Slashdot Mirror
Google Sued for Allegedly Profiting From Child Porn
skinfaxi writes "Filed in New York, Jeffrey Toback claims Google has made billions by allowing child porn and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links." From the article: "The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial. It also accuses Google of violating federal statutes relating to child pornography and calls for the court to order that Google cease "advertising, promoting, or distributing" child pornography through its site or otherwise providing any links to such content."
The ads typically reflect the sites that show up in your search.
"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."
The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic. In China, the government makes and breaks the rules at will, so when they tell Google "ban searches for 'X' or else," Google complies. In the US, legislation is required to ban something and it has to meet the "rigorous" standards of law. See below.
A Google representative said Friday that the company prohibits child pornography in its products and removes all such content whenever the company finds or is made aware of it. "We also report it to the appropriate law enforcement officials and fully cooperate with the law enforcement community to combat child pornography," spokesman Steve Langdon said in an e-mail interview.
Langdon pointed to the content policy for Google's AdWords sponsored links service, which broadly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results.
The availability of such tools could mean that the suit may not go far. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good faith to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
So, in the end, while their cause is just and I think all of us can agree that child pornography is an abomination, the fact is that laws have been passed stating the circumstances required for a company to avoid being charged with a crime for promoting child pornography, and Google is complying. Whether you agree with how the law is worded is a separate issue. This is a lot of wasted time and effort. Hopefully this lawsuit will be struck down and the anti-child-porn people can get back to helping children who are victims of this and hunting down the assholes who make it available and do these despicable things.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Unsurprisingly this line appears in the article:
The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial.
However, there is no mention of who would be getting the money. So this makes me more inclined to think that it is not "for the children" but rather "for the money".
Do you really want the gov't to decide what results Google or any of the other engines can return?
insert sig here
Does anyone else find it ironic that this law firm exploits our natural instinct to protect children to try to make a money grab from Google? So who's exploiting who here? It seems like google does all it can to try to remove and filter out any type of child porn here, so how can they be liable?
"My name is Jeffrey Toback, and I care about your children. Vote for me this November."
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
"Toback, self-described as "not the most computer-literate guy," said he learned of the filter three days ago. He said he didn't know if the computers in his home have commercial filtering software that blocks pornography and other material unsuitable for children.
6 01653.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)
Toback said a lawsuit was his only alternative because Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., is beyond the legislature's control. Toback, a father of three children, ages 15, 13 and 9, filed the lawsuit as a private citizen with no county funds."
He didn't even investigate if there was a filter in google already.
He didn't investigate his own computer even *having* filtering software.
He didn't investigate using filtering software.
He didn't think that he might, i don't know, watch where his kids go on the web.
Go go gadget out sourced parenting.
(From: http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgoog0505,0,2
"when life gets complicated, I like to take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner" - Hobbes.
I wish these people would quit trying to protect everyone else's children and stick to worrying about their own.
-- Old Man Kensey
Yea right Billions.
So Google has made more from Child Porn alone than it's actual net yearly income?
What rubbish.
"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."
spurious and pointless as this lawsuit may be, i find it interesting that in the same sentence he faults google for blocking search terms and not blocking search terms. no, i'm not advocating child pornography or think that it shouldn't be blocked, i'm just saying people should really pick an agenda and stick with it. oh, but wait, this is america where politicians can say three things and do a fourth.
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."
Translation: Hey they put a line of code in that says =~ s/'democracy'//ig but they won't spend a X billion dollars to create an image filtering process that can accurately determine the age of an individual in a nudie picture that can be in any of 50 different image formats.(That DARPA can't do with govt backing with standardized formats.) Oh, and elect me this fall.
Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?
Toback claims Google has made billions by allowing child porn and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links."
Google's 2004 revenue was $3.19b
Quarterly revenue by late 2005 was up to about $1.5b
So, at a rough estimate, Google's total lifetime revenue as a company is in the ~$10b range.
To have made "billions" in child porn related sponsored links, even if we assume all of Google's revenue is from sponsored links, we'd be assuming 1/4th of all sponsored links Google has ever served were child porn? Assume 50% of their revenue is sponsored links and that jumps to a full 50% of all sponsored links Google has ever served are child porn.
Wow. The internet is a sick place. At least 25% of Google's entire business model is purely about child porn? They're evil!
Or, alternatively, the "billions" claim is completely made up by someone who saw a company with an apparently huge revenue stream and figured he could either:
a) Get rich by blowing a minor issue out of all proportion and then suing for a chunk of that revenue stream for himself.
b) Make a name for himself as the protector of all the little children, taking on the giants, and wouldn't you really like to vote for him for D.A. next year? After all, he cares about the children. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE!
Given I've not seen a single sponsored link for child porn via Google amongst the dozens of How To Make Money On EBay, How To Get Gold In WoW and various home business ads, I'm guessing a full quarter to a half of their business model is not built on child porn. So I'm going to go with self aggrandizing shyster as my guess.
While they are at it, let's sue the ISP on the other end of the server the content sits on for allowing the data to pass through it.
Let's also sue the company(ies) that made the routers too, they don't filter child porn.
Let's just make a list of all the companies that participated in the delivery of the content, from the companies that developped the components inside the servers the people that supplied the silicon, the companies that developped the teflon insulation in the cabling, the copper miners for making cable that could be used to transmit child porn...the list goes on and on for people that, by this same ruleset could be held accountable.
Fucktards, suing google is assinine. All they do is provide a service for people to search what is on the internet. They profit from EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET. You can't sue them because of what the internet contains. Send the people who create child porn to jail.
This whole issue is simply passing the buck. They realise it's hard to keep porn producers in check, so they sue sue sue big dollar Google to try and win a company that will help them fight their battle? It's very plain to me that most people that hold a political office of some kind have no fucking idea how the internet or computers really work, and insist on sensationalizing things like this that make grandma and grampa think they give a fuck, but the people who actually use the internet always see right the hell through it.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
If I know of a Constitutional violation that has happened or is happening, but it didn't actually happen to me, 99% of the time, the suit is thrown out of court. That is why it is incredibly difficult to win on a Constitutional argument, no matter how valid the violation happens to be. But this one little person can just up and sue Google on what looks like, if the charges or true, that an offical agency of the federal government should be prosecuting.
Not that I'm shocked to find a double standard with our judicial system, but it looks like to me that this should be thrown out unless the guy can show proof that he was harmed, somehow.
Ron Paul
Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?
If there's not much of a difference, why didn't you say "but I'm sure that Google neglected to "donate" to Republicans and/or Democrats."?
Making uninformed, strongly opinionated statements makes you look like a dumbass.
Congratulations, dumbass.
Last time i checked, porn sites were not illegal, and are protected. Theres no way of defining "Porn"
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
I see the 'fud' tag showing up on a lot of stuff. I would like to let the intrepid tagger know that the word does not mean 'I don't like this article.' I know that's hard to understand. It's kind of the same as the fact that the 'Troll' moderation does not mean 'I don't agree.' As such, I don't expect this lesson to stick.
Please mod me down.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
As a free market promoter and anarcho-capitalist, child porn is one grey area that I don't have a good answer to.
I like to look at porn and do so fairly regularly. I mostly download Usenet porn and have for ~10 years or so. In all that time, I have never once seen child porn. Although I don't go looking for it, I would expect at least once to have accidentally stumbled upon some. It never happened. All this makes me wonder if the hysteria around child porn is actually just people pandering to parent's fears in order to advance their own agenda. It begs the question: is all this mindless panic in proportion to the severity of the problem?
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Child porn is illegal. Google is the advertiser. The advertiser should be held responsible for advertising illegal things. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but maybe I'm missing some legitimate argument to the contrary.
What's wrong with holding an advertiser responsible for promoting illegal things? Doesn't the burden of responsibility ethically lie with the advertiser to ensure that advertisements submitted to their system aren't advertising illegal things? If NBC runs a TV commercial advertising child porn, shouldn't NBC be held responsible for negligence at the very least (for not bothering to check the content of the ad that was submitted)?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
aghhhh.
... you can't however be a republic and a monarchy.
You can be a republic and a democracy, a republic and communist, comunist and democratic and a republic, a monarchy and democratic and/or communist
the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems,
What do you mean "unintended"?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?
Yes. They're two sides of the same coin. And with "coin", I mean "money".
I'm pretty sure that Google faces bogus lawsuits like this every other month. The US justice system is a big, fat, ugly "get-rich-quick" scheme for a lucky few, so it isn't much of a surprise that many are trying.
Just another idiot who - my personal belief - should be shot as a service to mankind.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public
Well I access Google all the time, even for pr0n (especially for pr0n). Since this is the case, will get $100,000 for my distress about having child porn go across my screen?
I am pretty sure Google allows automated inclusion of a link from a website, but they try and scan the MILLIONS of sites to filter out the bad ones. I doubt Google wants to ruin their business for a sick minority who enjoy watching naked children. This guy is just trying to sue so he can make a buck.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
What else? If I watch videos of illegal street racing on Google Videos am I responsible for the racer's actions? No. I'm merely witnessing a crime. If I were to purchase a video of the race at a car show I'm now actively supporting the actions of the people who made the video, and potentially the people who starred in it.
The same thing goes for any "taboo" or illegal content. The idea that someone can be prosecuted for witnessing a crime is preposterous. The fact that we do prosecute these people (and according to the news and your local sex offender database, it happens a little too often for my comfort) is just horrendous. The idea is now the same as if I were to witness a murder, and be offended, I'd be fine, but if I were to watch a video tape of the murder to get my jollies I'm now a criminal. We can't throw people in jail because of what goes on inside their heads. If they act out any of these thoughts in real life, or in any other way support a crime, they're guilty, but as long as it stays in their head, they should be innocent.
><));>
Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children.
From reaching children? Is that the biggest problem here?
No sig.
Won't somebody please think of my children
...because I'm too busy with cocktail parties and late meetings to bother myself. Thanks!
really. How the hell does Jeffrey Toback think that the authorities find the child porn in order to track down the people producing it? If it is easy to find through google, then it is easy for the police to find and stop. Sue the police if nothing is being done about it.
I'm no Google activist by any means, but if there's one impression that google has given me is that they're so anti-child-porn as any search engine could ever get!
Even with SafeSearch Off (with their picture search facility) you can't find a singe image like that (not that I'm searching - mind you), but my experience with searching for literally anything - I've yet to come across something even remotely related to child-pron with this search facility, that I have to give them.
I'm old enough to remember the days of the Altavista search engine - and that one where relatively uncensored - so you'd stumble across the odd weird-off image now and then, but google? Nah! These people specialize in keeping such images off the engine.
However - that said - I also think that google strives to be the ultimate search engine, and therefor will have some issues on censoring just about anything. Even with thousands of people working for them - it would be literally impossible to control EVERYTHING streaming trough the net, so if anything slips by - it's most likely through the text-search and NOT the IMAGE search (they're pretty thourough - try it yourself...it's even work safe in SafeSearch OFF)
I'll be the first one to Blame Google for just about anything, but for them to make profits of Child Pron? Nope - not even by an unforseen loophole. These guys take such stuff VERY seriously - that I have to give them!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Generally no. However, a worse problem is soft child pron. Parents who dress their young children in sexy outfits and get around strict pron laws. Warning: NSFW! Babbleclub is a typical site. Think of the wierdness of JonBenet Ramsey.
I was thinking the same thing... how else would he know about these supposed "ads." And i guarantee you that almost no one is going to go double check his "findings."
"acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public"
How, exactly, do you intentionally do anything by acting negligently?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
For this3 32207&tid=217
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/1
um.... no.
first off, child Porn is no more or less rampant than it ever was. whats worse, it is LEGAL in many countries.
secondly, its not so easily found. as long as you don't put things like "rape" and "children" in your search bars, you probably won't find it. I myself, have never seen it on the web in over 10 years of web surfing.
thirdly, images are only considered erotic if you are aroused by the image. Many things which are termed "pornograph" I do not find erotic, hence there is no danger. Unless you are predisposed to finding pre-pubescents attractive, you wouldn't think that naked pictures of them are arousing. I see my pre-puescent children naked on occasion, and it does nothing for me. My wife, naked, is a different story.
Ira
Material that is obviously child portn also gets Usenet cancelled very, very fast indeed: servers that do not support cancel messages for the various alt.binary groups where most Usenet porn winds up are begging to be deluged and overwhelmed by spammers. So the likelihood of such messages being found on a normal Usenet feed has dropped, especially with the advent of websites, anonymizing proxy servers, and popular pirate software resouces such as the old "FSP" servers.
Only a complete idiot will post child porn on Usenet these days, since NNTP messages started generally including the posting host's IP address.