Attorney Sues Website Over His Online Rating

An anonymous reader writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting that a local attorney is suing legal startup Avvo over a rating that was algorithmically assigned. The story covers the controversy of computers grading humans. 'Browne, who has participated in a number of high-profile cases in the state, including the defense of arsonist Martin Pang, said in an interview that Avvo is being irresponsible with the ratings and called them a fraud. And he questioned why Supreme Court justices and prominent lawyers score so low. Three other attorneys interviewed by the P-I also expressed doubts about the rating system, while News.com reported that the site "seemed to be riddled with bizarre errors."' Such practices are not new: the New York Times earlier this year reported on Google using algorithms to determine applicant suitability. But what happens when you don't like the result? Can a computer program be considered defamatory?"

Comments

Re:My Opinion?

[fyngyrz]

Correction: "Robert Newdow" should be "Michael Newdow." Told you it was off the top of my head. :) My apologies for the error.

Re:Food for thought, or thought for food?

[thegnu]

Those who call lawyers useless aren't being very open minded. Lawyers may be a melamine-free source of protein, but I think my cat would prefer something a bit less bony than the head.

I had to get a lawyer because my landlord was a slimy, conniving liar. And it's turned out to be some of the best money I've ever spent, because before I was spending loads of time doing all the paperwork and covering my own ass. Now the lawyer does it. And he's a nice guy, to boot. Shocking.

Re:My Opinion?

[cpt kangarooski]

You're right about the ninth amendment, I meant the tenth.

Okay, this is the amendment that reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

So, if the power to spend federal monies was not delegated to the United States, then you'd have a point. Let's see what Article I has to say:

"The Congress shall have power ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

So it looks as though Congress has the power to spend federal money. They have to do so pursuant to the laws that they enact, and they have to account for it, and it has to basically be for national purposes. But they can spend it. That means it was delegated to the United States, and thus does not fall under the ambit of rights reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

You want to try again?

About fair market value, the point is that when the government condemns a house, it is no longer worth much.

That's not how the value is estimated. They look at what the value would be if the owner was going to sell it at the time. Honestly, this is how appraisal of anything works. The only way you know what your car is worth without actually selling it -- which is an important questions for insuring it, for instance -- is by comparing it with other cars that are being sold. This is not rocket science.

Plus costs of moving, and generally being uprooted.

I'd want to check, but I don't see why this would be relevant. Those costs are not part of the costs of the actual property. If you live on Monster Island (don't worry, it's just a name), and it would cost you $10,000 to move to someplace safe, like Tokyo, and your house is only worth $5,000, then you're screwed. You can't afford to move. But it doesn't mean that your house is suddenly worth $15,000. Indeed, the problem is that it's not!

Also it's worth pointing out that a great number of takings are basically just taking your road frontage so that a road can be widened. You lose some of the yard, if it's a house, or parking lot, if it's a business, or nothing in particular if it's farmland, or a vacant lot or something, but they don't often take the whole parcel. Still, not every square foot is worth the same as the rest; if your lot is half swamp and half gold mine, and you only lose half, which half becomes pretty important in terms of valuation. Not everything is urban renewal projects or Central Arteries.

Re:My Opinion?

[cpt kangarooski]

So the authority to offer compensation for taking land is there.

Yes. You've agreed that the government has the power to take land. Remember that word: take. Not 'buy,' or 'purchase,' but take. That is to take it from the previous owner, whether that person likes it or not.

Which brings us to this: No such thing as "just compensation" can be established by third parties if the property is not offered for sale.

Assuming that you're right -- you're not, btw -- then we'd have a little conundrum.

You are saying that the government can forcibly take property from people, but only if it is offered for sale, which means that it isn't being taken at all. That is a nonsensical position.

Alternatively, we could say that the government has the power to take land that is not offered for sale, but only if they pay a just price for it, again, regardless of the fact that it isn't for sale. This leaves you with the problem of computing that price, but this is presumably doable, and if there is an argument about it, it can be settled in court like so many other arguments.

The value of the property to the owner is as high as the owner says it is

Actually, that is wrong. The price is as high as the owner says it is. But if the price is too high, then the property will not sell. The actual value of the property is whatever you can, in fact, sell it for. This is often considerably lower than the initial asking price.

For example, I have a rock (it's one of those tiger-repelling rocks) for which I ask one hundred billion dollars. But if all I can ever actually sell it for is a mere one million dollars, then it's worth one million dollars and nothing more. You're on Slashdot, I'm sure you understand this in application. Think of how rapidly computers depreciate in value. The second you open the box it becomes used, and thus even if you sold it the next day, without anything having come out with better specs, you still cannot get as high a price for it as you paid. Cars do the same thing.