive and be aware of court orders like this. It's not like the court order was hidden?
- setr 8y ago
  As with any interaction with government, I’d bet good money this isn’t at all easy to do, and especially not reliably. I can easily imagine a hundred people assigned to scour thousands of inconsistent court determinations a day, to find who’s been added to the do not name list, which probably doesn’t exist in any list-like fashion...
  - bhartzer 8y ago
    It would definitely be a tough project--but here in the USA we have PACER, so in theory it could be done. I'm not sure about New Zealand, though.
yayana 8y ago
Google copied blocked headlines across Geos (UK->NZ) they have no journalists to inform. They could fight the politics of GEO blocking, but that has nothing to do with detecting it and honoring it (while hopefully disclosing the blocking is happening.) (They did not have to understand why UK news was blocking NZ users, they just had to either decide how they would detect it or to only serve NZ content.)

bhartzer 8y ago

>>Google's claim is that they were not notified of the granted name suppression Yes, that's correct. But Google's policy, as far as I know, is that they publish the information and then, if presented with a court order, they remove it. That's not the right thing for them to do in this case, as once the information is out there it's out there. It's useless to retract it or remove it once it's out there and they've published. Google needs to change it's policy--or at least they should be proactive and be aware of court orders like this. It's not like the court order was hidden?

setr 8y ago
As with any interaction with government, I’d bet good money this isn’t at all easy to do, and especially not reliably. I can easily imagine a hundred people assigned to scour thousands of inconsistent court determinations a day, to find who’s been added to the do not name list, which probably doesn’t exist in any list-like fashion...
- bhartzer 8y ago
  It would definitely be a tough project--but here in the USA we have PACER, so in theory it could be done. I'm not sure about New Zealand, though.

yayana 8y ago

Google copied blocked headlines across Geos (UK->NZ) they have no journalists to inform. They could fight the politics of GEO blocking, but that has nothing to do with detecting it and honoring it (while hopefully disclosing the blocking is happening.) (They did not have to understand why UK news was blocking NZ users, they just had to either decide how they would detect it or to only serve NZ content.)