Germany's Former First Lady Sues Google

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Germany's Former First Lady Sues Google

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 10, 2012 @12:48AM from the search-and-sue dept.

quax writes "Bettina Wulff faces an uphill battle for her reputation. Her husband had to resign as Germany's president due to corruption allegations and has many detractors. Apparently some of them started a character assassination campaign against his wife. At least that is, if you trust serious journalists who looked into the matter and stated that it is made up. Unfortunately though for Bettina Wulff, the rumors took off on the Internet. Now whenever you enter her name Google suggest the additional search terms 'prostitute' and 'escort.' Google refuses to alter its search index."

164 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

European law takes these things seriously by Mr.+Kinky · 2012-09-10 00:48 · Score: 3, Funny

Google should rethink their position. They should know that when and/or if they break European libel laws, then they absolutely
1. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 00:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The whole bottle ?
2. Re:European law takes these things seriously by schaiba · 2012-09-10 00:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Google should rethink their position. They should know that when and/or if they break European libel laws, then they absolutely
  ...will forget to finish their sentence.
3. Re:European law takes these things seriously by C0R1D4N · 2012-09-10 00:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If the EU really wants to force the issue, google can just threaten to withdraw from Europe. We will see how well that goes over with the people.
4. Re:European law takes these things seriously by udachny · 2012-09-10 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Google should rethink their position. They should know that when and/or if they break European libel laws, then they absolutely
  - oh, come on, then they absolutely........ go berserk? fall apart? call the escort service and ask for Bettina Wulff services?
  What?
  
  --
  MY OTHER COMMENTS
5. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  On advice of counsel, I am respectfully declining to finish this post.
6. Re:European law takes these things seriously by verbatim · 2012-09-10 00:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If it's libel to say that "when searching for X, people have commonly searched for X+Y" where Y is unkind towards X, then you may want to rethink your notion of libel. If Europeans don't like free speech, then they absolutely
  
  --
  Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
7. Re:European law takes these things seriously by moronoxyd · 2012-09-10 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  If the EU really wants to force the issue, google can just threaten to withdraw from Europe. We will see how well that goes over with the people.
  The European market is to big and to important for a company like Google to withdraw from it over such a small thing.
  They didn't pull out of Europe after the Streetview fiasco, why should they now?
  Plus, this isn't an EU wide thing but only effects Germany.
8. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 01:01 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Google works extremely well, but I wish there was an alternative that worked as well as google does. People is too much invested in google, and this is not good. Google is too big and old to not be evil any more...
9. Re:European law takes these things seriously by C0R1D4N · 2012-09-10 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  That is why I said threaten to. They would never have to back it up.
10. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 01:07 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  accidentally
11. Re:European law takes these things seriously by etash · 2012-09-10 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  these days the internet absolutely a new meme, spin off from an old one.
12. Re:European law takes these things seriously by moronoxyd · 2012-09-10 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  If Europeans don't like free speech, then they absolutely
  We do like free speech, but we do admit that there are limits. Libel is one of those.
13. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Joce640k · 2012-09-10 01:26 · Score: 2
  
  Que pesar
  What to weigh?
  
  --
  No sig today...
14. Re:European law takes these things seriously by puto · 2012-09-10 01:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Que pesar means, what a shame, or what a burden. Pesar has more uses than weigh.
  
  --
  The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
15. Re:European law takes these things seriously by slashmydots · 2012-09-10 01:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I don't know if you and she know this but Google isn't hosting the content. They're just showing you that other websites are hosting the content. If she wants to go rage around the internet like a psychobitch, she should target the websites hosting the content. If they're gone, the listings magically disappear from Google too! Wow, amazing! Google makes exactly the opposite of a claim that what they're listing in their search results is guaranteed truthful fact so she should shut up and learn how the internet works.
16. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Germany not wanting to remember the holocaust,
  Are you out of your mind? The only nation on earth where you are more reminded of the Holocaust on every possible occasion is Israel.
  You know very little about the real world.
17. Re:European law takes these things seriously by gnasher719 · 2012-09-10 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hmmm, do I see a pattern, Germany not wanting to remember the holocaust,
  Excuse me? Where do you get that shit from?
18. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  The Germans and the Argentines aren't the only ones with dirty laundry to air.
19. Re:European law takes these things seriously by mypalmike · 2012-09-10 02:33 · Score: 2
  
  It is not libelous to claim that "When people search for Bettina Wullf, they often search for 'Bettina Wulff prostitute'" if it is factual. That is the only claim google makes as inferred from its search engine. Facts are not libelous, and if you think they are, then you are absolutely
  
  --
  There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
20. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Hatta · 2012-09-10 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  It appears to me that Google is making a purely factual statement. Most people who searched for X also searched for Y. Is truth not a defense against libel in Germany?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
21. Re:European law takes these things seriously by MikeBabcock · 2012-09-10 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect what will matter is whether its clear that this is what the suggestions mean.
  If there's possibility of confusion that Google is in fact claiming these things, there could be a problem perhaps, but clarity about what the suggestions are really should clear it all up on a legal level, or at least I'd hope it would.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
22. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Hatta · 2012-09-10 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  Clear to who? Is Google responsible for making even the stupidest understand what their algorithms do?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
23. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Tom · 2012-09-10 02:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  *sigh*
  It's getting old.
  Any CEO who pulled such a stunt would be kicked out and sued into oblivion before the ink is dry. Europe is bigger than the US, you don't pull out of there unless you have a business suicide wish.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
24. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Tom · 2012-09-10 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Their bluff would be called, and the amount of credibility it costs them would be considerable. Basically, it would be the last time ever they threaten anything and someone believes them.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
25. Re:European law takes these things seriously by cheesybagel · 2012-09-10 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  I never even heard that the former German president was married before. Now I know his wife is suspected of being a former prostitute. Yep she is achieving her stated goals allright...
26. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  The EU would ask for Google to be extradited - after all corporations are people like In that UFO hacker case.
27. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Tom · 2012-09-10 03:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Germany not wanting to remember the holocaust
  Please take your pills again, otherwise you'll write more nonsense.
  If you grow up in Germany, you will get fed everything about the holocaust until you are sick of it. It will be the topic of (mandatory) history class for at least half a year, usually one year.
  There's stuff on TV about the holocaust every week. There's lots of books in the history section of book stores.
  The jewish lobby organisations have a massive influence, and if you want to kill a political topic dead, all you need to do is find a convincing way to link it to the holocaust. For example, there's a current discussion regarding the legality of circumcision for religious purposes. We're not talking about something done by a doctor in a hospital under anesthesia, but about the religious ceremony where some priest cuts of a part of your dick as a child without any painkillers. A court recently ruled that strictly speaking, that is assault. There was an uproar within Germany because both muslims and jews do that to their kids. In the media, the jewish position takes headlines, while the muslim position is rarely mentioned. There are about 200,000 jews in Germany, but 3.6 million muslims. Jewish speakers seriously said that this court decision "is the worst thing that happened to judaism in Germany since the holocaust".
  Israel is more likely to forget about the holocaust than Germany is.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
28. Re:European law takes these things seriously by moronoxyd · 2012-09-10 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  I was only replying to the sentence I quoted.
  Personally I do think that Google should not change their suggestions.
29. Re:European law takes these things seriously by moronoxyd · 2012-09-10 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Lawyers and judges don't like to be called stupid...
30. Re:European law takes these things seriously by prefec2 · 2012-09-10 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Google could also shoot themselves in the foot. Beside that, if Google loses the case in Germany then they have to filter for German users. This has no direct implication for the rest of the EU. It is like suing someone in Kansas, that has no direct effect on an US federal level or an (direct) effect on Canada.
  Ob a side note: Misses Wulff just tries to promote her new book. So don't worry.
31. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, Mr. Troll... what is this "European Law" you are speaking of?
  You might not have heard but the United States of Europe are still a few decades away (if they come at all). Bettina Wulff is german and as such german law applies (and no, Germany is not a barony of the Kingdom of Europe).
32. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The former German president was married and divorced his first wife and then married Bettina.
  The current German president is married but seperated, but not divorced, from his wife and living with his girlfriend.
  The foreign affairs minister is openly gay.
  The family affairs minister got her first child while in office.
  I just tried to imagine this in the US, the heads of conservatives would explode.
  BTW Germany currently has a conservative government.
33. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2012-09-10 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes the shoe fits. That said, Google and their lawyers would never say that, they'll have a much more diplomatic way of explaining how the technology works.
  We do get too many powerful people that legislate or litigate on technology issues despite not understanding anything about the technology, yet they feel plenty qualified to make such decisions.
34. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Replace Google with the name of a torrent site and see how legal that is (going by the court results).
35. Re:European law takes these things seriously by sjames · 2012-09-10 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  They might, for a few days, but doing so would set the bar for making legal demands on Google again QUITE high.
36. Re:European law takes these things seriously by arose · 2012-09-10 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  If the results are to be speech (and protected accordingly), they certainly can be libel as well. If not, you are the one who needs to rething your notion of libel.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
37. Re:European law takes these things seriously by gentryx · 2012-09-10 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Amen.
  
  --
  Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
38. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:32 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  the jewish position takes headlines, while the muslim position is rarely mentioned. There are about 200,000 jews in Germany, but 3.6 million muslims.
  
  To be fair, there'd be quite a few more Jews if your relatives hadn't murdered them.
39. Re:European law takes these things seriously by KingMotley · 2012-09-10 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  They wouldn't have to not service Germany, just don't have any offices there. Then they can let the German government decide if they want to block google, or not.
40. Re:European law takes these things seriously by maxwell+demon · 2012-09-10 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  He probably chose to not be reminded of the real world.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
41. Re:European law takes these things seriously by KingBenny · 2012-09-10 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  maybe google has some dirt ready in case they try to force the issue, it's politics after all and immediately budging at a first threat would create a dangerous precedent
  probably
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
42. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  If you grow up in Germany, you will get fed everything about the holocaust until you are sick of it. It will be the topic of (mandatory) history class for at least half a year, usually one year.
  Don't forget German classes.
  IIRC correctly the first book we had to read about that topic was Friedrich in 6th grade, followed by Andorra in 10th grade, and finally The Reader in 12th grade.
43. Re:European law takes these things seriously by kill-1 · 2012-09-10 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  A gay, a Vietnamese, a guy in a wheelchair, and an elderly East German woman walk into to a bar. "You're a funny bunch," says the bartender. "No, we're the German government."
44. Re:European law takes these things seriously by leonardluen · 2012-09-10 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  However this is about germany, and germany is much smaller than the US.
  I still don't know that it would be a good idea to close your door on about 82 million potential users (germany's population according to google)
45. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Tom · 2012-09-10 09:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  To be fair, there'd be quite a few more Jews if your relatives hadn't murdered them.
  One, yes, though not as many as you probably assume. The official number is 570.000 - most of those murdered were in Poland and other invaded countries.
  Two, my grandfather was murdered by the Nazis for being a member of the german resistance. So shut the fuck up.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
46. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Tom · 2012-09-10 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  But Germany is part of the EU and one feature of the EU is the common market. It is quite difficult to pull out of one country and not the others.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
47. Re:European law takes these things seriously by HiThere · 2012-09-10 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  What the should do is just block all searches that refer to her. No editorial distinction between whether it lauds her or scorns her. Just mention her is enough.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
48. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Tom · 2012-09-10 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  You have no idea how business and laws work, do you?
  Offices don't matter one bit. If Google wants to do business in Germany, it needs to abide by german law. And trust me, Google wants to do business in Germany. Google keeps the numbers secret, but estimates say it's roughly 2 billion $ per year, that's 1/8th of Google's world-wide revenue.
  Big players like this don't play chicken. Google will never pull out of Germany and Germany will not block Google. There will be talks and negotiations and some compromise.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
49. Re:European law takes these things seriously by verbatim · 2012-09-10 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Facts are not libel, the truth is an absolute defense.
  Free speech implies that you have a backbone and are willing to accept speech that makes you uncomfortable.
  If Google can show that people frequently combine those terms, then there is no libel. To prevent such factual statements as a matter of law is a hinderance to the very essence of free speech.
  
  --
  Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
50. Re:European law takes these things seriously by verbatim · 2012-09-10 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  I will happily admit that my "If Europeans..." line was both incomplete and merely a ruse to poke fun at the
  
  --
  Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
51. Re:European law takes these things seriously by KingMotley · 2012-09-10 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not an expert, no, but I do have a fair amount of knowledge.
  For example, I have enough to know that a company that has no presence inside a country does not have to abide by its laws, including Germany. Now Germany could for example make it difficult for German companies to do business with google, but even that would be difficult. Most of google's revenues come from serving ads and adwords, etc, so unless google has "offices" (including buildings serving content), I'm not exactly sure how Germany would plan to do squat. You think Germany would enact a ban of purchasing adwords from google? Could you imagine the uproar the German government would face from their own companies because now they are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world? Over some silly woman is trying to censor the internet?
  Yes, I could see google putting their foot down. Why should Germany's first lady receive special treatment? Can anyone then demand google censor their results if something "bad" is said about them? Yeah, that's a slippery slope that I expect they'd be willing to not want to step on.
52. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had modpoints.
53. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Deliveranc3 · 2012-09-10 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Librarians shouldn't lie. We treat them as disposable, so is google.
54. Re:European law takes these things seriously by chrismcb · 2012-09-10 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if you and she know this but Google isn't hosting the content.
  
  I don't know if you know this, but Google IS hosting the content.
  Google keeps track of what other people are searching. When someone else starts typing into the search box, Google will automatch it to other popular search terms that Google is hosting.
55. Re:European law takes these things seriously by OneAhead · 2012-09-10 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  https://plus.google.com/107120186043045385763/about?gl=us&hl=en
56. Re:European law takes these things seriously by KingMotley · 2012-09-10 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  And google has an office with 13 people in it in Hamburg Germany? Yes, it would be impossible to move that many people to a location just over the border.
57. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Tom · 2012-09-10 17:59 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sorry, but you do have no idea.
  First, yes as someone pointed out, Google not only has offices in Germany (more than one, I think), it actually has a german subsidiary. Yes, that could be moved, however, it is almost certainly the legal partner of all existing contracts, which makes things quite a bit more complicated than moving a few small offices.
  Second, Germany is part of the EU which has a common market and quite a bit more. If you think you can move just across the border and you're out of reach, you are very mistaken.
  
  Could you imagine the uproar the German government would face from their own companies because now they are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world?
  Pffft. Here's what Germany exports:
  http://www.bpb.de/wissen/MVCEI4,0,0,Import_und_Export_nach_Waren.html
  (if you don't speak german, the three big bars are cars, machinery and chemicals)
  How much of that is dependent on Google advertisement? Which, btw., makes up at best 10% of the German advertisement business, so let's not pretend it would make such a huge difference. Google would suffer more than Germany.
  
  Why should Germany's first lady receive special treatment?
  
  She shouldn't. This isn't about special treatment, it's about whether or not Google needs to abide by the local laws. If the courts agree with her, then it's not special treatment because anyone in the same position would have the same right.
  
  Can anyone then demand google censor their results if something "bad" is said about them? Yeah, that's a slippery slope that I expect they'd be willing to not want to step on.
  Which is why we have courts that are willing to do so, because someone has to. We can't all go around our lives avoiding any slipperly slopes that may or may not be there.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
58. Re:European law takes these things seriously by bickerdyke · 2012-09-11 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Over some silly woman is trying to censor the internet?
  Sorry, that spot is still taken by Ursula von der Leyen
  
  --
  bickerdyke
59. Re:European law takes these things seriously by bickerdyke · 2012-09-11 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly...
  Years ago political enemies (or fellow party members - who knows the difference anymore) started that rumour. Those rumours were quickly dispeled, but her book will be out in a few days.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
60. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-11 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Lol Tom. I'll just leave it at that. You are mistaken, but since it probably won't come to any of this, short of spending days looking up the appropriate references from authorities on the subject, I have no way of proving any of it to you. I suspect you'll just come up with more silly interpretations anyhow, and I have better thing to do.
  Enjoy your overinflated ego and delusions of being right.
61. Re:European law takes these things seriously by arose · 2012-09-11 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  What Google actually shows is some random strings of text starting with what you typed in without any context whatsoever. That's not a factual statement, it is barely a statement at all, what it is (as it stands) is an explicit link of one thing to another, courtesy of Google's servers.
  That isn't even the good old "some say" weasle that will self-fulfill itself by tomorrow and leave the rumor mongers clear.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
62. Re:European law takes these things seriously by kmoser · 2012-09-11 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Even if somebody searches for "Bettina Wulff", Google's suggested addition of the word "prostitute" may simply be because there is at least one prostitute out there named Bettina Wulff. And if there isn't yet, there should be.
63. Re:European law takes these things seriously by Tom · 2012-09-11 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Enjoy your overinflated ego and delusions of being right.
  Why, thank you. That's why I am on /. - just like everyone else...
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
64. Re:European law takes these things seriously by lsatenstein · 2012-09-12 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  If the EU really wants to force the issue, google can just threaten to withdraw from Europe. We will see how well that goes over with the people.
  Actually, Google tailors its search algoriythms and services for the country or region which has a significant number of users.
  For a while though, Goole has been facing stiff competition from the Russian and Israeli Search Engine companies, which do provide very comparable results. These sites do not inundate us with the amount of advertising that appears on Page 1 of a Google search result.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
65. Re:European law takes these things seriously by lsatenstein · 2012-09-12 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Germany not wanting to remember the holocaust
  Please take your pills again, otherwise you'll write more nonsense.
  If you grow up in Germany, you will get fed everything about the holocaust until you are sick of it. It will be the topic of (mandatory) history class for at least half a year, usually one year.
  There's stuff on TV about the holocaust every week. There's lots of books in the history section of book stores.
  The jewish lobby organisations have a massive influence, and if you want to kill a political topic dead, all you need to do is find a convincing way to link it to the holocaust. For example, there's a current discussion regarding the legality of circumcision for religious purposes. We're not talking about something done by a doctor in a hospital under anesthesia, but about the religious ceremony where some priest cuts of a part of your dick as a child without any painkillers. A court recently ruled that strictly speaking, that is assault. There was an uproar within Germany because both muslims and jews do that to their kids. In the media, the jewish position takes headlines, while the muslim position is rarely mentioned. There are about 200,000 jews in Germany, but 3.6 million muslims. Jewish speakers seriously said that this court decision "is the worst thing that happened to judaism in Germany since the holocaust".
  Israel is more likely to forget about the holocaust than Germany is.
  Would you prefer to be reminded to not criticize that other religion where if you critize it, you can end up dead.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
66. Re:European law takes these things seriously by robsku · 2012-09-12 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Would you prefer to be reminded to not criticize that other religion where if you critize it, you can end up dead.
  I don't think that was the point at all... However such fatwas against offenders - I'd like to say especially outside countries that recognize sharia law, but those that do have even bigger problems with religion - are clearly more lunatic than Jews comparing laws against religious practice of mutilating little boys dicks and sucking the blood to holocaust.
  And I doubt they consider anyone else - I mean, holocaust had many other victim groups than Jews, and I'm sure they don't leave those out when it helps to paint a picture of how horrible the holocaust was to put more emphasis on their views, but do they ever mention holocaust when one of these other groups faces discrimination they would compare to holocaust if it was against them?
  Also, would they accept that comparison by muslims if the law was only against them? Would they defend muslims right to circumcise babies only? Do they defend them even now? If the law should be placed, but only against muslims circumcising, not Jews, would they still view it the worse thing since holocaust?
  I'm not anti-semitist, just anti-harmful-religious-acts and anti laws set or not set because religious doctrines.
  And would I prefer to see "be reminded to not criticize that other religion where if you critize it, you can end up dead"? Well, current situation needs more of that - it's un-excusable that violence against offenders of Islam or it's prophet happens in non-islamic (in politics and laws) countries, but it happens, but it's rare enough that swift actions to make sure it could not happen are not seen as important enough.
  Naturally I would rather like to not see either religions nutjobs in action, but it's not up to how I wish.
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
67. Re:European law takes these things seriously by robsku · 2012-09-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  ...and on top of everything, it's not like the threat would be that big - my understanding is that most people, browser search boxes, webpages with google search form, etc. use google.com and they get to google.(fi|de|nl|ru|po...) by redirect from google.com server. Even if they shut down german domains, how long would it take for everyone to use .com? Would it even affect language settings? I believe that I can set google to show in my language using .com - also from outside my country. Then even if they removed German localizations all together from google servers, how much grief would that really cause?
  But in the end, it's not like google would suddenly start throwing such threats - they didn't even close china, though they did move to hong kong.
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
And why should they? by Unknown1337 · 2012-09-10 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google suggest is an interpretive algorithm using common searches, and mass information to 'guess' what you or many other people might be wanting to search for. If the information is out there or people commonly search a topic it SHOULD appear as a possible option. The words probably should be censored for the vast audience possible, but it's the source information that is at fault, not Google for collecting it.
1. Re:And why should they? by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-09-10 01:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't think Google is as hands off as you say. I just typed Mitt Romney in the search box and I got:
  "Mitt Romney on issues"
  "Mitt Romney vp"
  "Mitt Romney tax returns"
  "Mitt Romney wiki"
  Judging by the commercials on television, I'd expect at Google to at least suggest some non-flattering search terms.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
2. Re:And why should they? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 01:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That'd be a fair and nice argument if they would apply these rules across the board. But there's quite a few cases where they've caved already, most notably to the lobbying from the entertainment industry. So they're at least making a statement that as an individual, you shouldn't expect them to alter their search index, but as a powerful corporate lobby, you can do what you please.
3. Re:And why should they? by antifoidulus · 2012-09-10 01:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yeah, but it's Germany, the masters on requiring certificates for everything.... A friend of mine was almost sued for reviewing a hotel in Germany. In his review he stated that there were bedbugs in the hotel he stayed at, and the hotel threatened to sue him. Not because they deny he saw bugs, but because they claimed he didn't have the proper qualifications to determine if the bugs in question were actually bedbugs or not..... They eneded up not going to court, but my friend had to hire a lawyer and they settled out of court, he was forced to remove his review. Only in Germany.....
  
  --
  Monstar L
4. Re:And why should they? by Unknown1337 · 2012-09-10 01:06 · Score: 2
  
  Somewhat true, Google has bowed to lawsuits and pressure in the past on their search suggestions, but they only list 4 options, which are supposed to be the most highly requested/available (both historical and taking current trends into consideration). In an attempt to make searching more 'convenient'. In another week or so due to the ads I would expect those sorts of terms to break the top 4.
5. Re:And why should they? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's easy to say when it's not you, and to have your image destroyed by a (i assume false) rumor should not be taken lightly. On the other hand i do think Google should not be making precedents. It's a slippery slope.
6. Re:And why should they? by moronoxyd · 2012-09-10 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Considdering that there are lots of websites where Germans rate hotels, restaurants and the like and tell their experience, and I don't hear a lot about all those people and websites getting sued, I guess that your friend was very unlucky. Or maybe the situation was a little mor complicated than what you told us.
7. Re:And why should they? by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-09-10 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  I would consider the third option to be unflattering. Remember, it is popularity based, so "Mitt Romney sucks cock in hell" probably won't be there.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
8. Re:And why should they? by Greyfox · 2012-09-10 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  I'd say ANY bugs in your bed in a hotel is grounds for a bad review! "Oh, I'm sorry! What I thought were bedbugs were actually Asian hissing cockroaches! I couldn't hear them hissing over the sound my wife screaming 'OH MY GOD THERE ARE BUGS IN THE BED!'" It was an honest mistake!
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
9. Re:And why should they? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  He said they ended up NOT going to court, lawyers can threaten you with just about anything, if you end up settling before the thing even goes to court then you're just letting them get away with it. They could just as well have sued him for having a big nose or something equally stupid.
10. Re:And why should they? by moronoxyd · 2012-09-10 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well that friend hired a lawyer, so either his lawyer was a pussy (is this libel? *g*) or that hotel actually had something more substantial.
11. Re:And why should they? by asdf7890 · 2012-09-10 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  They do at least have a profanity filter which is sometimes a little prudish, which would constrain some of the unflattering suggestions automatically. It Basically if a word would stop the auto-search-as-you-type operating, it shouldn't appear in suggested search terms unless one of your explicitly entered terms is already on the list.
  
  Another think that keeps other terms near the top of the list is astro-turfing. Gaming Google is a common tactic in political circles. They won't do it to try bury an opponent in crap terms (as that may find them blocked by Google meaning they can't game in favour of themselves) but they will do it to skew their own results in a particular direction. Just get many people at home to search for "Mitt Romney tax cuts" and similar and it'll push "Mitt Romney " further down the list.
12. Re:And why should they? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think Google is as hands off as you say. I just typed Mitt Romney in the search box and I got:
  "Mitt Romney on issues" "Mitt Romney vp" "Mitt Romney tax returns" "Mitt Romney wiki"
  Judging by the commercials on television, I'd expect at Google to at least suggest some non-flattering search terms.
  On the other hand, for a while, if you typed in "Craig J" in google (Craig James being a... less than beloved senatorial candidate in Texas), the first suggested result was "Craig James Killed Five Hookers".
  
  Now, of course, to get that suggestion you have to type in "Craig James K". A flood of rational discourse does wonders for erasing a google bomb, though...
13. Re:And why should they? by Tom · 2012-09-10 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Just like in the US, you can be sued for pretty much anything by pretty much anyone.
  Whether or not that case would've been laughed out of court or not - well your friend didn't want to find out, which I can understand. But there's nothing Germany-specific there.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
14. Re:And why should they? by MikeBabcock · 2012-09-10 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  There are lots of entertaining options to game Google's suggest with ...
  A couple favourites are "how do you", "why do women" and "why do men" ... the suggested questions are often quite funny.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
15. Re:And why should they? by Xest · 2012-09-10 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  You know, I don't know if it is popularity based. Maybe it is, maybe I've missed some obscure global trends, but I always found it amusing to type "Is it wrong". For some time this would end up with suggestions such as:
  "Is it wrong to sleep with my mother"
  "Is it wrong to sleep with my brother"
  "Is it wrong to sleep with my sister"
  "Is it wrong to sleep with my dog"
  I tried it today and noticed in 4th place:
  "Is it wrong to have a centipede in my"
  Now, again, as I say, maybe I've missed something, but are these really the most popular search terms? Over what time period? Presumably it's not over all time as someone else's response implies.
  Similarly I've seen many suggestions pop up in the past that strike me as being far from likely to be purely popularity based.
16. Re:And why should they? by gl4ss · 2012-09-10 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well that friend hired a lawyer, so either his lawyer was a pussy (is this libel? *g*) or that hotel actually had something more substantial.
  look, why would a lawyer tell a potential client that he doesn't need a lawyer?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
17. Re:And why should they? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure what the German laws say, but remember this, hard as it may be to comprehend; The truth is not an absolute defense against libel in all countries. IOW, there are places which you'd probably consider "civilized" and "democratic" where telling the truth, especially about certain people will be an expensive undertaking, truth be hanged.
  And, no, "pussy" in this context would be an insult, not libel.
18. Re:And why should they? by Unknown1337 · 2012-09-10 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to say what 'popularity' really means. Not everyone with Internet access falls within the /normal/ range. Bots and search flooding also need to be taken into consideration. If someone knew the exact weighting Google used they could create fake posts/websites in prime locations in order to change what appears to be a common search term. I would hope that News articles and other (some-what credible) sources are weighted higher, but I do not have any evidence to support that. The exact wording plays a part as well. Your country of origin, if you are logged into your account, previous searches and information available on your habits will also play a role in what suggestions are made, because I see completely different results for "Is it wrong".
19. Re:And why should they? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Considering the fucked up powers the alphabet soup agencies have in the USA, I really think it's more likely (probably easier) to just take over and shutdown offending websites, or force the companies hosting them to terminate their service.
  Sooo, trusting Google or the American Government ... which one would I believe? ...
20. Re:And why should they? by sjames · 2012-09-10 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure Romney would rather not discuss 'tax returns' yet there it is.
21. Re:And why should they? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with Google suggest is that it creates a postive feedback loop. You might type in someones name for one thing, but if you see something potentially interesting suggested you might decide to do that search you would never have considered before, and therefore add weight to that search term. Due to this feedback loop there is a reasonable argument that the terms that are suggested should be manually curated.
22. Re:And why should they? by Troed · 2012-09-10 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Google has quietly expanded its list of censored search phrases with the addition of The Pirate Bay’s domain names. The blacklist prevents popular keywords from appearing in Google’s Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed. Although Google understands that there is no silver bullet to stop online copyright infringement, the search giant is convinced that the steps they’ve taken could help to decrease piracy.
  https://torrentfreak.com/google-adds-pirate-bay-domains-to-censorship-list-120910/
  
  --
  it's in my head
23. Re:And why should they? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 18:31 · Score: 0
  
  This ^.
  Once they started on the path, it is only logical they should continue censoring until every single being on earth is satisfied.
Google missed an opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 00:56 · Score: 3, Funny

instead of just suggesting search terms like prostitute and escort, why not also mention the fees ?
Germany's 'what'? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 00:56 · Score: 0

Germany doesn't have a "first lady". If you mean the ex-president's spouse then just say so.
1. Re:Germany's 'what'? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 01:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think they meant "first lady" as "the escort he chooses by default".
2. Re:Germany's 'what'? by Shoe+Puppet · 2012-09-10 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  That term is not specific to the US president's wife any more. It refers to any head of state's wife.
  
  --
  (+1, Disagree)
3. Re:Germany's 'what'? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  That term is not specific to the US president's wife any more. It refers to any head of state's wife.
  Complete crap.
4. Re:Germany's 'what'? by Hatta · 2012-09-10 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's what "first lady" means. It's not an offical title.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
5. Re:Germany's 'what'? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  No there was only one first lady - Eve
6. Re:Germany's 'what'? by s4ltyd0g · 2012-09-10 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  I think they meant first madam (-;
7. Re:Germany's 'what'? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  No there was only one first lady - Eve
  O RLY?
Re:google can just threaten to withdraw from Eu. by MRe_nl · 2012-09-10 01:00 · Score: 1

No.

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
It's even worse... by srussia · 2012-09-10 01:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Turns out Bettina Wulff is Barbara Streisand's half-sister!

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
1. Re:It's even worse... by slashmydots · 2012-09-10 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  OH NOZ! Now that that's posted on the internet, Google is going to get in so much trouble for it. Wait...
2. Re:It's even worse... by prefec2 · 2012-09-10 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  Nope. She is just promoting her book and her new promotion company. She had to something like this, because otherwise no one in Germany would have noticed that she "wrote" a book. All the tree-killing would have been a waste of time without that promotion ;-)
3. Re:It's even worse... by maxwell+demon · 2012-09-10 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  If so, she did a very bad promotion job. I've heard and read a lot about this "red light" issue, but your post is the first time I hear that she wrote a book.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:It's even worse... by bickerdyke · 2012-09-11 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  But she learned her lessons well....
  Hint: Those rumours were started the night before the presidential election (years back...) and now Bettina Wulff wrote a book.......
  Coincidence? Maybe.....
  
  --
  bickerdyke
Google is Sometimes Hypocritical by jellie · 2012-09-10 01:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not so sure I would agree with Google's typical defense on this issue, which is that they have an algorithm that automatically ranks all the search results and they can't change that. Except they manually change the results. When companies break their rules, they can punish them. For example, when BMW's German website was found to influence results, Google banned them from their index. An eyeglass company, DecorMyEyes, verbally abused its customers to generate bad reviews ... and more publicity. After being published in The Times, they dropped the company from the index. Even in the Santorum case, they eventually made some results less prominent. Google has also been accused of pushing up the rankings of its own products. So it's kinda hypocritical to say that Google doesn't adjust individual results.
1. Re:Google is Sometimes Hypocritical by udachny · 2012-09-10 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Be careful, jellie (949898), you don't want Google to go Santorum on your ass.
  
  --
  MY OTHER COMMENTS
2. Re:Google is Sometimes Hypocritical by jellie · 2012-09-10 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'd much rather not have Santorum go Santorum on my ass...
3. Re:Google is Sometimes Hypocritical by udachny · 2012-09-10 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but Google is much bigger..... it can do Santorum in a scalable, sustainable, timeless manner that I don't think you can appreciate well enough just yet.
  
  --
  MY OTHER COMMENTS
4. Re:Google is Sometimes Hypocritical by gman003 · 2012-09-10 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is, those were banning specific sites. This is a request to ban *any* negative mention of a specific person.
5. Re:Google is Sometimes Hypocritical by squiggleslash · 2012-09-10 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  Even in the Santorum case, they eventually made some results less prominent
  
  They did? The first search result on the word "Santorum" is for the Wikipedia page on the Santorum neologism. The second, reasonably enough, is for the homophobic jackwagon himself. The third is the "Spreading santorum" blog.
  After that you get links largely about the politician. The fact that the first link is still about the fluid, despite the fact Santorum spent most of the last year and a bit in an election campaign for president, suggests to me Google hasn't done anything. (Which is fine, I'm not criticising them, I just think they're not as hands on as you think.)
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
6. Re:Google is Sometimes Hypocritical by cheesybagel · 2012-09-10 02:49 · Score: 2
  
  There are also the DMCA pulldowns. So yes folks Google already messes with their index. All the time.
7. Re:Google is Sometimes Hypocritical by bickerdyke · 2012-09-11 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  They remove SITES or specific results, but they never stop you from typing searches.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
Reverse Streisand effect by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2012-09-10 01:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

First time I heard about Bettina Wulff. So maybe her attempt to repair her bad reputation is going to damage it further instead?
On the other hand she could also benefit from a reverse Streisand effect. Surely a person everybody calls bad can't be that bad? There are a number of celebrities who actually benefited from getting "exposed" in public. Paris Hilton and Hugh Grant come to mind. They're much bigger stars now than they were before the scandal that outed them.
1. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-09-10 01:44 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  a reverse Streisand effect. Surely a person everybody calls bad can't be that bad?
  What annoys me most about this debate is that there are so many people who apparently think that having worked as a prostitute/sex worker is so very bad and would somehow disqualify a woman from being the first lady. People and the boulevard press in Germany even went so far as to take the first lady's mature attitude towards better sexual education at schools as a clear sign of having been a prostitute, as if any of that constituted any real problem (rather than, say, hypocrisy or the moronic politics of her husband).
2. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  so many people who apparently think that having worked as a prostitute/sex worker is so very bad and would somehow disqualify a woman from being the first lady
  Mhh I just had this conversation with a friend of mine on Sunday.
  Prostitution is not illegal in this country. Case closed.
3. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by Hatta · 2012-09-10 02:44 · Score: 2
  
  What annoys me most about this debate is that there are so many people who apparently think that having worked as a prostitute/sex worker is so very bad and would somehow disqualify a woman from being the first lady.
  I'd argue that being the first lady is so very bad that it should disqualify a person from being a sex worker.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by lcam · 2012-09-10 03:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I consider prostitutes to be more honest than politicians, at least you get what want, then you pay with prostitutes. Politicians hike taxes and then don't deliver on their promises.
  I think Bettina Wulff is taking a step down the ladder with her attitude, especially in the name of politics.
5. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  Politics is the second oldest profession and bears an uncanny resembalance to the first.
  The reason you're not recieving the expected performance from you politicians is that taxes aren't a payment; they're a service provided to those who do pay the politicians.
6. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by rtb61 · 2012-09-10 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  The question here is which Bettina Wulff. First she would have to prove her name unique. Should her name not be unique she should be cited for overweening narcissistic arrogance in failing to take into consideration all the other Bettina Wulffs. As her name is not unique it should be thrown out of court and she should offer an apology to all the other holders of the name for the arrogant attempt of taking globally unique ownership of the name.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
7. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is if you get what you don't want...
  
  But you can get that from nonprostitutes as well.
8. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by lcam · 2012-09-10 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  muahahahaha, plagiarism?
9. Re:Reverse Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  You are absolutely correct - think Adolf Hitler, another German with a bad reputation - "Surely a person everybody calls bad can't be that bad?" - what was Google thinking?
Google should not have to change anything by rs1n · 2012-09-10 01:13 · Score: 1

The fact that the search suggestion appears is merely a reflection of the information that is currently out there -- whether factual or not. She should be going after the party(s) responsible for the character assassination (and Google can help, actually, to find the perpetrators).
Google is already censoring the auto-complete by tempmpi · 2012-09-10 01:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

Google is already censoring the auto-complete, just for other reasons:
It will not suggest "adobe photoshop torrent" or "adobe photoshop crack", even though that these searches and similar searches are extremly popular. And it will not autocomplete "Rocco" to "Rocco Siffredi". So google is censoring auto-complete against piracy and against pornography, why exactly shouldn't it do the same thing to protect people against libel?

--
Jan
1. Re:Google is already censoring the auto-complete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Because piracy and pornography are pretty much straight forward. But as to whether something truly is libel is a matter for the courts. If Google had to take on each and every individual complaint regarding whether
2. Re:Google is already censoring the auto-complete by Whatanut · 2012-09-10 02:11 · Score: 2
  
  Is this a thing now? Where we just
  
  --
  
  yvan eht nioj
3. Re:Google is already censoring the auto-complete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Initially I disagreed, thinking that Google should NOT filter keywords - as it's just reflecting what people are looking for. But then I start to think of how the media have got too powerfull and are happy to ruin someones life and put a 2 paragraph apology on the back page the following week.
  So given the stupidity of most people I think speculation and libel should be left out of keywords.
  I did a search on myself and found some stuff on Google about my finances. So now I'm thinking - how can I get that index removed? Surely they can't be excempt from the data protection act? I mean they store data on individuals don't they?
4. Re:Google is already censoring the auto-complete by Nemyst · 2012-09-10 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  Because whatever you think of filtering against piracy or pornography (I don't like either, but I can understand the latter for young children), it's fairly clear cut and simple to know what is piracy and what is pornography.
  How do you quantitatively define libel? Do you just remove anything that anybody claims is libel against them? That'll work just fine, right?
5. Re:Google is already censoring the auto-complete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Because piracy and pornography are pretty much straight forward.
  Care to give a definition that is pretty much straight forward?
6. Re:Google is already censoring the auto-complete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, ...
  -- Justice Potter Stewart
7. Re:Google is already censoring the auto-complete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe I chose a bad choice of words.
  A user puts in words into the search. The autocomplete thing comes up with results. It shouldn't be hard to determine whether any such results will likely lead to pirated content or pornography. However, I'd imagine it'd be much more difficult to determine whether any such results leads to libel. Libel isn't a clear cut thing. How does Google know whether the "offending" material is true or false? I'm saying Google may know when something is pirated content, pornography, cat videos, dogs on skateboards, etc. But it's probably harder for Google to
8. Re:Google is already censoring the auto-complete by Stanza · 2012-09-10 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  it's fairly clear cut and simple to know what is piracy and what is pornography
  Actually, no, no it's not, and what is piracy and pornography can be considered widely different in different places.
BING by denisbergeron · 2012-09-10 01:27 · Score: 1

Sue Google, but BING got the result.

--
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Could be worse by sl4shd0rk · 2012-09-10 01:35 · Score: 1

She should be glad her last name isn't Santorum

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Google Behaving Correctly by skywire · 2012-09-10 02:05 · Score: 1

Google's proper role is to allow their object algorithms to work as designed. Their job is to enable us to search the content that is out there; making special exceptions in response to silly complaints defeats that.
Everyone knows the significance of the suggested search phrases. No reasonable person really believes that by displaying them, Google is uttering statements that predicate them of the entered phrase. In other words, no-one, including Bettina Wulff and her lawyers, honestly believes that Google is publicly stating that she is a prostitute. It's good to hear that Google is making an effort to do the right thing this time. They have not always.

--
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:08 · Score: 0

They may refuse to change their results, but will they issue an apology like they did with Michelle Obama? http://search.slashdot.org/story/09/11/26/0311249/google-apologizes-for-michelle-obama-results
Pure Marketing... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:17 · Score: 1

I, being from germany, dont think its a real issue for google. First of all these rumors where around for months. Secondly I dont think a multi-national corporation like google gives a single fuck about a ex-Politicans wife, since google didn't do anything wrong in the first place, it just refuses to "censor" the most common user searches. Even with hybris of a average politican or their entourage she cant be hoping for google to take her seriously. Third, u guys from the states may not be aware of this, but she has just / is about to publish a book about her oh so glamourous years as the "first lady" of germany, which is hyped by the tabloids here all the way through. Its just marketing ...
Shoot the messenger! by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-09-10 02:37 · Score: 1

The typical politician's response.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
How else will people find the *contrary* evidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 02:40 · Score: 0

When people search for her name and the "escort controversy", how does she expect people to find the journalism that apparently indicates the rumours are false?
WTF are you talking about? by batistuta · 2012-09-10 02:58 · Score: 1

everyone in Argentina is proud about the Hand of God. It showed two things:
- If he wanted, Maradona was able to fool the referee and make fun of the brits, despite them having stolen their island shortly before.
- If he wanted, Maradona could just a few minutes later make one of the best goals in history. Of course the brits don't acknowledge it and just whine about the first one.
I don't wanna mix technology, sports, and politics here. I just wanted to point out that no one in Argentina is ashamed of the hand of god.
1. Re:WTF are you talking about? by maroberts · 2012-09-10 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  Actually I think you will find most Brits concede that Maradona's second goal was spectacular.
  Unlike the Argentinians, we're generally gracious when defeated fairly... :-P
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
2. Re:WTF are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  everyone in Argentina is proud about the Hand of God. It showed two things:
  - If he wanted, Maradona was able to fool the referee and make fun of the brits, despite them having stolen their island shortly before.
  - If he wanted, Maradona could just a few minutes later make one of the best goals in history. Of course the brits don't acknowledge it and just whine about the first one.
  I don't wanna mix technology, sports, and politics here. I just wanted to point out that no one in Argentina is ashamed of the hand of god.
  "Stolen their island?" Yeah, right. For varying definitions of the words "stolen" and "their."
3. Re:WTF are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  So Argentinians are proud of blatant cheating then?
4. Re:WTF are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 16:16 · Score: 0
  
  Yes they are. The typical Argentinian wants to believe that he can bluff his way through life, from the cradle to the grave. In Argentina, society forces you to always attempt to show yourself off as more than you really are.
5. Re:WTF are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  everyone in Argentina is proud about the Hand of God. It showed two things:
  - If he wanted, Maradona was able to fool the referee and make fun of the brits, despite them having stolen their island shortly before.
  - If he wanted, Maradona could just a few minutes later make one of the best goals in history. Of course the brits don't acknowledge it and just whine about the first one.
  I don't wanna mix technology, sports, and politics here. I just wanted to point out that no one in Argentina is ashamed of the hand of god.
  Well, if the Falklands are Argentinian, then I believe Formosa must belong to Paraguay, right? RIGHT???
6. Re:WTF are you talking about? by Ash+Vince · 2012-09-10 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  everyone in Argentina is proud about the Hand of God. It showed two things:
  - If he wanted, Maradona was able to fool the referee and make fun of the brits, despite them having stolen their island shortly before.
  - If he wanted, Maradona could just a few minutes later make one of the best goals in history. Of course the brits don't acknowledge it and just whine about the first one.
  I don't wanna mix technology, sports, and politics here. I just wanted to point out that no one in Argentina is ashamed of the hand of god.
  We will concede many things, but you still not having your island back. It's our island now, along with oil rights that go along with it.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
7. Re:WTF are you talking about? by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2012-09-11 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  Fuckyeah! And everyone in Germany is proud about Bettina Wu... no, wait - what was the question, again?
  
  --
  Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
it was a good porno she did by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 03:05 · Score: 0

haha got ya
two points by Tom · 2012-09-10 03:08 · Score: 1

Not mentioned so far:
One, she has just "written" (no idea how much is ghostwritten) a book that is just coming out. The "discussion" about her past pretty much died down when her husband left office. Strange how it apparently got started with just the perfect timing, isn't it?
Two, so what? I know several people who either have been or still are sex workers. For most of them you'd never guess, and the ones I'm close with are good people. It's one of those "scandal! scandal!" topics that have no reason going for them other than sensationalism and a desire to sell more newspapers.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Spellcheck by mynameiskhan · 2012-09-10 03:11 · Score: 1

First of all Bettina get your name right. Wulff is incorrect. It is written 'Wolf'.
Especially in Germany by phorm · 2012-09-10 03:22 · Score: 1

Where - to my understanding - it's a legal industry.
At least in the US it would have a bad rep because it's also an illegal profession, but in Germany red-light districts are regulated and legit.
Nothing but a marketing scheme for her new book by demon+driver · 2012-09-10 05:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

And it couldn't be more evident. Just two things:
1. The event in discussion now dates back half a year. When it was news, Mr Wulff was still Federal President (an office which, in Germany, does not carry too much power; his main job is to represent the state) and struggling against the corruption allegations which finally made him resign. Back then, when it was urgent, Mrs Wulff did not deem it necessary to do or say anything at all.
2. This week there is a book by Mrs Wulff coming to the stores titled "Jenseits des Protokolls" ("Beyond Protocol"), which is expected to tell a few stories from the couple of months her husband was President, including, of course, the events she is now suing Google for.
Any questions?
All this is of course exactly in line with what those Wulff people have already shown to be their character.
1. Re:Nothing but a marketing scheme for her new book by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Any questions?
  You seem knowledgeable. Was she really a prostitute/escort?
2. Re:Nothing but a marketing scheme for her new book by demon+driver · 2012-09-10 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  She wasn't. She has studied media science and worked for an internet agency and a supplier for the car industry. By the way, the rumour originated within Mr Wulff's own political party, the conservative CDU (christian-democratic union) which is also the party the head of government, Mrs Merkel, belongs to.
typo correction by skywire · 2012-09-10 05:47 · Score: 1

Make that "objective algorithms".

--
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Who's Afraid of Bettina Wulff? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 05:47 · Score: 0

Who's Afraid of Bettina Wulff,
Bettina Wulff, Bettina Wulff.
Who's Afraid of Bettina Wulff,
La la la la la.
If she wins, every drunk dolt will start zerg rush by nighthawk243 · 2012-09-10 06:01 · Score: 1

I think the biggest reason Google refuses to remove the offending entries are because if they do it for one person, especially someone at least somewhat notable; then they're stuck having to fulfill the request for everyone who wants less-than-flattering information about them removed. For a site as large as Google, that would just be completely unsustainable. I'd imagine knocking out DCMA requests and removing illegal images already requires a ton of man power.
President is less significant in Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 08:04 · Score: 0

If you think this story is a big deal here in Germany, you are wrong.
Our president is not directly involved in legislation. He just signs new laws and can thus delay or veto them.
The one comparable to the president of the US would be out chancellor. Angela Merkel.
And the former first lady? I didn't even know he was married until I read about her suing Google.
Politicians here don't use their partners to gain votes. They keep their private lives to themselves.
Nothing to see here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-10 12:51 · Score: 0

She's just trying to sell her book: http://www.amazon.de/Jenseits-Protokolls-Bettina-Wulff/dp/3868832734/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347324551&sr=8-1