[1404] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Re: Google loses Italy "autocomplete defamation"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Tue Apr 5 17:22:48 2011
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:07:14 -0700
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Message-ID: <20110405210714.GA22961@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
----- Forwarded message from Ed Jankiewicz <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com> -----
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:13:00 -0400
From: Ed Jankiewicz <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com>
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Google loses Italy "autocomplete defamation" case +
my comments
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
expecting a wave of copy-cat suits
In Poland, a Mr. Dupinski tires of being identified as "dupa".
In Germany, a Mr. Schein does not find "Scheisskopf" funny at all.
In England, a Ms. Whorley...well you get the idea...
Ed "Not Janky" Jankiewicz
On 4/5/2011 2:42 PM, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> Google loses Italy "autocomplete defamation" case + my comments
> http://j.mp/fsvCiO (This posting on Google Buzz)
>
> - - -
>
> http://j.mp/hFIw3o (ZDNET UK)
>
> On Tuesday, lead counsel Carlo Piana wrote on his blog that the
> Court of Milan has upheld its earlier decision to order Google
> to filter out libellous search suggestions. These are the
> suggestions that pop up in Google's search input bar, proposing
> what the user might be wanting to search for. People searching
> via Google for Piana's client, who remains publicly unnamed,
> were apparently presented with autocomplete suggestions
> including truffatore ("con man") and truffa ("fraud").
>
> - - -
>
> Amongst the many Google-related emailed queries and comments I receive
> every day, there has been a major up-tick of late in questions related
> to autocomplete suggestions (and Google Instant).
>
> Many of these have focused on Google's removing (for example) various
> "torrent"-related terms from the autocomplete lexicon, joining
> other terms that were considered inappropriate for "suggestions"
> display, which some senders (inappropriately I believe) equate
> with censorship).
>
> Others -- like in this Italy case -- are concerned about items that
> *do* appear in the suggestions (and, via Google Instant, in the
> displayed "intermediate" results pages during the query entry
> process).
>
> Since the autocomplete/suggestions mechanism can play an important
> "discovery" role in the search process, potentially steering users
> toward queries and results that they might not have otherwise made or
> seen, this is overall a very complex topic.
>
> So to review, there are parties concerned about terms that are not
> presented via autocomplete (presumably via manually maintained
> exception lists) -- and there are parties who are upset about terms
> that are appearing (normally via automated processes).
>
> I actually have in the works a fairly detailed analysis of issues
> related to Google autocomplete/suggestions, that is not yet ready for
> distribution. But I'll mention one key concern from that essay that I
> know will be present in the final version.
>
> It appears increasingly likely that the evolution of Google's
> suggestion/autocomplete mechanism, now in tandem with Google Instant,
> may have inadvertently created a path for outside parties to
> increasingly demand (via court actions, etc.) the ability to
> micromanage Google's search results in various ways, particularly in
> terms of removing results -- not just from autocomplete, but
> potentially from the main results index as well.
>
> I have long asserted that many of the major battles over freedom of
> information on the Net will involve attempts to interfere with search
> engines' algorithmic autonomies. Parties unhappy with the
> availability of particular material on the Net -- realizing that
> stamping out all mirrors is increasingly impractical -- are now turning
> toward search engines as a preferred avenue of attack, realizing that
> if users can't *find* given material, that's almost as effective (from
> a censorship standpoint) as if the material weren't available at all.
>
> Those forces who wish to tightly control and regulate information on the
> Internet are rapidly pointing their cross-hairs at search engines in
> general, and at Google in particular.
>
> There are associated enormous freedom of speech and other risks for
> everyone involved.
>
> Much more to say about this later.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
> Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
> Founder:
> - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
> - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
> - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
> Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
> Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
> Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
