'Bankrupt' Australian Surgeon Sues Google For Auto-Complete

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Bankrupt' Australian Surgeon Sues Google For Auto-Complete

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @05:13PM from the why-is-google-so dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Australian surgeon Guy Hingston is suing Google in the U.S. for 'auto-complete' defamation. Typing in his name brings up 'Guy Hingston bankrupt' in the auto-complete. The association seems to have come about because Hingston purchased an aviation group CoastJet which went bankrupt two-and-a-half years later. Hingston himself was also bankrupted. Hingston claims this association has cost him customers and is suing Google for $75k, plus court costs. Google has often found itself the target of litigation over auto-complete searches. Are auto-complete results even useful? Should Google be policing the auto-complete suggestions?"

305 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe he shouldn't of gone bankrupt.
1. Re:Well... by neonmonk · 2013-01-22 18:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  He didn't. His personal bankruptcy was annulled.
  But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google? It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino (although buying into aviation at this stage of the game could be argued as riskier) - the guy is being punished needlessly.
  Does this have to go to a lawsuit though? Why can't Google seem to moderate themselves effectively? You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete. It shouldn't be hard. Simple common sense.
  I don't know what the case here is, but if he did try to contact Google then I'm sure they ignored him completely as they are wont to do.
  Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous. Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator? What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
2. Re:Well... by sumdumass · 2013-01-22 18:16 · Score: 2
  
  But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google? It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino (although buying into aviation at this stage of the game could be argued as riskier) - the guy is being punished needlessly.While I understand the wanting to keep something like that quiet, it is public information. I'm not sure it is wrong to have it there even if it is undesirable.
3. Re:Well... by Pseudonym · 2013-01-22 18:18 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I'm not sure that Google autocomplete is the place to draw the line, but you do raise a good point. You have to think about this in the context of big data and modern government and corporate surveillance.
  We all know the stories of people being placed on TSA watchlists, arrested, interrogated, and even tortured for having a similar name to a bad guy or being the second cousin of a bad guy.
  People's actions can be chilled or even lives ruined by very tenuous associations in databases. And whether through the Erdos/Bacon game, the assumption that correlation is the same as causation, or plain old coincidence, data mining can uncover associations which are false or misleading, even if they are statistically significant.
  Now we may argue that people shouldn't base decisions on associations made by Google's machine learning algorithms. It is, ultimately, the responsibility of the person making the decision to evaluate the strength of the evidence rationally. In a perfect world, where everyone is perfectly sane and rational, and no snap judgments ever have to be made, we could assume this.
  Meanwhile, back in the real world, these databases exist and are used. So how much responsibility should be placed on those maintaining the databases for making sure that the contents are accurate, particularly clearing up a mistake when it is pointed out? Is there additional responsibility if the database is accessible to the public?
  It's a very interesting question, and I don't know the answer.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
4. Re:Well... by Zemran · 2013-01-22 19:04 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  He obviously has too much money left and he wants to waste it on lawyers so that he can go bankrupt again...
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
5. Re:Well... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-22 19:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  His personal bankruptcy was annulled.
  How do you annul a bankruptcy? And even if it's annulled, it did happen. He was bankrupt, even if, like the stars, it was only 23 hours between marriage and annulment. If that annulment mattered, then "Guy Hingston" should complete to "Guy Hingston bankruptcy annuled", and that would be perfectly fine.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
6. Re:Well... by 1u3hr · 2013-01-22 19:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google?
  
  Yes. Because that's what you'll find prominently in the articles mentioning his name.
  Someone looking for a cancer surgeon is going to google his name and then cross it off without even reading beyond the autocomplete? Bullshit. This just a guy trying to turn the bad press his failing businesses generated into a payday.
  
  you should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me
  You should be able to ignore it and get on with your life. Google doesn't create the articles it indexes. It's not Google's responsibility to hide ones you find embarrassing. Quite the opposite. Maybe this doctor wants to borrow money from me and I want to know his business history. If Google hides that, and I loan him money and he stiffs me, should I then sue Googel?
  
  Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile?
  So, you use the Chewbacca defence, then?
7. Re:Well... by TapeCutter · 2013-01-22 19:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator? What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
  Unlike a billboard google just displays the most common search terms, it's a statistical fact, not an endorsement.
  
  Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous.
  Anyone who claims that google auto-complete reflects google's opinion is also being ridiculous. Having said that I do agree with the rest of your post, I like the basic concept of the "right to be forgotten", I also think there should be some mechanism whereby a person can demand their name be removed from a commercial search index with no questions asked other than proof of identity. OTOH I'm not sure how well that would work out in practice with common names.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  Now we may argue that people shouldn't base decisions on associations made by Google's machine learning algorithms. It is, ultimately, the responsibility of the person making the decision to evaluate the strength of the evidence rationally. In a perfect world, where everyone is perfectly sane and rational, and no snap judgments ever have to be made, we could assume this.
  What if he were a dentist? I decided which dentist I was going to visit based off which one lived nearest to me, because I really don't know what other criteria to use. If I were to find "bankrupt" as an autocomplete term, I might make a perfectly rational decision not to waste anymore time looking into it and eliminate him right there. Why even research the questionable one when there's a perfect substitute right next door?
9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:14 · Score: 0
  
  I've just typed "Guy Hingston rapist" forty times into Google. That should teach him some perspective.
10. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
  It's an objective statement: an automated measure of the association between the different terms in the search query. If I falsely say "X is a pedophile", that's one thing; if I truthfully say "News headlines involving X usually include the word 'pedophile'", that's another.
11. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, way too few people are doing this kind of thinking before jumping to implement/use the latest fad. And that assumes that if they did this thinking, they would be rational enough not to implement/accept all these privacy compromises. Greed and ignorance as usual.
  People who criticised autocomplete right from the start for sending every keystroke directly to Google were ignored as "privacy hardliners", if there can be such a thing. Now autocomplete shows the ugly side of its face, but people don't even question it anymore. We hear about stories about how you can identify people by their writing style and even by the timing of their typing. Instead of arguing about the case, why don't people step back and look at the privacy nightmare that autocomplete is?
  Data processing is only getting faster and more and more data ends up in less and less hands. Every little privacy compromise that you make connects to one single privacy nightmare at the end.
12. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:40 · Score: 0
  
  And if said X is you and you're running a daycare, your opinion wouldn't be as calm and neutral.
13. Re:Well... by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-22 20:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why can't Google seem to moderate themselves effectively? You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete
  Exactly. And this should be a plain form, which you can fill out without having to get a google+ account, and without having to install boatloads of spyware onto your computer. When complaining about abuse, you shouldn't have to agree to more abuse...
  Also, a manned e-mail address for general complaints and/or suggestions would help too. Currently, google is very hard to reach.
  Yes, they probably would have many many mails sent to that address, due to their sheer size alone. But that same size should allow them to have the resources available to staff that email address appropriately.
14. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 21:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Don't call me Maye, Bea.
15. Re:Well... by Jiro · 2013-01-22 21:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Google's machine learning algorithm" is itself a misleading phrase, since Google refines their algorithm using actual people and is quite capable of refining it to avoid causing this guy problems--they just didn't do it to him. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/07/194210/google-outlines-the-role-of-its-human-evaluators http://slashdot.org/story/12/11/27/1435219/googles-manual-for-its-unseen-human-raters
16. Re:Well... by ethanms · 2013-01-22 21:52 · Score: 2
  
  Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
17. Re:Well... by SternisheFan · 2013-01-22 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  What if someone with the same name as his loses business because people assume it's the same person?
18. Re:Well... by dutchwhizzman · 2013-01-22 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  A few things are relevant here. First, he did at one time go bankrupt. Yes, that was eventually annulled. However, it was at one time true and in the news and it was about him. Second, can he prove causation here? Correlation is easy to do, but is it actually Google's autocomplete, or is it just that he's been a public figure in all sorts of media because of the CoastJet business failing and he lost reputation because of that? How much customers is suing Google going to cost him? The Streisand effect is strong in this one. At the very least, it's totally in context since it did apply to the guy at one point in time and you can't tell why people are googling him without context, which is exactly what you are doing here.
  People visit google and type in his name. If they make their decision to go to another surgeon purely because of autocomplete, they would most likely be making a whole lot of daft decisions based on that. Google is not broadcasting this, buying billboard space and declaring anything. Only people actively searching for exactly this person will get this autocomplete suggestion without any context whatsoever. The context is what you and the surgeon are making of it in your head. You and the surgeon are assuming this is what is costing him money, but I can think of several other, at least as plausible reasons why he's down in income and there is no solid causation proven.
  
  --
  I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
19. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 22:06 · Score: 0
  
  So you're basically hammering google for being too accurate in what it's doing ie. searching for information based on keywords you put in?? In this day and age, that kind of information is accessible to the public, unless you're suggesting this be censored somehow...
  How bout this fictitious person who got drunk at a bar years ago and was arrested for disorderly conduct take some ownership for their actions and admit, yes it happened and deal with the repercussions?
20. Re:Well... by psiclops · 2013-01-22 22:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino
  no one is saying he went bankrupt, had a gambling problem, or is a bad doctor. all that is said is that if you're searching for his name, it's likely that you are searching about his bankruptcy issues. which is probably true, that's how google's auto-complete algorithm is meant to work, and i've personally found it to be quite accurate. the context is his name,
  bankruptcy is within that context.
  
  the guy is being punished needlessly.
  he's not being punished. punishment is a negative reaction to something one does not like. honestly i really doubt most people at google even know who this guy is, let alone crafted this auto-complete to appear when his name was typed in, they don't have some ventedda against people that have gone bankrupt.
  
  You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete. It shouldn't be hard. Simple common sense.
  making such a decision would mean that someone has specifically decided it is relevant. leaving it up to machine is fairer, tweaking the algorithm as such cases come up if required.
  
  I don't know what the case here is, but if he did try to contact Google then I'm sure they ignored him completely as they are wont to do.
  maybe next time i contact them and state whenever anyone types in the letter 'T' auto-completer should show 'The awesomeness of psiclops' you will complain when they ignore me? sometimes requests don't warrant an answer. if they got one such request a year, sure they should respond, thousands a day, considering his requests is invalid - probably not.
  
  Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous.
  True. being that this isn''t something google is trying to express.
  
  Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator?
  difficult question. in short my beliefs are that no they shouldnt be able to and at the same time, noone should be able to stop them from doing so. i realise these are contradictory, that's what happens when you you try and put everything into black and white.
  
  What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
  maliciouse intent.
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
21. Re:Well... by SternisheFan · 2013-01-22 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  My full name isn't a common one, but there are about 30 people in the U.S. with it. If one of them goes bankrupt or commits crimes, that comes up in auto-complete. Potential employers searching my name would see info about another person with my name, assume it's me, and move on to the next applicant. So, yes, since google's so widely used, there needs to be a removal process in place.
22. Re:Well... by mrclisdue · 2013-01-22 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  ..Potential employers searching my name would see info about another person with my name, assume it's me, and move on to the next applicant...
  So, your future employers are all so stupid that they'd automatically assume that google's autocomplete refers "solely" to you? Why would you seek employment with such stupid people? All employers are stupid, right?
  cheers,
23. Re:Well... by TFAFalcon · 2013-01-22 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  If people bought the billboard space to declare you a pedophile, then Google should be allowed to report that. And if it's the most notable thing about you then it should also be part of autocomplete. Google just compiles information available on the internet. And people that use it expect that - it's a search engine. So if you don't like some of the information that is out there about you then tough for you. You should sue the guys that first made it available (if it was slander), not the people that archive it.
24. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  Potential employers searching my name would see info about another person with my name, assume it's me, and move on to the next applicant.
  I'm not sure a company that employs people in positions of authority that don't realise more than one person with the same name may exist is a place you would want to work at anyway.
25. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  why do you sheeple use google autocomplete? just use duckduckgo.com for real world and anonymous searching...
26. Re:Well... by AmiMoJo · 2013-01-23 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike a billboard google just displays the most common search terms, it's a statistical fact, not an endorsement.
  It doesn't work that way. Suggestions are not based on what is statistically relevant or factual, they are based on what helps people find the information they are looking for. A few years back "lady gaga" suggested "lady gaga is a man", back when those rumours were flying. People were interested in that nonsense so that's what it offered to find for them.
  So this is more like Google saying "I see you are interested in , perhaps you would like to know about their bankruptcy?"
  
  Having said that I do agree with the rest of your post, I like the basic concept of the "right to be forgotten", I also think there should be some mechanism whereby a person can demand their name be removed from a commercial search index with no questions asked other than proof of identity. OTOH I'm not sure how well that would work out in practice with common names.
  The EU's right to be forgotten wouldn't help here. It only applies to thinks like social network profiles he created or photos he uploaded. Google's data comes from web sites like news articles about him, which he would have no right to remove.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
27. Re:Well... by rjstanford · 2013-01-23 01:00 · Score: 2
  
  People who criticised autocomplete right from the start for sending every keystroke directly to Google were ignored as "privacy hardliners", if there can be such a thing. Now autocomplete shows the ugly side of its face, but people don't even question it anymore.
  Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the privacy of the doctor, you're talking about the privacy of the searcher (which is a little weird even out of context, since all autocomplete is doing is pre-sending information that had been keyed into a search box with the explicit intent of sending it to Google to perform searches).
  in this case, however, its talking more about the priority of various results. If you google "Guy Hingston", news about his bankruptcy is certainly not prominent on the page (not including recent coverage of his lawsuit), but it is indeed prominent in the autocomplete results.
  
  --
  You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
28. Re:Well... by sco08y · 2013-01-23 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  His personal bankruptcy was annulled.
  How do you annul a bankruptcy? And even if it's annulled, it did happen. He was bankrupt, even if, like the stars, it was only 23 hours between marriage and annulment. If that annulment mattered, then "Guy Hingston" should complete to "Guy Hingston bankruptcy annuled", and that would be perfectly fine.
  Never heard of that, so google is my friend, and it turns out that you can "back out" of a bankruptcy, especially if the courts screw it up, and you're able to pay off your creditors.
29. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Or something true, a compulsive masturbator?
  How did you know?
30. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  Should not HAVE or shouldn't HAVE. Not OF.
31. Re:Well... by SternisheFan · 2013-01-23 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, well, who needs that extra "noise" during an interview? "That's not me, I swear! There's another guy with my name going around, he's the child molester He went bankrupt, not me!"
  Interviewer: "So, you are telling me you have an 'evil twin' in life? Right..."
  Though I did live in a place where the talk was that the landlord was a child molester. I did a quick google search on my phone and his picture pops up, with all the lurid details on the creep. So googling ppeople does serve as a good tool for checking up on people.
32. Re:Well... by dissy · 2013-01-23 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, while I agree Google should make a request system available so people can ask for changes to the end-stage filters for things like this, but some of your comparisons are quite a bit off.
  (And I don't believe they have no end stage filters setup already, but even on the off chance that's the case, this can fairly easily be added so there's little reason not to, and a bunch of reasons by now to add it)
  Yes, it is an issue Google doesn't act on these requests to change the results after the fact, one that should be addressed so peoples requests don't get forwarded around to a department that basically doesn't seem to exist. At least for most of these stories of the same complaints, most people try asking first. Only a tiny few bitch first and ask later. Most seem to ask for weeks to months before actually being pissed off enough to go to the news in the first place.
  A timely response - of any sort - would likely stop 90-some percent of these problems from becoming problems.
  But still, no one person at Google decided to put those words there initially, the autocomplete term only shows up because a large percentages of searches using his name included the word bankrupt. People were already searching for those words first, so at least on that aspect it's not fair to blame Google.
  They don't really have control over the word getting /put on/ autocomplete, they can only control the filters to ignore words after the fact, so only those aspects they are capable of controlling can they be held responsible for.
  Again, I'm not saying that part isn't a problem, and agree they should act on the parts they DO have control over, but this is far from the same as actively purchasing a billboard to put up insults you choose to have printed.
  Google would save themselves a ton of bad press at the measily cost of a tiny department of a couple employees whos job it would be to do nothing but handle these types of requests all day. The same request ticket system can be used across every service they have ended up in the news for having these kinds of problems, so it wouldn't be used just for search.
  The job could even be made as easy as a moderator, approving or selecting a decline message out of a list of approved to say rejection reasons, and have the software do all the hard work when 'accept' is clicked.
  I can't believe it would take too much up front resources in programming a system to let some employees do this, and that any financial cost of the department could easily be justified under some public relations account.
  What with all the beta apps in wildly different directions they have, they should already have the infrastructure there to quickly whip that up.
33. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  Really? What if that butterfly dead on my windshield was going to stop a hurricane?
34. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  Are you really that stupid? Can you not understand, at least a little, how auto-complete works? Do you really expect Google to apply a bunch of user generated rules to their autocomplete algorithm? Or, do you think they're going to change all the data on the internet to hide your little indiscretion? You, sir, are an idiot.
35. Re:Well... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-01-23 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  If Google did its job, the first links would explain the nature of the bankruptcy.
  Unlike the other case where it was an incorrect association involving an actual assassination attempt, this is a correct association with all the gory details when one hits the enter key.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
36. Re:Well... by Frontier+Owner · 2013-01-23 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Google autocomplete makes an assumption. And we all know what assumptions do...
37. Re:Well... by CaptainNerdCave · 2013-01-23 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike a billboard google just displays the most common search terms, it's a statistical fact, not an endorsement.
  Two things are brought to mind by this post:
  There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
  The masses are asses.
  Using the truth to spread misinformation is the nastiest way to sway opinions. Google's products unintentionally reflecting the thoughts of people that are poorly informed is only going to make the situation worse.
38. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, if he declared bankruptcy and it was annulled then, no, he was never bankrupt. That is the whole point of annulment. From a legal perspective, that bankruptcy never happened. That means in any future legal preceedings where a previous bankruptcy might affect him, courts will ignore the annulled bankruptcy. Eg, if he files bankruptcy again, that court will ignore his previous bankruptcy filing.
  However, it still happened from a historical perspective. He still filed it. Unless Australian laws say that annulled bankruptcies are not a part of the public record and therefore it's not ok to publish the names of people with annulled bankruptcies, then you really can't claim libel or defamation on the part of Google.
  I'm not going to pretend to know Australian legal customs and precedents but I can say that if bankruptcies are part of the public record and if it is acceptable to report or publically discuss those who have filed for bankruptcy, then you can't claim libel or defamation against someone just for saying you filed for bankrutcy.
  "If that annulment mattered, then "Guy Hingston" should complete to "Guy Hingston bankruptcy annuled", and that would be perfectly fine."
  That is not the point of auto complete in the slightest. Google really has no obligation whatsoever to try to tell you a complete story within the confines of an auto complete. Auto complete is designed simply to try to guess what you are searching for. You can find the full story by actually examining your results.
39. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  No, Google holds some responsibility here as they are not just providing data, they are providing information. There is a definite distinction between the two and most any lawyer or engineer could readily argue the point.
40. Re:Well... by rwise2112 · 2013-01-23 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
  Not really a good analog. The bankrupt only shows up with his name because people are searching for it. If they did remove it and people are still searching for that, then it will end up back on list again. It will go away once people search for other things related to him. However, because it is on that list, I can see that people will continue to search for information on the bankrupcy longer than they probably would have otherwise.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
41. Re:Well... by Thugthrasher · 2013-01-23 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  And if said X is you and you're running a daycare, your opinion wouldn't be as calm and neutral.
  But that doesn't make his opinion wrong. Generally, the calm and neutral opinion is the correct one in situations like this.
42. Re:Well... by JDG1980 · 2013-01-23 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous. Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator? What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
  What makes it different is that in the two hypothetical cases you posited, someone actively chose to levy a specific accusation against someone. In contrast, no one at Google ever specifically decided that this dentist should have the word "bankrupt" appear next to his name on Autocomplete. That decision was made automatically by a programmed algorithm without anyone approving or even knowing about it.
  This opens a whole new can of worms. Can computer software commit libel? Who is responsible if it does? I suppose you could claim that Autocomplete speaks for "Google" as a corporate entity (hey, corporate personhood ought to have a downside) but what if similar suggestion software was written by an individual? Is it really fair to hold a programmer accountable for every thing his/her program does, even if there is no way to forecast all of this ahead of time?
43. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  "But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google?"
  Saying that it's "broadcast to everyone" is a bit grandiose. Keep in mind that until he filed this lawsuit leading to news coverage of it, a user had to specifically seek out that information. It wasn't being presented to anyone who wasn't looking for it. And yes, if you are searching for this man's name, then you are searching for information that is relevant to him and the fact that he has been involved in bankruptcy proceedings is relevant. Additionally, it's also legal to discuss since it's public information. Now it is actually being broadcast by news agencies and aggregators and that is really his own fault.
  "Does this have to go to a lawsuit though? Why can't Google seem to moderate themselves effectively? You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete. It shouldn't be hard. Simple common sense."
  Because if they are acting within the confines of the law then Google has no responsibility to moderate itself unless it wants to. Google really has no obligation to provide people with a complaint form. If you want Google to do so then ask them to. And if they don't, then don't use their services. Or continue to use them while griping about the lack of complaint form. Either way, it's between Google and it's userbase, not the courts.
  "Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous. Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator?"
  Your analogy is completely ridiculous on a lot of levels. First, in most jurisdictions that have defamation laws, publically calling someone a pedophile (with some exceptions for obvious humor) would actually be libelous or slanderous actions. Second, this case deals with something that is not only true but also a matter of public record and not something that is merely an insult that can't be proven or disproven. Third, truth is a widely recognized defense against defamation so yes, you can say or print true things about people as long as you can prove them.
  "What makes a Google autocomplete any different?"
  I should really ask you that. What makes Google autocomplete different from newspapers as organs of public record? Why should information that can be printed in newspapers not be allowed in Google autocomplete?
44. Re:Well... by 1u3hr · 2013-01-23 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  If Google did its job, the first links would explain the nature of the bankruptcy.
  Its job if it were Wikipedia. Google just agglomerates pages that mention specific words. It doesn't analyse or explain them.
45. Re:Well... by quacking+duck · 2013-01-23 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  In marriage at least, an annulment means that the marriage was invalid, null and voice, and legally it retroactively did not in fact occur. "Legal" is of course different from "reality" or "what actually did happen".
  If GP used the word in a similar context, it means the bankruptcy was invalid and should have been stricken from the legal, financial record.
  Obviously Google isn't (nor should be) held to the same legal standards, but let's put it another way: say you're arrested for a widely-reported crime, but you're released and charges dropped a day or two later. Of course there's now tons of online news articles about this, and even though many write follow-up articles saying charges are dropped, would you be perfectly fine with "arrested/charged with X" to be the first autocomplete when typing "AK Marc"? Would you even be fine with "AK Marc released" or "AK Marc charges dropped" as the second/third autocomplete result in the list? They all did happen, after all, and the arrest itself did get more coverage.
46. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  why should it not be broadcast when so much else which is public record can? My home town, as a way to make news, publishes all sorts of public-records into the daily paper: buy a home? make the news. get arrested? (doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent) make the news. Go bankrupt? (i assume make the news, cause why is that different).
  why should this fool expect that he is exempt?
  for a few hundred bucks, he could throw a dozens sister-sites, and drown out the bankruptcy anyway.
47. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  have
48. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Google does not owe you the ability to filter their product. If his website had all of this information on it and Google discovered it and he did nothing to block them (robots.txt) it's his fault. If there was a news story or government publication about his bankruptcy that was on the internet it seems that it is a matter of public record. When Google discovers this where ever it did on the internet, they freely accessed the content, indexed it, and returned it when someone search for phrases that were similar to that content.
  If you don't want Google to discover things about you don't let those things get on the internet.
  Unfortunately you can't sue your way out of how the internet interacts with our daily lives. Change your name or try to torpedo the sites with the information with a bunch of spammy links.
49. Re:Well... by FatAlb3rt · 2013-01-23 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Catch-22 for him - linking his name to his bankruptcy AGAIN is only reinforcing his auto-complete results.
  
  I think Google should try to take hands-off approach as much as possible. His previous bankruptcy should be available - he's made some bad business decisions in the past. That could be important for investors and customers.
50. Re:Well... by quacking+duck · 2013-01-23 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  BTW AK Marc I'm not saying Google should take action on this, or that Hingston is right, or whatever. I'm just taking issue with "that would be perfectly fine" and contesting that you would be "perfectly fine" with the reality of the situation if you were in his shoes.
51. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:09 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Really? What if that butterfly dead on my windshield was going to stop a hurricane?
  Damn. That effin' Google really is evil.
52. Re:Well... by Jiro · 2013-01-23 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure a company that employs people in positions of authority that don't realise more than one person with the same name may exist is a place you would want to work at anyway.
  The place I would want to work at is a place that allows me to eat and pay rent.
53. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  Shouldn't of... that is my pet peeve.
  It's shouldn't HAVE. Jesus aren't you guys college grads?
54. Re:Well... by thoth · 2013-01-23 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  His personal bankruptcy was annulled.
  How do you annul a bankruptcy? And even if it's annulled, it did happen. He was bankrupt, even if, like the stars, it was only 23 hours between marriage and annulment. If that annulment mattered, then "Guy Hingston" should complete to "Guy Hingston bankruptcy annuled", and that would be perfectly fine.
  Not sure I understand the question... yes, an annulment might not make "sense", but this is the legal system. ;)
  Marriages can get annulled, sometimes even when the couple has kids. That's mind boggling to say "legally, it never happened". But that's what it does.
55. Re:Well... by jameshofo · 2013-01-23 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't. His personal bankruptcy was annulled.
  But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google? It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino (although buying into aviation at this stage of the game could be argued as riskier) - the guy is being punished needlessly.
  But is it not true that he has some association with bankruptcy?
  Is it false information in the leas that he was involved in one?
  Its a matter of public record, and if he doesn't want his name associated with bankruptcy he should have run a more stressful business, he purchased a company and that company just happened to go bankrupt, meaning he most likely was the one to cause it to go bankrupt! in fact CoastJet Group, seven companies Hingston "principally controlled, don't shoot the messenger. The very definition of defamation is that its untrue, but by its nature the auto complete mechanism is grouping like terms. So its a little ridiculous.
  
  Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous.
  Your correct this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech that would imply the the "G" in Google stood for Government, in such cases your typically protected being put in jail for speaking out about the government, that doesn't bar a private entity from firing you for speaking out however.
  
  Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator?
  
  Yes if it's true, would you like a link to the Public sex offender database?
  
  --
  Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
56. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  He's saying it's a statistical fact that many people typing "guy hingston" ended up searching for "guy hingston bankrupt". Same thing with lady gaga. It is a statistical fact that many people who typed "lady gaga" ended up searching for "lady gaga is a man". That's why google is recommending it...based on what you've typed so far, these are the most common things people ended up searching for.
57. Re:Well... by omnichad · 2013-01-23 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  For one thing, with over 6 billion people in the world, there's bound to be more than one person with the same first and last name. You would at least perform the auto-suggested query to see what the web pages say. See if it's even referring to the same person.
58. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Do that without any sort of authentication, and then you end up with people removing all of the good entries for their competitors.
  And google has never made me install a single thing onto my computer, so I don't know WTF you are talking about with the "install boatloads of spyware" comment.
59. Re:Well... by Yannic · 2013-01-23 03:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ...And even if it's annulled, it did happen...
  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
60. Re:Well... by LordLimecat · 2013-01-23 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Google is letting people see what other people searched for. That information is indeed correct. People are then forming invalid conclusions (that if someone searches for X, X must be a fact), but Im not clear why that would be Google's fault.
  I can see the concern, but I dont see any basis for pointing a finger at Google.
61. Re:Well... by LordLimecat · 2013-01-23 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Also, a manned e-mail address for general complaints and/or suggestions would help too. Currently, google is very hard to reach.
  You know what the classic solution to "Company X has poor customer service" is?
  Stop using their products.
62. Re:Well... by LordLimecat · 2013-01-23 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Google isnt doing anything except saying "most people searching for 'Guy Hingston' also search for 'Guy Hingston bankruptcy'". This is a fact, and not one that google created or oversaw.
  As far as I am aware the telling of true facts is constitutionally protected, and regardless its not even a human saying it, just some statistics-bot in the search engine.
63. Re:Well... by LordLimecat · 2013-01-23 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Your complaint is that potential employers make bad assumptions and leap to conclusions based on what other people searched for on google.
  Explain to me again why this is google's fault or problem?
64. Re:Well... by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-23 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Stop using their products.
  Unfortunately, in this case that wouldn't work. If google is badmouthing you, how would it help if you stopped using them, but everybody else still continued to use them?
  Or if google is spamming you: you would like to stop "using" them (receiving spam from them), but you can't.
65. Re:Well... by loneDreamer · 2013-01-23 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  So how much responsibility should be placed on those maintaining the databases for making sure that the contents are accurate, particularly clearing up a mistake when it is pointed out? Is there additional responsibility if the database is accessible to the public?
  The content IS accurate: it accurately reflects the likelihood of seeing those terms together based on web content and queries from other users. If you have issues with the original content, talk to them. Search engines should not be liable for every possible statistical permutation of words that anybody, anywhere might find offensive.
66. Re:Well... by bhagwad · 2013-01-23 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Google only indexes public sources. So the information was already out in the open and Google made use of it. It's not Google's fault that the info was public is it?
67. Re:Well... by dmmiller2k · 2013-01-23 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  While I understand the wanting to keep something like that quiet, it is public information. I'm not sure it is wrong to have it there even if it is undesirable.
  You make a good point. And in this case, I tend to agree with you.
  However, in general does anyone else see a difference between information that is merely public (I.e., freely available to interested parties) and that which is actively public-ized (however "inadvertently")?
  
  --
  "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
68. Re:Well... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-23 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  I moved from the US to a location without a right to speech. In practice, we have the same right to speech, but without an explicit right to speech, they put limits on speech. One such act that is very common is name suppression. When someone is arrested and that arrest could affect their lives disproportionately (a parent with children is arrested for something heinous that could affect the children in school is the most common reason for "normal" people to get it, otherwise it's mainly celebrities who couldn't be employed if they were "that guy who was arrested for rape" even if he wasn't convicted). In practice, name suppression delays release of information because the police and prosecutors make sure they are sure in cases where suppression may be requested.
  
  I think every American should move out of the US for a few years. It's eye opening to see how places without bills of rights (or even Constitutions) have more rights (in practice) than the US which explicitly lists out a few rights that are always under attack.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
69. Re:Well... by Myopic · 2013-01-23 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  This 'guy' doesn't need to worry. Pretty soon the autocomplete will be "Guy Hingston douchebag frivolous lawsuit asshole" and then he can feel smug because he succeeded in hiding away that bankruptcy thing.
70. Re:Well... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-23 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's mind boggling to say "legally, it never happened". But that's what it does.
  When the law and reality conflict, reality wins. He "declared bankruptcy" and no annulment will ever change that, just like Brittany (or whoever) was married, no matter how many annulments one gets.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
71. Re:Well... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-23 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  A legal maneuver isn't a time machine. He declared bankruptcy, even if it was later annulled. And nothing can ever change what he did in 2009. You can still even look up his bankruptcy records. They aren't expunged. They happened.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
72. Re:Well... by Zero__Kelvin · 2013-01-23 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  "Never heard of that, so google is my friend .."
  That's wierd, because when I enter sco08y into Google Auto-Search displays "Sco08y use Perl User" as the second result, which is far more embarrassing than Guy Hingston bankrupt. On a related note, somebody should introduce Guy to Barbara Streisand.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
73. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  For all intensive purposes you know it's meaning in principal though. I could care less about mistakes like that.
74. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  People recover from bankruptcy all the time, some even start new companies and hire people, donate to good causes, and maybe even recycle.
  I aways tell people that facts have context, they have a past, present, and future, and are very relative. People should not be judged on first glance by something that happened in the past.
  Few of us could live up to that standard.
75. Re:Well... by SternisheFan · 2013-01-23 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  *If* I am an 'idiot', as your cowardly AC post is suggesting, than what does that say about a person who replies to an 'idiot'? It says that, you are a fool. HAND
76. Re:Well... by istartedi · 2013-01-23 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  How do you annul a bankruptcy?
  What bankruptcy?
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
77. Re:Well... by c++0xFF · 2013-01-23 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Google uses actual people? I thought they used pigeons....
78. Re:Well... by SimplexBang · 2013-01-23 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't of... that is my pet peeve.
  It's shouldn't HAVE. Jesus aren't you guys college grads?
  Being a non - english native ,
  it took me some years to understand that this is not intentional ....
  
  --
  Avoid your fears , or wonder at the past
79. Re:Well... by TapeCutter · 2013-01-23 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  As others have pointed out, your misread what I wrote. Also I used the term "right to be forgotten" as a basic concept, regardless of what the EU thinks I did indicate I thought the concept was desirable but impractical.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
80. Re:Well... by TapeCutter · 2013-01-23 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's only "misinformation" if you believe that it offers an opinion. If you do believe that is the case then you have been misinformed, (ironically, in your case it could have been something you read in an auto-complete).
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
81. Re:Well... by rjstanford · 2013-01-23 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Google isnt doing anything except saying "most people searching for 'Guy Hingston' also search for 'Guy Hingston bankruptcy'". This is a fact, and not one that google created or oversaw.
  Its also a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy though. If you type "Guy Hin" and it pops up wth "Guy Hingston Bankruptcy" many people will just go DOWN->ENTER, thus giving perpetual search weight to a term that should have been the #1 hit for a very short amount of time and then reverted back.
  Also if you actually search for "Guy Hingston" the bankruptcy information is quite a long way down the page, but it gets a more-prominent-than-an-ad spot on the autocomplete bar. Sometimes if the #2 most common search request is substantially different and far less common than what's been entered, Google might be better off not displaying it, so as to avoid having the newspaper "make the news" rather than just "tell the news" as they claim to do.
  
  --
  You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
82. Re:Well... by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-24 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Google does not owe you the ability to filter their product.
  If this was meatspace, it would translate into "Exxon does not owe fish the ability to swim in oil-free water".
  If they pollute, yes, they do owe to the community to help clean up. Whether it be oil drillers, chemical plants or just spammers.
  
  If his website had all of this information on it and Google discovered it and he did nothing to block them (robots.txt) it's his fault.
  It was not his website. But websites of unrelated third parties which got misinterpreted by Google's artificial "intelligence". A robots.txt would not have helped here.
  
  If you don't want Google to discover things about you don't let those things get on the internet.
  But what if other people let those things get on the internet?
  The least they could do is have a presence online where they could be reached for a manual fix-up.
83. Re:Well... by ArsenneLupin · 2013-01-24 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Do that without any sort of authentication, and then you end up with people removing all of the good entries for their competitors.
  Of course, common sense and human supervision would still be needed. Common sense would have told them that keeping "myname bankrupt" is certainly not a good entry for myname...
84. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying that you *like* them taking away rights? How is not being able to publish e.g. that someone was arrested for a crime a good thing?
85. Re:Well... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-24 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying that I have fewer rights, but more freedom.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
86. Re:Well... by mattack2 · 2013-01-24 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous.
  (Assuming this is referring to the U.S. Constitution, which is reasonable, since Google is headquartered in the U.S.)
  Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech doesn't understand the U.S. Constitution.
87. Re:Well... by purefan · 2013-01-24 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  Autocomplete suggests the most relevant previous searches and available information, if he got famous for going bankrupt thats not google's fault, type "bill g" and see if the word bankrupt shows up
88. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-26 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  if I am incorrect then please correct me but it is my understanding that the auto-complete feature in Google searches are based on actual people performing actual searches and using predictive algorithms based on your personal searching in the past. So how is Google responsible for the fact that a large # of people have searched for his name + the word bankruptcy?
89. Re:Well... by David+Chappell · 2013-02-05 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying that you *like* them taking away rights? How is not being able to publish e.g. that someone was arrested for a crime a good thing?
  So you asking for an example of an argument for keeping this information confidential. Here is one:
  Because there is a stigma attached to arrest even if the charges are dropt soon after. Imagine that you were arrested for bank robery due to mistaken identity but were cleared when the real robber was found the next day. How would you feel if web searches years later producing the article written on the day of your arrest which makes you look like a bank robber? One possible solution to this problem is to prohibit the release of the name and likeness of the accused until after conviction.
  Of course, there are also valid arguments for making this information public. In the end society must strike a balance between competing rights and needs.
90. Re:Well... by David+Chappell · 2013-02-05 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  That's mind boggling to say "legally, it never happened". But that's what it does.
  You are offended by the idea that a court can alter history. It can't. But it can decide that certain historical events have no legal consequences. For example, let's suppose that the law prohibits a person from receiving bankrupcy protection more than once every seven years. If someone declares bankrupcy today, a bankrupcy declaration made five years ago shouldn't count unless his creditors actually suffered losses. I imagine that annuling a bankrupcy means to cancel it because the debtor has found a way to pay off his debts after all.
Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

How can it be libelous if it's true?
1. Re:Libel? by sourcerror · 2013-01-22 17:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It can be libel and true at the same time if it invades privacy, but I don't think it applies in this case.
2. Re:Libel? by LordLucless · 2013-01-22 17:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The summary leaves out that Hingston's bankruptcy was subsequently annulled.
  Google is only reporting on the associated between "Hingston" and "bankrupt" because other people have made that association, either by typing it into Google, or by publishing it on sites that Google indexes. Personally, I think this sort of activity should be protected - "other people have typed "Hingston bankrupt" into Google" is a fact, regardless of whether Hingston is, or ever was, bankrupt.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
3. Re:Libel? by mjwx · 2013-01-22 17:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It can be libel and true at the same time if it invades privacy, but I don't think it applies in this case.
  True. But bankruptcy rulings are public info in Australia. The bankruptcy is to protect you from your creditors, you cant do this the ruling is secret.
  
  So,
  Is Guy Hingston bankrupt = Yes
  Is this public knowledge = Yes
  Will this get thrown out of court = Yes
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
4. Re:Libel? by MightyMartian · 2013-01-22 17:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  He shouldn't complain. It's better than "Hingston mutant genetic sandwich"
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
5. Re:Libel? by Anarchduke · 2013-01-22 17:33 · Score: 2
  
  which I shall now start searching for.
  
  --
  who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
6. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  Google absolutely must police the autocomplete since they are the ones using automation to suggest a relevant search.
7. Re:Libel? by CuteSteveJobs · 2013-01-22 17:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Under Australian Law the Truth is a Defence to Defamation. You don't even need to show "public interest", just that what was said was "substantially true." http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html
  
  But he's suing in America which has even stronger free speech laws! Good luck with that!
8. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  That's not libel -- at least not in the U.S. Perhaps Australian law is different. In the U.S., libel has to be false.
9. Re:Libel? by aiht · 2013-01-22 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  which I shall now start searching for.
  Currently returns 1 hit - the parent comment. Let's keep it up!
10. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  In many countries that adopted British law truth is not a defense to defamation charges, which are often named libel by the press.
11. Re:Libel? by HJED · 2013-01-22 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Don't put it in quotation marks google dosen't use searches with quotation marks in autocomplete.
  
  --
  null
12. Re:Libel? by Chrisq · 2013-01-22 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  and you spend your days wishing that you could have sex with a horse.
  Just wishing? That does show a great lack of initiative.
13. Re:Libel? by Chrisq · 2013-01-22 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's not libel -- at least not in the U.S. Perhaps Australian law is different. In the U.S., libel has to be false.
  Are there exceptions? I got the impression from a TV show (I know not a reliable source) that it was libellous to spread something in sealed juvenile records.
14. Re:Libel? by AK+Marc · 2013-01-22 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't have to be false. If it's true and said with the intention of maliciously causing harm (or true and causes harm, regardless of intention, in some states, mostly about protected industries, like ranchers/cows in TX and oranges in FL), it can be libel.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
15. Re:Libel? by Spy+Handler · 2013-01-22 20:48 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Suppose people type your name into Google, and the autosuggestion that comes up is:
  {your name} masturbates to {your preferred} porn
  It's true, so it can't be libelous right?
16. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  Without quote marks I get MightyMartians comment as hit 1 and the genetic algorithms wikipedia entry as hit 2. Unfortunately, I expect this would have to be searched a bunch of times before it stuck in the autocomplete; unlikely to happen.
17. Re: Libel? by Ricwot · 2013-01-22 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  You mean English law. The UK has several different legal systems.
18. Re:Libel? by ethanms · 2013-01-22 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
  Just because it's true doesn't mean Google, or anyone else, has a right to go around repeatedly telling people about it in perpetuity.
19. Re:Libel? by abigsmurf · 2013-01-22 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's legalising libel through weasel words.
  
  A newspaper could quite easily use that principle to do front pages of "numerous reports that politician xyz secretly sacrifices goats to a pagan fertility goddess!".
  
  A lie doesn't become true if it's repeated enough.
20. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 22:08 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure that Google, or anyone else do have such right in countries enjoying freedom of speech.
  Someone doing this to you personally and insistently would be called "harassment", but a database that happens to include you and your antics is not. Sucks to be you, alcohol's poison and a'that.
  Note how in this case they're trying to argue that Hingston is not really bankrupt now, therefore it's false, and not "it's true, but it's bad for business, therefore remove it".
  Defense will probably make the case that autocomplete is not a statement and not even opinion to this effect and he was indeed involved in bankrupcy.
21. Re:Libel? by SternisheFan · 2013-01-22 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  It can be libel and true at the same time if it invades privacy, but I don't think it applies in this case.
  True. But bankruptcy rulings are public info in Australia. The bankruptcy is to protect you from your creditors, you cant do this the ruling is secret. So, Is Guy Hingston bankrupt = Yes Is this public knowledge = Yes Will this get thrown out of court = Yes
  Will other 'Guy Hingstons' be unfairly associated with this 'Guy Hingstons' bankruptcy? Yes. There's where the problem is.
22. Re:Libel? by psiclops · 2013-01-22 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  i've done my part. it's now got top two results leading to slashdot.
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
23. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 22:39 · Score: 0
  
  you think that's why he's suing?
24. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 23:06 · Score: 0
  
  Under UK law libel doesn't have to be provably false, just not provably true. I'd imagine AU law's similar. Yes it's a problem in UK law, although there's issues with the US law too. Pros and cons either way. The burden of proof being on the defendant does seem rather wrong though indeed.
25. Re:Libel? by LordLucless · 2013-01-22 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  As long as there actually are numerous reports. Newspapers do that all the time - the word they like to use is "alleged". Here you go - "Berlusconi’s Alleged Ties To Mafia Again Resurface". Newspapers have been reporting on rumour for a long time. As long as they ensure that they're reporting on other people making the allegations, instead of making the allegations themselves, they're fine.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
26. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  It cannot be true; my tastes are wide-ranging, and there is no preference except in the moment. Whatever they put there will be scurrilous simplification, meant only to label me as a man of limited imagination.
27. Re:Libel? by Grygus · 2013-01-23 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Most people, even in the incarceration capital of the world, make it to their 30s without being arrested at all. This makes the event (somewhat) notable, doesn't it? Notable things are the things we talk about.
  I think your point is that this crime is trivial enough to warrant expiration, but then where do you draw the line? I believe that the published lists of sex offenders is abusive and contrary to what are supposed to be American values, but a moratorium on talking about it at all seems equally unjust. Who decides how much time must pass before being bankrupted is no longer relevant when talking about a businessman? Do we have a list of crimes, or does this situation only apply to rich people, each of whom can decide for themselves when their reputation should no longer be marred by their actions? Should a convicted drug dealer be able to not only legally conceal the fact on his resume, reasoning that he hasn't dealt drugs in a while, but also be able to prosecute anyone who reveals the fact to his prospective employer? How about a thief applying to a security firm?
  The fact is, his complaint is that a salient business event in his life is affecting his business. Isn't this exactly as it should be? How is this not a ludicrous complaint?
28. Re:Libel? by theskipper · 2013-01-23 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Let's cut him some slack. After all he did "save a bus load of children from a burning building", per organic search result #9 for "guy hingston bankrupt" (YRMV).
  http://www.zgeek.com/guy-hingston-saved-a-bus-load-of-children-from-a-burning-building/
  Makes one wonder if, on a large scale, this technique could be used by reputation companies to dilute negative results during a streisand event.
29. Re:Libel? by omnichad · 2013-01-23 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  And even in the US, truth is a defense. And the only truth statement Google is making is that "bankrupt" is a relevant search term to include in a query - that such content exists out there. That's a fact. It's opinion that this means Google is saying that someone is bankrupt.
30. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Chrisq has lots of experience in this arena.
31. Re:Libel? by LordLimecat · 2013-01-23 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Its a problem, but its not Google's problem. Take it up with the bankrupt Guy Hingston, not with public records or their keepers.
32. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  hingston is a dipshit
  lets see if we can get the truth out there
33. Re:Libel? by rjstanford · 2013-01-23 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Just wishing? That does show a great lack of initiative.
  Shouldn't everyone have the right to a stable relationship?
  
  --
  You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
34. Re:Libel? by rjstanford · 2013-01-23 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  As long as there actually are numerous reports. Newspapers do that all the time - the word they like to use is "alleged". Here you go - "Berlusconi’s Alleged Ties To Mafia Again Resurface". Newspapers have been reporting on rumour for a long time. As long as they ensure that they're reporting on other people making the allegations, instead of making the allegations themselves, they're fine.
  In this case though, Google is "reporting" that "lots of people searching for him search for his bankruptcy information." They then, through autocomplete, make it very appealing to search for his bankruptcy information even if all you originally wanted to do was to enter his name to find out the phone number for his medical practice. BTW, if you actually do google just his name (ignoring the current topic), you won't find any bankruptcy information until fairly far down the results list.
  In the Berlusconi case, it would be as if 6 newspapers owned by the same company all released that article on the same day, all implicitly referring to the article in the other 5 as proof for the "resurface" point.
  
  --
  You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
35. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  It can be libel and true at the same time if it invades privacy, but I don't think it applies in this case.
  Umm.. no it can't. As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, truth offers an absolute defence to defamation (of which libel and slander are subcategories). Invasion of privacy is a separate tort that is recognized in some, but not all, common law jurisdictions.
36. Re:Libel? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  Um, no. Libel is always false. You may be referring to the food- and business-disparagement laws that allow victims of false statements about their perishable food or business to sue for damages. But those statements must be, in fact, false. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680 (5th Cir: 2000) upheld "that the First Amendment protects the expression of opinion as well as fact 'so long as a factual basis underlies the opinion.' It found that, at the time of the broadcast, the factual basis for the guest's opinions was truthful. As for the AIDS comparison, the court characterized it as hyperbole; in its view, exaggeration did not equal defamation. Because the challenged comments had a factual basis, Winfrey and her guest had a First Amendment right to say them."
  In the US, for it to be actionable libel, it must start with a false statement.
37. Re:Libel? by AK+Marc · 2013-01-24 19:11 · Score: 1
  
  Once again, an AC holds an opinion opposite of reality. Though this AC had better cites than most.
  
  http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/first-circuit-upends-accepted-understanding-truth-defense-defamation-cases
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Doesn't defamation generally require.... by mark-t · 2013-01-22 17:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

... that the defamatory remark be something which cannot be unambiguously proven? If something bad happens to person X, reporting that fact doesn't really put person X in any more of a disparaging light than the fact that the bad thing had actually happened in the first place.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Doesn't defamation generally require.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  This is true in the US. Under British law, you can be liable for defamation for telling the truth. I don't know what Australian law says.
2. Re:Doesn't defamation generally require.... by mark-t · 2013-01-22 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I know that defamation isn't slander or libel, but I thought that defamation had to be something bad which was based on opinion, not provable facts.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:Doesn't defamation generally require.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:29 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, you're exactly wrong. Defamation is either slander or libel. It's the umbrella term covering both.
4. Re:Doesn't defamation generally require.... by mark-t · 2013-01-23 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well yes.... but I thought it was even more broad than that, going so far as to cover opinion, which is neither slander nor libel.
  My point being that if something bad happens to a person, then repeating the fact that it happened isn't really any more defamatory than the fact that it actually happened in the first place.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Better idea by countach · 2013-01-22 17:22 · Score: 2

Rather than spending his money on lawyers he might be better off spamming Google with other autocompletes until it wipes out this one. Things like Guy Hingston, greatest surgeon ever! And Guy Hingston saves the planet from alien invasion! and Guy Hingston cures cancer and AIDS, saves baby seals!
1. Re:Better idea by tsa · 2013-01-22 17:24 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget: Guy Hingston thinks of the children!
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
2. Re:Better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  That might result in "Guy Hingston AIDS" which might be even worse for a surgeon.
3. Re:Better idea by quenda · 2013-01-22 17:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Even better idea: get his name associated with porn, then google automatically disables auto-complete. (Try typing in the name of a porn star and you'll see.)
  Seriously, he just needs to start a good free porn site with his name, put out some press releases, buy a few ads in the mainstream media, then everybody will google "Guy Hingston porn" and his problem will go away.
4. Re:Better idea by Belial6 · 2013-01-22 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  That could impact his business even more. If he is going to take that route he would be better off taking a vacation, quietly meet with a porn producer and pay them to use his name on a bunch of there film. Associate the link to a completely different guy. This would give the desired Google filtering, and when the filtering doesn't work, it will just look like a guy with the same name.
5. Re:Better idea by lxs · 2013-01-22 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  According to the summary Guy Hingston also bought a private jet plane. And then he went bankrupt. His money would be better spent on classes on financial responsibility.
6. Re:Better idea by Anarchduke · 2013-01-22 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  or alternatively: Guy Hingston thinks of the children while in the shower.
  
  --
  who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
7. Re:Better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 19:13 · Score: 0
  
  So who wants the job at Google of finding and entering the names of all the porn stars? Remember you should only watch the credits!
8. Re:Better idea by spongman · 2013-01-22 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  how about "Guy Hingston sues people he doesn't like - don't let him near you with sharp knives."
9. Re:Better idea by beezlebubba · 2013-01-22 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Even better idea: get his name associated with porn, then google automatically disables auto-complete. (Try typing in the name of a porn star and you'll see.)
  Porn stars have names????
10. Re:Better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Thats essentially what he has done here. Follow the autocomplete suggestion and all you see for the first several pages is about him suing google.
11. Re:Better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  So if I type in someone's name and nothing auto-completes, should I inquire of them if they are a porn star? LOL Hm....
Welcome to the internet your Dr Nosaurus by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:24 · Score: 0

sue a search engine , haha
man these dinosaurs dont understand the concept of search in search engines.
Is It Untrue? by EXTomar · 2013-01-22 17:25 · Score: 1

It is only defamation if it is untrue. If Hingston had a business that went bankrupt and went bankrupt then where is the defamation?
1. Re:Is It Untrue? by Barny · 2013-01-22 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  He didn't, the bankruptcy was overturned.
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
2. Re:Is It Untrue? by CuteSteveJobs · 2013-01-22 18:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It wasn't overturned, his lawyer said it was annulled: "Separate documents obtained from Insolvency Trustee Services Australia show Dr Hingston was bankrupted on August 4 2009. Dr Hingston's lawyer Philip Beazley said that bankruptcy had been annulled."
  
  http://www.itsa.gov.au/dir228/itsaweb.nsf/docindex/Bankruptcy-%3EPersonal+Insolvency+Information-%3E5F.+Annulment What is annulment?
  Annulment is the cancellation of a bankruptcy.
  
  There are three ways a bankruptcy can be annulled:
  * The creditors’ debts including interest and trustee’s fees and expenses are paid in full.
  * Your creditors accept a composition or arrangement which is an offer of something less than payment in full.
  * Application to the court in some limited circumstances.
  
  Effects of annulment.
  * Your annulment is recorded on the public record, the National Personal Insolvency Index (NPII) database, forever.
  * Assets not needed by your trustee to pay your creditors, expenses and fees will be returned to you.
  
  etc ...
3. Re:Is It Untrue? by AK+Marc · 2013-01-22 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't overturned. In US terms, it wasn't annulled either. He declared bankruptcy, reorganized his finances under bankruptcy protection, then exited bankruptcy by completing the terms imposed by the court. Calling that "annulled" is like calling a convicted murderer "annulled" once he serves his prison time. Nope, once you complete the judicial process, you still are what you declared yourself to be when you started it.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:Is It Untrue? by jonbryce · 2013-01-22 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  In England, we would call what you describe as "discharged" rather than "annulled". Annulled would be a declaration that he should have never been made bankrupt in the first place.
5. Re:Is It Untrue? by AK+Marc · 2013-01-23 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have his information on the annulment, but the reasons for one are essentially
  1) the court made a mistake or,
  2) you made a mistake
  
  And you were, in fact, never bankrupt. Given the information, I can only assume he was the one to make the mistake. Perhaps he had a large stock/share holding he incorrectly undervalued that he could have liquidated and paid off the entire owed sums. In the US, there is no stigma to bankruptcy. Bankruptcies are more common that divorce, like Trump, 5 (or more) bankruptcies and only a few divorces. So there's little incentive to annul rather than discharge a bankruptcy. Perhaps that's why so many of us are confused.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Slander and libel by girlintraining · 2013-01-22 17:27 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't see how it's either, since auto-complete is based on what people are entering as search terms. It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told. You might as well say a car slandered you for backfiring as it drove by. Also... he doesn't own an exclusive right to the name 'Guy Hingston'.
In short, Mr. Hingston -- screw you. Also... Guy Hingston Bankrupt Guy Hingston Bankrupt Guy Hingston Bankrupt. I hope you do for having such a piss-poor understanding of the internet.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  Algorithms have no life of their own, they have no self-will, and Google has been the victim of exploitation enough that it's not unreasonable to say it's a problem that they need to consider, or that the legal system in place will need to address.
  How should it be addressed? I suspect something better than your blithe indifference would be more suitable.
2. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  A few important points to note
  1. Republishing slander is still slander. So simply saying Google is repeating what others tell them is no defense against slander charges.
  2. Automated slander is still slander. If some robocaller called you, would you accept "it is the machine calling you! I am not responsible!" as an excuse? If the Google self-driving car hit somebody, would you claim that Google is not responsible because it is just "the result of an algorithm"? If Google's algorithm resulted in spreading slander, then Google IS responsible for it.
  3. Ownership. Would Google object if another search engine copy the auto-complete result from Google and offer it to their own users? If yes, does that suggests Google is claiming ownership (and thus responsibility) on the auto-complete results?
3. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  2. Automated slander is still slander.
  Nonsense. This is as unenforceable as the DMCA takedown notices are. The problem with those is that larger websites get so many that the takedowns end up being automated, and the automated solutions (and other solutions involving giving copyright holders the ability to take material down) are notoriously bad. If you want to ruin websites and businesses, the best way to do that is to hold them culpable for what their users and/or automated systems do. All you idiots care about is fucked up libel/slander laws.
4. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  Correct. Haha!
5. Re:Slander and libel by servognome · 2013-01-22 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told. You might as well say a car slandered you for backfiring as it drove by. Also... he doesn't own an exclusive right to the name 'Guy Hingston'.
  Algorithms are produced by people, and ultimately it is up to those people to manage its behavior. That's why they can't hide behind the shield of 'It's just an algoritm' in anti-trust cases. They have to demonstrate that the expected behavior of the algorithm is neutral towards competitors.
  I'm not sure of the merit of the case based on Australian law, though it would set a dangerous precident. If you happen to share a name with somebody who has been accused of racist remarks, can you sue when autocomplete adds 'racist' to your name?
  
  --
  D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
6. Re:Slander and libel by The_Revelation · 2013-01-22 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  I came here to say this. Aren't the real perpetrators the news organisations who have clearly published stories regarding his bankruptcy resulting in poison auto-correct searches?
  
  Maybe he'd be better off paying for some news-worthy publicity for his surgery to alter his results, or contact the papers and have them revise their wording?
  
  As a fellow Australian, I can quite comfortably say that Guy Hingston is a complete f$#king moron if he thinks this is the right way to deal with this.
7. Re:Slander and libel by rmstar · 2013-01-22 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how it's either, since auto-complete is based on what people are entering as search terms. It's the result of an algorithm, not a human.
  From a human point of view, his complaint has merit. I do not see why he should have to live with this just because it is an algorithm - whatever the legal terms.
8. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  Because it is the question and not the answer. If you base your believe on some keywords in a search I personally don't want to do business with you.
  If I type martian in the search field and get attack I don't assume it is happening right now and the search will yield lots of pages to movies and instructions how to make your shelter martian safe.
  If I type in and get bankrupt many people might have checked if the person is bankrupt. If I see the results I get both the annulled and the original. How hard is it to compare the dates or even take a hint that the bankrupt must have been before the clear?
9. Re:Slander and libel by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-01-22 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  2. Automated slander is still slander. If some robocaller called you, would you accept "it is the machine calling you! I am not responsible!" as an excuse? If the Google self-driving car hit somebody, would you claim that Google is not responsible because it is just "the result of an algorithm"? If Google's algorithm resulted in spreading slander, then Google IS responsible for it.
  Your argument falls on its face because Google is not the active party here. It's more like you're ringing a number which records voice messages from anyone who wishes to leave one, hearing one that offends you, then blaming Google rather than the person who actually recorded the offensive message.
  After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
10. Re:Slander and libel by ethanms · 2013-01-22 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how it's either, since auto-complete is based on what people are entering as search terms. It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told.
  So... "Guy Hingston bankrupt" searches are manually entered a few times.
  Now the the next few people who start to type in "Guy Hingston..." will see Google's algorithm auto-complete that with "...bankrupt"; it's likely that out of curiosity they will now search for those terms together. At this point from the algorithms point of view a "human" is searching for that complete set of terms, so the algorithm is reinforced to auto-complete "Guy Hingston..." with "...bankrupt" to more people...
  It should be obvious how Google's algorithm for auto-complete can direct humans to search for "specific terms" that they might otherwise not think to search for simply because Google is suggesting them.
  This is a very handy feature, but it can also be powerfully useful for both good purpose and negative purposes, whether intentionally done or not.
  Google in effect, through their algorithm, can make certain searches appear in either favorable or detrimental lights. In this case a surgeon is being associated with bankruptcy--both his own and his former company.
  I don't know if this is worthy of being called liable and slander, but it's at least lousy. I don't doubt that this is not intentional on Google's part, but their algorithm may be unintentionally damaging this man's reputation, and in that case I think they do hold some fault.
11. Re:Slander and libel by Jiro · 2013-01-22 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  If you base your believe on some keywords in a search I personally don't want to do business with you.
  I personally as a business owner would want to do business with whoever has money.
  A problem which only keeps the stupid people from spending money at my business and can be seen through by smart people is still going to cost me cold cash.
  It's the flip side of "I wouldn't want to work at a place that takes my Google search out of context"--I want to work at a place that pays me a salary so I can eat.
12. Re:Slander and libel by ethanms · 2013-01-22 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
  No... but let's say a newspaper took a picture of that wall.
  Now every time someone types "Anonymous" into the newpaper's news story search engine they automatically bring up "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" and maybe even show me a preview thumbnail of that picture. You can argue they are simply re-printing the news story, but if they are doing each time someone starts a search they are directing people to that information. These future searchers may not otherwise care to search for that story or those terms, but it's now been put in their face and they are likely to "dig deeper" which in this case is conveniently shallow thanks to newspaper's auto complete algorithm..
  This is the crux of the argument--is it right for Google to ASSUME you will want to know about this man's bankruptcy when you start to type his name? ...and what sort of a liability should Google have, if any, for their technology repeatedly associating this man with bankruptcy to people who begin to search for him?
  Let's say you got drunk at a bar and were arrested for disorderly conduct. This could have happened years ago, maybe in college and now you're a totally responsible person in your 30s. Would it be right for someone to follow you for your entire life around and every time someone started to say your name this other person would pop out and shout out "...GOT DRUNK AT A BAR AND ARRESTED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT!!" ... No it sucks. But that's the technological equivalent of what Google is (probably inadvertently) doing.
13. Re:Slander and libel by ethanms · 2013-01-22 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he'd be better off paying for some news-worthy publicity for his surgery to alter his results, or contact the papers and have them revise their wording?
  ...yeah that won't eventually evolve into a tidy form of blackmail will it?
  All your negative bullshit ends up in the search engines so that you'll be willing to pay for something positive to try to offset it all...
14. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 22:02 · Score: 0
  
  2. Automated slander is still slander. If some robocaller called you, would you accept "it is the machine calling you! I am not responsible!" as an excuse? If the Google self-driving car hit somebody, would you claim that Google is not responsible because it is just "the result of an algorithm"? If Google's algorithm resulted in spreading slander, then Google IS responsible for it.
  Your argument falls on its face because Google is not the active party here. It's more like you're ringing a number which records voice messages from anyone who wishes to leave one, hearing one that offends you, then blaming Google rather than the person who actually recorded the offensive message.
  After all, if some kid spray-painted "ANONYMOUS COWARD SUCKS!!" on your house, you'd sue the building contractor who constructed the wall that got tagged with the kid's message, right?
  And your argument fails because Google's auto-complete is not a forum where people posts comments and other people read them unaltered. Auto-complete is a result of Google's algorithm taking peoples' search terms as input, and unlike forum posts, those people typing in the search terms have NO INTENTION for those terms to be read by other people. It is Google's choice, and thus their responsibility, to take words that people used for search and PRESENT them to other people.
  If you take random recordings on the street and decide to publish it by posting to YouTube, YOU will be responsible if those recordings contained slander against someone. You can't just claim you are repeating what other people said (republishing slander is slander), and you can't replace that action by using a robot and claim it is "automated" therefore you don't have any responsibility either.
  If a kid wrote "Zontar Sucks!" on a bench, and your building contractor took a picture of that bench, blow it up to 7x8' and put it on your house, so that phrase is now clearly readable, won't you sue that building contractor for slander? Will you accept "I didn't wrote it! That kid did!" as a his defense?
15. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 22:11 · Score: 0
  
  I don't see how it's either, since auto-complete is based on what people are entering as search terms. It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told. You might as well say a car slandered you for backfiring as it drove by. Also... he doesn't own an exclusive right to the name 'Guy Hingston'.
  So... let's apply that logic to HFT traders. You see, those investment banks didn't screw anyone, it is their HFT algorithms that did it. So if those HFT programs caused a market crash and subsequent depression, causing millions to lose their jobs and livelihood, would you still say that "It's the result of an algorithm, not a human. Algorithms have no sense of morality, they just do what they're told"?
  Obviously no, you will rightfully hold those people who PUT THE PROGRAM IN INTO INTERACTING WITH THE REAL WORLD responsible. Just like a sane person would hold Google responsible for what programs Google put out into the real world did.
  Sometimes, the level of denial and logic twisting from "Google can do no wrong" fanboism in /. is really on par with Creationist and GW denialist.
16. Re:Slander and libel by abigsmurf · 2013-01-22 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why exactly should something being automated stop it from being a crime?
  
  It's the responsibility of the creator of an algorithm to ensure that measures are taken to make sure it obeys the law. If someone creates a robotic hedge trimmer that then decides that people's necks also need trimming and runs amok, should the creator get away with it because it was down to his algorithm doing it automatically?
17. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  It's not "Google's choice" which terms come up in autocomplete, but result of taking people's input and ranking them - just because people don't know it doesn't mean it's not so (and it's probably there in ToS, anyways)
  Forum posts are result of algorithms taking people's input and presenting them in a neat threaded form. Many forums don't just display them, but use other factors - like users' votes, page views or spam filter - to choose which to present first and which to hide. Will you sue /. next time top comment on the article says something you didn't like? Replace "top post" with "top autosuggestion" and "users' votes" with ""popular typed queries" and see your "it's totally not like forum" break down.
  Will you sue the contractor if he puts a display panel on your front wall to blow up whatever is in front of camera, and some kid posts an "AC SUCKS!!!" sign there?
18. Re:Slander and libel by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  And this is the so called "begging the question" fallacy.
  You're speaking as if it was already established that this is a crime, the head's already trimmed and discussion is whether or not perpetrator should be punished, while other side argues about if there's even a chip in victim's neck and if his pains just an autosuggestion.
  You've got first to show that algorithm observing it's inputs and making the statement "People are searching for X" is equivalent to algorithm making the statement X and therefore is slandering, then you'll have a point.
19. Re:Slander and libel by DaDaDaaaaa · 2013-01-23 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Great analogy. When I see the Slashdot libertarians, always adamant that Google's results must not be tampered with in any way even when it deprives innocent individuals of living their life in peace for no good reason, I wonder if they would be so steadfast if by some whim of circumstance their name was associated to something humiliating or nasty in Google and they couldn't find any employment due to it.
what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:27 · Score: 0

I personally don't see much benefit to the auto-complete. It's useful to get the correct spelling of a single word, but any more than that, and you get some crazy shit.
Looking up my own name followed by "is" actually shows nothing. That's probably the easiest way to prevent auto-complete problems, don't auto-complete if "is" or "was" is in the query.
1. Re:what? by sumdumass · 2013-01-22 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  I find it useful when doing input on a phone. Most of the stuff I am looking for on the fly like that is listed.
Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same time by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-01-22 17:32 · Score: 1

As much as I hate to admit it, I find Google search's autocomplete very useful in two cases:
- To check someone's exact name. For instance, if I hear "this song is called "Baby I wawawawa" written by "Jim Wawawawa" on the radio, without catching the song's title or author completely, I can type "baby I Jim" and usually Google finds the answer before I type enter.
- To check spelling.
This said, I've also experienced the effect of having something stick to my name in the Google autocomplete. Fortunately it was a long time ago, and my rigorous personal rule of staying strictly anonymous on the internet seems to be paying off, as Google seems to slowly forget about me. The autocomplete has been replaced by something that's happened to a guy who bears the same name as me, so it's all good for me.
So essentially, I find Google to be a constant, looming danger to my own privacy, but it's great to find out about others and other things. Of course...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Another useless fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:33 · Score: 0

crying for attention.
1st link.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:34 · Score: 0

Dr Guy Hingston - Breast Reduction & Reconstruction Surgery ...
and you d assume that's him not some bankrup thingy that's what i thought i had to think a min what he means
like excuse me but i hate to say it bud , but there are 7 billion people on earth good chances with the "creative parents you have" that someone has the same name in fact i literally guarantee it
SEO gone wild by Lev13than · 2013-01-22 17:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

As a surgeon, does he really think it's a good idea to replace the "Guy Hingston bankrupt" autocomplete with "Guy Hingston lawsuit"?

--
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
1. Re:SEO gone wild by grcumb · 2013-01-22 17:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  As a surgeon, does he really think it's a good idea to replace the "Guy Hingston bankrupt" autocomplete with "Guy Hingston lawsuit"?
  Well, bear in mind that this is a guy who's basically called up the national media and proclaimed, 'I Google myself!'
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
2. Re:SEO gone wild by omnichad · 2013-01-23 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's better than telling the whole world that you Bing yourself.
3. Re:SEO gone wild by oursland · 2013-01-23 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer to Yahoo myself, thank you very much!
Are auto-complete results even useful? by Osgeld · 2013-01-22 17:34 · Score: 1

it might be, but half the time it seems the auto complete script chokes and leaves me with a blank page, making the point of it moot, other times as I am typing I see exactly what I am looking for, then the page changes.
I lived fine with clicking a button, and I still have to click a button so whats the point?
bloated unwanted feature
1. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  Personally, my home page is https://www.google.com/?complete=0
2. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:41 · Score: 0
  
  I find auto complete valuable, but not in terms of saving clicks. When I'm not sure how to phrase a query, I start with the terms I know and often autocomplete will give me a few reasonable options to go with. This is particularly helpful when I'm searching technical topics and need to use the right jargon in my query but can't quite remember the currently popular phraseology for a concept.
3. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:46 · Score: 0
  
  so you dislike the feature because you can't get some in-line search cues when searching for 'how to get a rim job from a purple unicorn without having your ass ripped open'? pity shame.
4. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Forget autocomplete, I just want Google to stop "helping" me by adding synonyms of my search terms to the results. Yes, I really wanted to find "fuzzy text" and I don't want to see results for "blurry" mixed in there because they think it might be good enough for me.
  I have to wade through too much irrelevant crap or go to the trouble of clicking "verbatim" just to get what I was looking for in the first place. Hey Google, you only won out over other search engines because you returned the most RELEVANT links first and your interface was SIMPLE. Don't fuck it up further!
5. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  Whenever these complaints come up, the examples are straight fucked up. Why were you searching for "fuzzy text" in the first place? I'm quite sure that most people searching for this indeed have troubles with blur - results with verbatim "fuzzy text" dealing with blurry LCDs show that it's so, therefore it is the relevant result. If it's not what you need, then you probably wanted to search for "fuzzy text matching" or something like that.
  It's like complaining that you were looking for a carpenter to make you some seats and wanted to see what they have, but searching for "stool samples" didn't give you what you need.
6. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Osgeld · 2013-01-22 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  oh I know exactly what to type for a purple unicorn rimjob without anal tearing
7. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  I was searching for datasheets on electronic parts most of the day today cleaning out stock, it is kind of annoying having it assume I meant s&p indexes when I was searching for an STxxx datasheet
8. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:48 · Score: 0
  
  Whenever these complaints come up, the examples are straight fucked up. Why were you searching for "fuzzy text" in the first place?
  Are you in tech support or development by any chance? Because that's usually the answer I get is "why do you want to do that?" Because I fucking feel like it, okay, pal? It's none of your damn business what I require. You lack imagination and Google shouldn't second-guess me.
9. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  "Ours not to reason why; ours but to shut up and comply."
10. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? I just asked what was you really looking for with this phrase, instead I got "SHUT UP UR NOT MY MOM"
  Seriously, search engines aren't magic, if you look for something specific, you should ask for something specific. When your question is specific enough, these suggestions are rather helpful (for example, "fuzzy text search" gives "Approximate string matching" on wikipedia as first result), and it seems most people appreciate them.
  You're an outlier, why should others bend over to accomodate you? "Buuuut moooooom, doing two extra clicks for verbatim is sooooo haaaaard!"
11. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  Look, it's not necessary for the search engine to know my reasons to complete the task. My reasons are mine, not yours, nor Google's, and quite possibly are reasons you can't imagine given days or weeks. It doesn't matter, you don't need magic to find, sort, and collate text.
  A search is a pretty simple request: "I suspect there are pages or documents out there containing these words or phrases, can you confirm this?"
  No, I don't want to see results for similar terms. If I misspell a word, just point it out and tell me that's why I'm not seeing more results. If I'm looking for the highest ranked pages, that's what "I'm Feeling Lucky" is for. Verbatim should be the default, not a special case.
12. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:24 · Score: 0
  
  You don't want those results. Millions other people with shitty displays and poorly configured font renderers do want those results. Yours is a subset of results and a special case.
  PS: By the way, did you know that quotes operator for verbatim search was restored long ago?
13. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't matter what the term is, the point is Google decides on its own to substitute a "close enough" term and dump a shitload of results on me.
  You want a real-life example that's not "fucked up"? I saw a reference to someone using something called HTMLscan, so I Googled "htmlscan." Google came back with 293,000 results and helpfully suggested "did you mean 'html scan'?" with a space. No, I didn't mean that. I meant exactly what I searched for, but Google asked me if that's what I meant and then showed me all the results for 'html scan' anyway. That's what's fucked up here.
14. Re: Are auto-complete results even useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  You don't want those results. Millions other people with shitty displays and poorly configured font renderers do want those results.
  Then they can click on "did you mean..?" instead and see the things that were not matches but "close enough." Or is one click too much work?
Let's help the poor guy! by sjames · 2013-01-22 17:35 · Score: 5, Funny

OK, everybody, it's time to help him out here. Google for "Guy Hingston pumpkin fucker" until the association between Guy Hingston and bankrupt goes away!
1. Re:Let's help the poor guy! by slackware+3.6 · 2013-01-22 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  There did it.
  Wanted to help the poor guy out.
2. Re:Let's help the poor guy! by ChromeAeonium · 2013-01-22 18:15 · Score: 2
  
  I was thinking "Guy Hingston asshole" but know when someone has a better idea.
3. Re:Let's help the poor guy! by ChunderDownunder · 2013-01-22 18:24 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Wow, your post shows up as the first search result. Congrats!
4. Re:Let's help the poor guy! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 23:16 · Score: 0
  
  or you could try "Guy Hingston fumpkin pucker", because it's quite likely that "fucker" is a word that is censored by google.
5. Re:Let's help the poor guy! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  as awesome as this is, google screens 'fucker' from autocomplete so how about 'guy hingston poor judgement'. this guy is a 4chan waiting to happen.
6. Re:Let's help the poor guy! by dissy · 2013-01-23 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is too funny. I decided to help out too.
  http://www.google.com/search?q=Guy+Hingston+pumpkin+fucker
  First result is now:
  
  Alterslash, the unofficial Slashdot digest
  alterslash.org/
  12 hours ago - An anonymous reader writes "Australian surgeon Guy Hingston is suing ... Google for "Guy Hingston pumpkin fucker" until the association ...
7. Re:Let's help the poor guy! by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2013-01-23 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Already the first hit for "Guy Hingston" (at least for me, YMMV). Nice work. :)
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:36 · Score: 0

Courts should throw out all of these nonsensical lawsuits whether or not the information is true, false, public, or not public. Anyone who says otherwise despises freedom.
I thought aussies where hardcore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:56 · Score: 0

this guy straight bitch
1. Re:I thought aussies where hardcore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  No, nothing Hardcore here. Australia is nothing but a nanny state in which America has only to learn from.
  We full of winey ass bitches like this guy.
quick everyone by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:05 · Score: 0

everyone start searching for "guy hingston small penis"
I like auto complete by slackware+3.6 · 2013-01-22 18:08 · Score: 2

It really help those of us that can't type faster than 50 wpm and can't spell worth a shit.
1. Re:I like auto complete by mwvdlee · 2013-01-22 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  There you were, trying to look impressive by implying that 50 words per minute is normal typing speed (it's actually faster than is required to be a certified typist) and telling us autocomplete is only for people who can't spell, but then...
  Google's autocomplete appends an "s" when I type "it really help".
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The amusing part... by synir · 2013-01-22 18:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

You know what's amusing? Through this lawsuit (and the good ol' Streisand effect) being reported all over the internet under the title "Guy Hingston... ... bankrupt" he's more or less ensuring the propagation of these terms' association while at the same time, since he likely has no viable legal case here, getting nothing back from Google.

I'd bet neither of those results were what he was hoping for.
1. Re:The amusing part... by CuteSteveJobs · 2013-01-22 18:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Here is the statement of claim. http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1221&context=historical
  
  "10. When an individual computer user types "Guy Hin ... ", into the Google search engine as a search, the words "Guy Hingston Bankrupt" appears. When the link(s) is clicked on, the article{s) to which the user is directed has absolutely nothing to do with a bankruptcy associated with Dr. Hingston. Dr. Hingston is not bankrupt. Any association with Dr. Hingston and a bankruptcy is in false light and/or defamatory. Dr. Hingston has directed numerous inquiries and made numerous requests, both oral and written, to Google for immediate action to resolve the foregoing issue to no avail."
  
  My compliments to his lawyer who resisted padding this out to 30 pages.
2. Re:The amusing part... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:53 · Score: 0
  
  ... getting nothing back from Google
  It's not the first time they have lost in these situations:
  http://www.zdnet.com/google-loses-autocomplete-defamation-case-in-italy-3040092392/
  Sadly they have lost in similar situations here as well:
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20153309
3. Re:The amusing part... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 19:12 · Score: 0
  
  Unlike those the problem with Hingston's case is there really was a bankruptcy. It is silly to think that Google with their deep pockets and top tier lawyers wouldn't have uncovered those and tear apart his complaint in court. People think suing is a lotto ticket but it usually makes things worse: http://lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=870:how-kay-sieverding-lost-her-rights&catid=94:civil-liberties&Itemid=212
4. Re:The amusing part... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-22 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  If I were the judge, I'd throw it out because they don't specify the link that the autocomplete returns, and it's changed on account of the lawsuit itself. Also, he was bankrupt and did declare bankruptcy. He isn't, at this moment, bankrupt.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
5. Re:The amusing part... by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-01-22 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  What would you have him do? Sit back while an imperialistic foreign corporation rolls all over him?
  With any luck, the 'bankrupt' articles will now lead to the controversy, at least giving him a fig leaf of cover for his humiliation.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
6. Re:The amusing part... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  > When the link(s) is clicked on, the article{s) to which the user is directed has absolutely nothing to do with a bankruptcy associated with Dr. Hingston.
  Well *thats* been fixed! :-) @AK Marc is right too. They didn't even say which web page which Google cannot respond in the Answer.
  > Dr. Hingston is not bankrupt.
  He was.
  > Any association with Dr. Hingston and a bankruptcy is in false light and/or defamatory.
  Clearly there were bankruptcies which makes this statement untrue. That will look very bad in court. His lawyer could not have known about these.
  > Dr. Hingston has directed numerous inquiries and made numerous requests, both oral and written, to Google for immediate action to resolve the foregoing issue to no avail.
  Google sucks for this. I read they passed it on to their search people, but took to long to reply. Google would get into trouble for this at least in the Australian Federal Court, but the false statements about his bankruptcy don't look good either. No good will come of this. If he is smart he will tell his lawyer to drop it before Google finds themselves the proud owner of a Boob Reduction Practice.
7. Re:The amusing part... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-01-23 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  "10. When an individual computer user types "Guy Hin ... ", into the Google search engine as a search, the words "Guy Hingston Bankrupt" appears.
  
  Along with "Guy Hingston", "Dr Guy Hingston", "Guy Hinton", "guy hints", "Guy Hindley", "guy Hindi meaning", and several more...
  
  When the link(s) is clicked on, the article{s) to which the user is directed has absolutely nothing to do with a bankruptcy associated with Dr. Hingston. Dr. Hingston is not bankrupt. Any association with Dr. Hingston and a bankruptcy is in false light and/or defamatory. Dr. Hingston has directed numerous inquiries and made numerous requests, both oral and written, to Google for immediate action to resolve the foregoing issue to no avail."
  
  Actually, when I click on "Guy Hingston bankrupt", I get pointed to a jillion articles about him suing Google over the "Guy Hingston bankrupt" autocomplete, so I guess it is technically true that the "article{s) to which the user is directed has absolutely nothing to do with a bankruptcy associated with Dr. Hingston"...
  On the other hand, if this /. article hadn't come up, I'd never have bothered to look him up on Google, and even if I had, I'd probably have stopped at the first autocomplete that was offered ("Guy Hingston" - the second was "Dr Guy Hingston", then the bankrupt one came in third)....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
8. Re:The amusing part... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  My compliments to the lawyer and Dr. Hingston for a "reasonable" lawsuit.
  I'm surprised at how many posters are claiming that he's just after the money, when the lawsuit is only for $75K, plus expenses (which will probably be more than his own payoff). The man's a surgeon. $75K probably represents than than a quarter's worth of income from surgery. This doesn't sound like somebody looking to make money off of a large company. It sounds like somebody who is frustrated that clients are leaving or not showing up because they stop when they see the word "bankrupt".
Good going stupid fuck by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:13 · Score: 0

Sounds like he really deserves his results.
And with this lawsuit, this will further help is reputation.
And really, with a lawsuit like this, do you really want this fuck operating on you?
Re:Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same ti by slackware+3.6 · 2013-01-22 18:14 · Score: 1

But you are not strictly anonamous . You forgot to check the little ac box.
Auto-complete by raftpeople · 2013-01-22 18:25 · Score: 1

Hopefully Ray Kurzweil can figure a way to turn off that damn auto-complete
1. Re:Auto-complete by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:36 · Score: 0
  
  All Ray would do is make some abstract speech based on bullshit magic based in imagination
  he was impressive when the fruit was low, not so much now when you have to consider reality post 1989
The short answer? by fahrbot-bot · 2013-01-22 18:29 · Score: 1

Are auto-complete results even useful?
No and it's fucking annoying. I have it disabled and my proxy filter set to ensure it stays that way. I'll submit my search query when I'm damn good and ready.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:The short answer? by mwvdlee · 2013-01-22 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  In Chrome, auto-complete also auto-completes URL's, which works quite well.
  The search results are almost never useful and I often have to edit the search query instead of it just searching what I want to type.
  If I type "git" and press enter, I want to search for "git". I understand "gitlab" is also quite relevant, but I didn't type "gitlab", I typed "git" and pressed enter.
  It's great for auto-complete to offer alternatives, it's quite a different thing for it to overrule what I'm typing while I'm typing.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Tell google about your password! by whois · 2013-01-22 18:33 · Score: 2

My favorite thing about autocomplete is all the times I've typed something in the box I didn't mean to, or pasted something when the wrong thing was in my paste buffer. The autocomplete logs have got to be a goldmine of private individual data, and confidential corporate data.
1. Re:Tell google about your password! by omnichad · 2013-01-23 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure that those would be statistically irrelevant and unless several users paste the same confidential data it won't matter. I do wonder if they discard long queries (such as the case of accidentally pasting a paragraph of text or chart of numbers), or how that data is stored.
This guy's never heard of the Streisand Effect by eksith · 2013-01-22 18:43 · Score: 1

The fact that he's suing Google for putting "bankrupt" in the autocomplete virtually ensures the words are permanantly linked together now that the news everywhere is reporting that Google put "bankrupt" in the autocom... (cue infinite loop). And now not just on Google, but also on Bing, Yahoo and pretty much every other search engine that didn't previously put "bankrupt" next to his name.
What an idiot.

--
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
1. Re:This guy's never heard of the Streisand Effect by 1u3hr · 2013-01-22 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  What an idiot.
  Not if the aim of the suit is to get Google to pay him compensation, then the more bad press about him, the better.
2. Re:This guy's never heard of the Streisand Effect by zeptic · 2013-01-22 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's already on wikipedia...
3. Re:This guy's never heard of the Streisand Effect by zeptic · 2013-01-22 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ha! Made you look!
4. Re:This guy's never heard of the Streisand Effect by eksith · 2013-01-22 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nice!
  
  --
  If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
Is auto-complete useful? Let's ask Google. by VortexCortex · 2013-01-22 18:55 · Score: 1

"Are auto-complete results even useful?"
Well, let's ask Google.
Autocomplete is: Autocomplete is not a function Autocomplete is not working Autocomplete is not working in outlook 2010 ...
I'm afraid I have to agree with Google on this one.
Maybe he should have googled Streisand Effect... by clokwise · 2013-01-22 18:57 · Score: 1

So I just googled the guy. The entire first page of results (and several subsequent pages) are about one of two things:
1) Guy Hingston sued Google because of the term 'bankrupt' appearing in the auto-complete
2) Guy Hingston saved a bus load of children from a burning building
Sadly, now that's he's filed the lawsuit, he'll forever be known as the bankrupt douche doctor who sued Google. Well, at least those children will remember him for the true hero he really is.
Slashdot sued for neglecting Australia. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:58 · Score: 0

Australians object to seeing Slashdot stories that aren't about Australians.
Guy Hingston by 12WTF$ · 2013-01-22 18:59 · Score: 1

malpractice
That'll burn him.

--
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
1. Re:Guy Hingston by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  malpractice
  That'll burn him.
  Nice.. Im searching for that All Day!
Maybe Google should by Chrisq · 2013-01-22 19:10 · Score: 1

Maybe Google should counter-sue everyone who searched for that term!
Oh Google you... by BrookHarty · 2013-01-22 19:15 · Score: 1

Google just wants to be helpful. In fact when I joined Google+, it asked me if I wanted to add my ex wife! (no)
And when I search for a raccoon knit hat for my daughter's birthday, I get to see that ad on every website I visit for the next month! (argh)
I don't know about you, Google is super helpful! /s
1. Re:Oh Google you... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you see ads?
Did he try a non-litigative approach? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 19:21 · Score: 0

Did he, say, ASK them?
Re:Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same ti by AK+Marc · 2013-01-22 19:28 · Score: 1

lots of people published under pseudonyms and considered that sufficiently anonymous.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same ti by AK+Marc · 2013-01-22 19:29 · Score: 1

Google corrects my name to a business of a similar name. No acts associated with my name, and from what I can tell, my name is globally unique.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same ti by spongman · 2013-01-22 19:36 · Score: 1

and to check which surgeons are bankrupt?
mandatory post by futhermocker · 2013-01-22 19:48 · Score: 1

1. create websites with your name associated to nasty stuff 2. ???? 3. profit!

--
KERNEL PANIC -SIGFAULT AT ADDRESS #51A54D07
Re:Maybe he should have googled Streisand Effect.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 19:53 · Score: 0

AFAICT, second one is just zgeek's headline for same news about him suing Google and there were no actual children involved. Would be fun if Google started disseminating untrue, but positive, information about him as a result.
Defamation? by wgoodman · 2013-01-22 19:55 · Score: 1

It isn't defamation if it's true. Good luck in court.
1. Re:Defamation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  Also, it's not stating that he's bankrupt. It's merely suggesting terms that others have used about him.
Quoting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:11 · Score: 0

You're doing it wrong.
1. Re:Quoting by MyLongNickName · 2013-01-23 01:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Apparently you missed his username.
  
  --
  See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
2. Re:Quoting by sumdumass · 2013-01-23 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  I guess so. Here is the important part.
  While I understand the wanting to keep something like that quiet, it is public information. I'm not sure it is wrong to have it there even if it is undesirable.
Re:Is auto-complete useful? Let's ask Google. by mwvdlee · 2013-01-22 20:18 · Score: 1

The topmost choice when typing "autocomplete" is "autocomplete off". What does that tell us?

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Our thinking has become autocomplete by blue_teeth · 2013-01-22 20:22 · Score: 1

We are constantly fed with information and losing ability to think clearly. How many times we are "autocompleting" when someone talks or communicates? The politicians, subliminal messages, sound bytes.....is making us Pavlov dogs.
Blame the data by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 20:42 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, but Google is in no way to blame for the results of auto-complete than I am to blame for the results of Pascal's triangle. They built a machine that analyzes billions of lines of data and produces auto-completion based on correlation found in documents and web pages on the public internet. It's hardly Google's fault what the document contains, and it's silly to even think that it is. What's more, if 300,000 people put up pages that say "George Bush Sucks", and then someone puts in the name "George Bush" and "sucks" pops up in an auto-suggestion, that's the /right/ answer, and shouldn't be messed with.
Google isn't saying that the things in auto-suggest are facts, or that you should try them at home, or that it represents their opinion, or anything else - it just represents automatically generated correlations data that is related enough to occur together often.
People need to be educated a little bit on how things actually work.
He'll get so screwed by Google's attorney fees by Arancaytar · 2013-01-22 20:42 · Score: 1

that he'll go bankru---
oh.
Guy Hingston _ by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 21:05 · Score: 0

Guess whats gonna happen NOW when someone searches his name.
Re:Is auto-complete useful? Let's ask Google. by pv2b · 2013-01-22 21:19 · Score: 1

It tells us that since autocomplete defaults to on, more people search to turn it off than do to turn it on.
haha by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 21:33 · Score: 0

yup thats the one now
you can clearly see pumpkin fucker right there
way to go internet
see the net works
Ehm, not true by dutchwhizzman · 2013-01-22 22:11 · Score: 1

From what I understand, Guy Hingston has been declared bankrupt at some point in time. However, this has been annulled according to his lawyer. This means that "is Guy Hingston bankrupt = No" is the current situation.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
1. Re:Ehm, not true by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  One of the bankruptcies was annulled (his personal one). The aviation business one is spot on.
2. Re:Ehm, not true by omnichad · 2013-01-23 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  But the real question in a libel case - Google is only saying people have searched for the terms "Guy Hingston bankrupt" or that some such content exists on the Internet. This is factual. It's not saying that he is bankrupt. That it implies he is bankrupt is a matter of opinion.
Google is in the wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 22:34 · Score: 0

Google is "SUGGESTING" that he is bankrupt... Autocomplete is a "suggestion".
quit by chloefish · 2013-01-22 22:51 · Score: 0

I quit working at shoprite and now I make $35h - $80h...how? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do, Great70 doTcom
Re:Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same ti by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 23:14 · Score: 0

Well, until somebody posts the link between the pseudonym and the real identity somewhere. At which point they become forever connected.
Try Binging him. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 23:30 · Score: 1

And see what you get.
Then use DuckDuckGo. Then Yahoo. Then...
Hey, look, everyone's killing his business!
easy to be forgotten by terec · 2013-01-22 23:56 · Score: 1

Change your name and you'll be instantly forgotten. What people who say they want a "right to be forgotten" is a right to control specific information about the: hide the bad, keep the good. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
1. Re:easy to be forgotten by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think I agree with your opinion, but the way you wrote that I really can't be sure as I cannot parse your post reliably.
  If your meaning is that people who want the right to be forgotten are just vying for the right to hide their misdeeds, then I must protest most vehemently. I want the right to be forgotten, not just the bad, there is nothing "bad" for me to hide. I think if the options were "track my information" or "forget me completely" those of us seeking privacy would easily choose "forget me completely" it's not about some propaganda / marketing desire, it is truly about privacy.
2. Re:easy to be forgotten by LordLimecat · 2013-01-23 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Im just not clear where all of these rights keep coming from, it seems like a new one is invented every year. What gives me a right to be forgotten? Why dont others have a "right to remember"?
3. Re:easy to be forgotten by TapeCutter · 2013-01-23 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmmm that is probably true for the bloke in TFA but rather than you guessing what I want, how about I just tell you.
  
  What I want is the equivalent of an old fashioned unlisted phone number. Not for me personally, I'm old enough that I don't give a shit what marketing departments think about me, but privacy (in all its forms) is a basic requirement of mental health, the human psyche demands it. I don't see why a commercial entity should have the right to publish a "dossier" (the search results) on a person against their will (as opposed to without their prior consent).
  
  Having said that I'm quite aware that an ideology and its implementation are two separate things. As I indicated previously, delisting a name from google's index is quite likely impractical for most names since it would affect multiple unrelated people. But I can still want something better, right?
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
4. Re:easy to be forgotten by terec · 2013-01-23 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  but privacy (in all its forms) is a basic requirement of mental health, the human psyche demands it.
  Citation?
  
  I don't see why a commercial entity should have the right to publish a "dossier" (the search results) on a person against their will (as opposed to without their prior consent).
  It's called "free speech". Yeah, and lots of people don't like it.
Attacking the wrong problem by degeneratemonkey · 2013-01-23 00:05 · Score: 1

Don't attack weak statistical models as if they are the problem. Attack the behavior wherein people assume those models communicate meaningful information, or that their assumptions about that information are correct.

He was bankrupt. It is public knowledge. Therefore this association exists. The inference that he is still bankrupt, or that the past status of bankruptcy should have any bearing on one's desire to engage him outright, is the problem. Google is not the problem here.
Facts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 00:38 · Score: 0

From reports it appears at a creditors meeting ONE WEEK before filing this lawsuit against google that his 3 year bankruptcy term was completed, and the extended term was annulled for composition offering. How many clients could he have lost in that one week when he was no longer bankrupt and how on earth does one come to the conclusion that there had been a loss of clients because of this auto complete? I believe there is also a new breast surgeon in Port Macquarie so perhaps he has to accept a smaller slice of the pie or travel to the city hospitals. Seems the man has a big ego and googles himself a little too often, he would be concerned about what is out there with his name on it after leaving creditors almost $12M poorer back in 2009.
I don't know about NZ by DarkOx · 2013-01-23 00:53 · Score: 1

I seriously hope US courts would make the sensible ruling here.
That is auto complete is a simple statement of fact. It says there is a relationship between the tokens you have typed and the tokens suggested. That relationship is that others have frequently paired them as search terms, or that they frequently appear together in indexed documents, or some other computable algorithm relates them.
Its a plain and provable statement of fact, therefore its not libel, slander, or defamation.
It should not be Google's problem that Joe Sixpack is to deeply retarded to understand that if he types "Bob's Construction" and auto-complete suggests he adds "collapse" it does not imply Bob builds things that collapse. For all he knows at that point there is a document out there with the sentence:
"The house built by Bob's Construction was so well put together it did not collapse even after we drove a truck into it repeatedly."
These cases attempt blame the tool maker for the users not knowing how to use it. Its stupid. I understand how if you are Bob in the above situation you might not be thrilled; but that does not give you the right to punish Google for the public's aggressive ignorance.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
1. Re:I don't know about NZ by gnasher719 · 2013-01-23 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  It should not be Google's problem that Joe Sixpack is to deeply retarded to understand that if he types "Bob's Construction" and auto-complete suggests he adds "collapse" it does not imply Bob builds things that collapse.
  
  It's not Google's fault that people are stupid. But it is Google's fault if Google sends out some text which incorrectly reflects badly on Bob. It's Google who sent the text "Bob's Construction collapse" to the user's computer, so that is most certainly their fault.
2. Re:I don't know about NZ by DarkOx · 2013-01-24 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  But there is nothing wrong with Google sending "Bob's Construction collapse". The message is given in context, the context of entering search terms, not the context of results.
  If you see a road sign that says "Watch for Falling Rock", you interpret it in the context of driving. If you interpret it as a direct command; take your eyes off the road to stair exclusively at the cliff face while your car leaves its lane and runs into on coming traffic, is it the DOT's fault?
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This is getting out of hand by Unknown1337 · 2013-01-23 00:56 · Score: 1

Are people that dense that they create their own opinions on headlines without doing any research or even reading the article these days? Censoring graphic content, both visual and textual makes perfect sense, we have no need to desensitise ourselves any more than we already do, society expects Google to be the pinnacle of internet information. You can't have an expectation like that and then handcuff them by allowing them to only autofill/display results for the touchy feely nice things in the world. It's not realistic, that's not how humans behave (in addition, there's a lot of people searching terms and creating pages to purposely defame) and there would be very little of our recorded history that falls into that category. Knowing our past triumphs and mistakes is the way forward. Go out and make a new name for yourself, don't blame Google for finding your dirty little secret.
Facts are stubborn things by raymorris · 2013-01-23 00:56 · Score: 1

Yep, he filed for bankripcy, twice. Autocomplete suggests that he may have had something to do with a bankruptcy, because he did. Facts are stubborn things, Mr. Hingston.
To answer the question... by BLKMGK · 2013-01-23 01:00 · Score: 1

Yeah, I use the autocomplete suggestions often. When I'm typing in a query it's often about something I want information about and if the autocomplete pops up with something close to what I'm looking for I select it knowing it's been asked and answered by Google using those terms previously. This is a pretty obvious way to use the search system and I suspect quite a few others use it this way too since Google has kept the autocomplete around despite controversy. Certainly when terms pop up I'm not searching for I ignore them (I'm an adult), frankly I seldom search a person's name anyway so this popping up wouldn't concern me a bit.
BTW everyone is making a great deal of noise over his bankruptcy having been annulled. When was it annulled? Was it years ago? Recently? How much debt did he walk away from? These are pertinent questions to be asked and while having this somehow "annulled" is well good and fine when you want to bitch at Google how about getting the whole story on it? It may be a past misdeed but the circumstances may matter a great deal to those considering his sefvices...

--
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
kingston uses defamation... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 01:53 · Score: 0

google uses truth as a defense.
it's super effective.
Hingston-Streisand Effect by DigitalSorceress · 2013-01-23 02:08 · Score: 1

The Hingston-Streisand Effect:
When you sue Google about auto-correct, thus ensuring that your name and the associated undesired terms end up ranking so high that they are always linked in all search results for either term for eternity.
Oh, I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning.

--

The Digital Sorceress
auto complete has inherent problems by __aaltlg1547 · 2013-01-23 02:13 · Score: 1

The biggest problem is tht it is based on what other people have searched for rather than what You are searching for now. The next problem is that it is self-reinforcing.
Slashdot is really going down the gutter by dpak1170 · 2013-01-23 02:31 · Score: 1

Thats all...
Let's fix this by Andrewkov · 2013-01-23 02:33 · Score: 1

If everyone on Slashdot does a Google search right now for "Guy Hingston is an asshole", we can get rid of the bankrupcy reference!
do it to your own name by circletimessquare · 2013-01-23 02:39 · Score: 1

autocomplete says i died in Illinois last year
not as weird or bad as i was hoping

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:do it to your own name by PPH · 2013-01-23 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you happen to be a comedian.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:do it to your own name by splatter · 2013-01-23 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  yeah apparently I'm a realtor.. Never knew, but go figure.
  
  --
  "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
answers by jbengt · 2013-01-23 02:46 · Score: 1

Are auto-complete results even useful?

No.

Should Google be policing the auto-complete suggestions?
No.
Guy Hingston by amoeba1911 · 2013-01-23 03:07 · Score: 1

I heard Guy Hingston saved a bus load of children from a burning building... unfortunately he sued Google, so that makes him a total douche, regardless of how many children he saved. Oh... it turns out he didn't save any children from the burning building. He can go to hell.
Google to sue itself by PPH · 2013-01-23 03:39 · Score: 1

"Google is" auto-completes as "Google is evil".

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Is it useful? by kelemvor4 · 2013-01-23 03:44 · Score: 1

I personally find it useful. Particularly if I'm not 100% certain of the search terms I want to use. I hope they don't eliminate the feature as a result of this, but I guess it would be understandable if they did.
Re:Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same ti by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:21 · Score: 0

-1 missed the 'Dukes of Hazard' reference.
Autocomplete is Useful by The+Raven · 2013-01-23 04:24 · Score: 1

I often get answers that I need right with autocomplete. I love it, and would be sad to see it lost just because some people get butthurt when they find out that the only reason people look them up online is to find out about their financial status.

--
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Re:Yeah it's useful... and horrible at the same ti by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:26 · Score: 0

Is that you, Kim Dotcom?
Does anyone else... by chargersfan420 · 2013-01-23 04:36 · Score: 1

Does anyone else find it hilarious that by posting a story like this on the internet, especially to slashdot, he is further tying his name to the word "bankruptcy" in automated search algorithms?
Those words don't mean .... by Zero__Kelvin · 2013-01-23 05:32 · Score: 1

" If I were to find "bankrupt" as an autocomplete term, I might make a perfectly rational decision not to waste anymore time looking into it "
I'm not sure if you don't know what the word perfectly or the word rational means (or both) but there is more than one Guy Kingston in the world, so your decision not to research further would be neither "perfect" nor "rational."

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
ugh by lattyware · 2013-01-23 05:34 · Score: 1

I hate this crap - auto complete tells you that lots of people have searched for that - it doesn't make it fact. The issue here is people seeing auto complete and thinking it means anything other than lots of people have searched for it. This should be thrown out.

--
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
class action anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:58 · Score: 0

'anonymous coward' autocompletes to 'anonymous coward illuminati'. If that's not defamation, I don't know what is!
How Do I Change It? by AndyKron · 2013-01-23 06:08 · Score: 1

How many times do I have to search for "Guy Hingston is a dick" before that shows up in autocomplete?
A brilliant plan, actually by mbkennel · 2013-01-23 06:18 · Score: 1

Now, when people search for Guy Hingston they will find articles saying that he is suing Google. They will think that odd, and when they go to the article they will find out that his bankruptcy was a business venture unrelated to his medical practice, and he was not actually personally bankrupt.
Slashdot is helping to solve his problem. I feel happy already.
Re:Annulled? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 08:20 · Score: 0

What does it mean for a bankruptcy to be annulled?
He was being protected from creditors at one point and then they turn around and say, he wasn't actually being protected?
True, his current situation may be that he is not in bankruptcy protection, but does that mean he never applied for protection, or if he did apply, that he withdrew his application before such time as he actually benefited from such protection?
Either way, there were apparently bankruptcy proceedings at some time in his life, and being public knowledge, that information wants to be free, and should be allowed to do so.
Turn Off Autocomplete by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-28 02:10 · Score: 0

Anyone dumb enough to leave autocomplete on deserves what they get.