Slashdot Mirror
Google Loses Autocomplete Defamation Case
superglaze writes "Google has been found liable in an Italian court for defamatory comments made against an anonymous plaintiff — the complainant's name, when googled, elicited autocomplete suggestions that translate as 'con man' and 'fraud.' Google was found not to qualify for EU 'safe harbour' protection because the autocomplete suggestions were deemed to be Google's own creation, and not something merely passing through its systems."
That's it. Clearly Italy has shown that it can't handle the Internet. Someone grab me a chainsaw, I'm cutting their fiberz.
... foreign courts are being used for foreign nations to extort money from business they did not produce and had little connection to its success.
Google should stop providing links to Italian businesses.
It seems that 'con man' no longer auto completes for me. I guess I will have to go back to pressing that tiresome enter key.
Google defended themselves by saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for the output of an algorithm that they created. That's weak.
You left out the key part regarding searches from users. The output is determined by the input, the input is dictated by users.
If you would like to improve your Google search experience, we encourage you to write to your local member of parliament.
If you're so unimportant, why does Google come up with so many pages of results for your name?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Replying to my own post:
The Google Blacklist
Obviously, all you have to do is hit return to get the results like you always could. However, even when your request isn't blacklisted, you're not getting the SAME results that you would get by hitting return. Entering "murder" into the search bar and hitting a space gets you suggestions of mostly band names. It's only after you hit return that you can learn the other sinister meaning of the word. What we have here is a demonstration of how content can be filtered, controlled, and ultimately suppressed. It is indeed a good thing that Google isn't evil.
The algorithm was designed to keep this stuff from happening. This case was nothing more than a simple oversight on Google's part. Their response was poor and arrogant.
Look on the bright side; if there was a place that hired programmers to work in the nude, you'd be at the top of their list.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Wow. I forgot how many posts I made. I need to get a life.
romanes eunt domus
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Libel and slander are something that Google should be held liable for no different than anyone else.
AFAIK, in order for something to appear in googles suggestions, someone else has to have searched it first. Google isnt creating the suggestion, its simply remembering the search that someone else did and offering it up.
This really isnt any different than google results turning up libel and slander. Google isnt creating it, its simply indexing it.
Obviously they should refrain from disparaging words and remarks in the auto-complete as they cannot possibly predict or verify if such words are libelous or slander against a person.
I find it surprising that you (and the judge) consider autocompleted text to be potentially libellous - as I mentioned in another post, Google's autocomplete function isn't saying (or even implying) that "x is a fraud" is a factual statement, it's saying that "x is a fraud" is a string of words being searched for regularly.
They make no judgement on the veracity, or even the coherence, of the sentence - they simply present it as something that people have been typing in to the search box. To me, that seems very, very different from Google making or publishing the statement in question.
You know what? It's not google who makes baseless accusations. BTW, how the fuck is an autocomplete suggestion an accusation I don't know, but let's set this aside. It's a typing aid, damnit. It's a piece of code. It's not programmed to target anyone in particular. Heck, for all I care, the output is precisely a statement of mathematical fact -- an output of a generic autocomplete algorithm, whose input was the snapshot of google's database at a certain point in time. You may not like it, but facts aren't libel, and especially not an output of a relatively simple and impartial algorithm. Sure, google's employees coded it up, but the jump from "autocomplete code" to "libel" (it's not slander, duh!) is a long one.
It's like saying that just because your last name is Liaraan, by chance the same as that of the Liaraan, Anders, the crook, whose dictionary entry succeeds the entry for liar, n., you can sue Liber Load and Co, publishers of said dictionary, for libel. I mean, couldn't they just put the Liaraan's entry somewhere less, um, obvious?
If recent slashdot stories are anything to go by, Italian law is seriously fucked up. Seriously.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Well what if searching for this his name on Google results in the top 10 hits being titled along the lines of "This dude is a con man and a fraud!!"? Is Google responsible for *that* algorithm? After all, the autocomplete algorithm is just another search algorithm, except instead of searching through pages it searches through past inputs.
[Brian is writing graffiti on the palace wall. The Centurion catches him in the act]
Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "
Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
Brian: Er, "Romanus" !
Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?
Brian: Er, er, "Romani" !
Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !
Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
Centurion: So, "eunt" is...?
Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?
[He twists Brian's ear]
Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative !
Centurion: Which is...?
Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !
Centurion: How many Romans?
Brian: Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" !
Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?
Brian: Dative !
[the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]
Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" !
Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?
Brian: Er, "Domum" !
Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.
Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
Was the "complainant's name" Berlusconi?
That does not answer the question facing Google and the courts though.
Part of the question (for a rational legal system), is not whether Google originally made the "statement", but whether it is publishing it. And fairly clearly Google is publishing the "statement". So it does not matter that other users typed the search term first. Similar to the way a newspaper can't defend against libel by saying they just reported allegations by someone else that you are ... [insert defamatory claim here].
A more important question is whether a list of search terms on a search page, taken as a whole and in its context, can be understood as a statement or allegation of fact. And here the court seems to have strayed far from the realms of reality.
I don't see that such a list could rationally be interpreted as a statement which one might believe. Thus, no libel. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm letting commn sense get in the way of a fast buck.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"