Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Bankrupt' Australian Surgeon Sues Google For Auto-Complete

Posted by Soulskill on 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?"

39 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe he shouldn't of gone bankrupt.

    1. Re:Well... by neonmonk · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 ArsenneLupin · · 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.

    9. Re:Well... by Jiro · · 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

    10. Re:Well... by ethanms · · 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.

    11. Re:Well... by psiclops · · 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
    12. Re:Well... by rjstanford · · 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!
    13. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    14. Re:Well... by omnichad · · 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.

    15. Re:Well... by Yannic · · 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.

  2. Libel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can it be libelous if it's true?

    1. Re:Libel? by sourcerror · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 CuteSteveJobs · · 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!

  3. Doesn't defamation generally require.... by mark-t · · 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'
  4. Better idea by countach · · 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 · · Score: 2

      Don't forget: Guy Hingston thinks of the children!

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:Better idea by quenda · · 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.

  5. Slander and libel by girlintraining · · 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
  6. SEO gone wild by Lev13than · · 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 · · 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.
  7. Let's help the poor guy! by sjames · · 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 ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      I was thinking "Guy Hingston asshole" but know when someone has a better idea.

    2. Re:Let's help the poor guy! by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, your post shows up as the first search result. Congrats!

  8. Re:Is It Untrue? by CuteSteveJobs · · 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 ...

  9. I like auto complete by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 2

    It really help those of us that can't type faster than 50 wpm and can't spell worth a shit.

  10. The amusing part... by synir · · 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 · · 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.

  11. Tell google about your password! by whois · · 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.

  12. Re:Quoting by MyLongNickName · · 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