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."
From TFA: Wow...Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz managed to fit human rights in China, child pornography, and availabilty of porn to children in one sentence. A veritable trifecta of outrage.
From the above quote, you might get the idea that Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz earn a large percentage of their income from spurious lawsuits based upon righteous indignation. A quick glance at their litigation history would seem to bear out this assumption.
Again, from TFA: Now, I'm against child porn as much as the next guy (or most of them, anyway), but this is looking a lot like a fishing expedition.
Just one more quote from TFA:
Oh, that's right....it's an election year.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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
...this is looking a lot like a fishing expedition.
No, it's called business as usual at a big tort firm.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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
Oops ... Mr Tolback is a Democrat. How inconventient.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Yea right Billions.
So Google has made more from Child Porn alone than it's actual net yearly income?
What rubbish.
Kiddie porn?
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com
"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
As a free market promoter and anarcho-capitalist, child porn is one grey area that I don't have a good answer to. Slashdot usually has good opinions from either side of the statism coin, and this is one place that I don't doubt that both sides of the pro/anti-government debate can offer some real insight to.
I believe that our governments haven't shown any ability to fix anything they want to -- the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems, protect those meant to be protected or reduce "crime" as they define it. Drug wars, porn wars, family value wars, oil wars, a War on Everything seems to just make Everything worse.
I think child porn is disgusting, but the victims in this case have never seemed to be helped by the law. Lawsuits by the government that are titled "The People v. Google" seem to never help The People, harm Google, and in the end the lawyers win and the government wins a case that helps it grow in power without having to be any more accountable to those paying the bills in the end.
I'm not a fan of regular porn, either, but I don't really see how anyone can stop something that has an obvious market (including child porn or the odd varieties of porn). As a believer in the Bible, I truly believe that the best way to fix society is one relationship at a time. I've helped a few friends overcome their porn issues as best as I can, by offering my time and love and helping them become accountable to someone (voluntarily). I don't think we can eradicate porn of any kind through the law, and I also believe in people's inherent right to view porn in the privacy of their homes. Is the criminal the person looking at porn, the person making it, or the person who connects the two together? I would have to say that the person who is violated would be the kid, and the perp would be the person making it. Wouldn't it be wiser to go after the real criminal?
Just because there is a black market for something doesn't mean that the person who consumes the black market product is the problem. You can't fix the drug problem by jailing non-violent drug users. You can't fix the problem by jailing non-violent drug dealers. You can only create a fair justice system by prosecuting and jailing people who committed real acts of violence regardless of the reason -- shoot someone (drug war, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. Run someone over with your car (drunk, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. The base reasoning that "it was over drugs" or "it was because of alcohol" is not a just reason -- it is the violation of the person that was the criminal act, not the base reason behind the violation.
I think the enter War on Child Porn doesn't protect the children, but it does seem to give government more and more power over our lives. If we are to criminalize an act, it should be against the perp of the act and on behalf of a real victim. "John Doe (minor) versus Crazy McCracken (perp)" is the only lawsuit I ever want to see. The People versus lawsuits should be thrown out, and we need to return tort laws to finding a real victim and a real perp.
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.
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.
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.
Google is the gateway to porn right now, and that needs to change.
OK, I'll bite.
Why?
M-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Convenience and politics - whoo-hoo !
If a kiddie cereal is one packed with sugar and marketed to children.
If a kiddie movie is one packed with fart jokes and marketed to children.
Kiddie ride, kiddie menu, etc.
Therefore, kiddie porn must be porn that is marketed to children.
Who needs facts or investigation when you can just launch a lawsuit? I'm betting these guys are hoping for a quick settlement from Google just to make the allegations go away.
I'm hoping that Google fights this.
Fake news in an other dimension:
"Kleenex Sued for Allegedly Profiting From (Child) Porn!"
The suit accuses Kleenex® that the consumation of porn is made more handy by Kleenex®
Bla bla bla bla....
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
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".
His wife caught him "doing some research", and now he has to cover his butt by spending thousands of dollars on a frivolous lawsuit.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
There are a hell of a lot of differences. However, they do share some traits.
Both democrats and republicans lie, steal, coerce, extort, and slander to further their ideals. They both think they're right all the time and rarely listen to each other. They both care deeply about the welfare of those close to them.
It's the story of human existence. Who would you rather see in power; someone who agrees with your politics and follows your religion but is an idiot, or someone who promotes things you find abhorrent and doesn't share your religious convictions but is relatively smart?
It's just a shame when both sides use the general public's fears and convictions for monetary/political gain or whatever. Which is what i think you were talking about.
sudo killall humans
Won't somebody please think of my children
...because I'm too busy with cocktail parties and late meetings to bother myself. Thanks!
http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/legis/LD/07 /index.html
I can't find it in my heart to be as level-headed as parent. From CNET:
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 measures 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."
The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public...
I know it's not really PC, but I hope they have a special room in hell for this guy. He knows what he's doing, and he knows that we know he knows it.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
The boiz from Brazil, if you will.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial.
That seems to fit the behavior of the current administration excatly--negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress; can we get some monetary damages from them?
Several trillion dollars might cover at least cover two of their big disasters that come to mind immediately: Iraq and debt, although there are many other items we could add.
"to block child pornography from reaching children."
i don't think that children are the audience for this.
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.