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.
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".
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?
"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.
Why don't they go after the purveyors of said pornography?
Better yet, why doesn't every country get together and decide what a child is? Or how about every U.S. state?
I wish these people would quit trying to protect everyone else's children and stick to worrying about their own.
-- Old Man Kensey
Well, just because a country calls itself a republic doesn't mean that it is...after all, the United States calls itself a democracy...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
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.
Okay, but say that you're in Michigan. The age of consent is 16 (I believe). You can go to Ontario and have sex with a 14 year old, as long as you a) are not in a position of authority over said minor, b) don't do her in the butt, and c) don't bring her into Michigan.
If a neighbouring state has a restriction of 17 or 18, you cannot bring her into Michigan for the purposes of sex, otherwise you are transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex (or something like that), but if she is visiting relatives, then things are different.
To wrap it up, which is more exploitive? Having sex with someone under 18, or photographing it? I don't want to get into a big philosophical debate, but the main point that I'm trying to make, is that if you're going to sue a company that is essentially worldwide, you might want to better ensure that the rules are comparable across the board, or try to make them moreso. It's hard to prevent child pornography if it's only child pornography in one little hamlet. You can filter and control it all you want, but you'll never eliminate it.
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;
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.
><));>