Slashdot Mirror
In Germany, Offensive Autocomplete Is No Laughing Matter
itwbennett writes "We've all had a chuckle over Google's autocomplete results for various search queries. But one German businessman had a less funny experience when he searched for his name on Google.de: The autocomplete suggested search terms where his name was tied with 'Scientology' and 'fraud' (in German, of course). This was back in 2010. In 2012, a German court ruled that the autocomplete terms did not infringe the plaintiff's privacy. Now, a year later, the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe has overturned that ruling and ordered that Google remove offensive search suggestions when notified."
Guess they'll ask to remove Hitler and nazi suggestions.
Godwin's Law hit already. Geeze!
I seem to recall a case in Australia in the last year where Google was asked to remove offensive autocomplete terms, and didn't. And got sued. And lost.
It's because it's potentially defamatory. And just like I can't write "I saw Soulskill touch a dogs wiener" without potentially being sued, Google can't write that Herr Rolf is a fraud.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Actually, that should be: sense_of_humor = -humor_coefficient*german_heritage. I clearly need more caffeine.
The notion that McDonalds cheeseburgers are delicious is offensive to cheeseburgers everywhere.
So don't do this in Germany.
I think that's why the court required the "when notified" part. I don't agree, but at least it is feasible to implement.
I think that's fair. I have a software product that used to auto complete with "torrent" and "crack". Made me a little miffed. Eventually google stopped doing that.
I'm curious how German law determines what is an "offensive" search. If there's a legal definition, then maybe you can work something, but if "offensive" is determined by the "offended", then Google might as well disable the entire feature as anyone who doesn't like the autocomplete result for their name or term begin banning just about every potentially offensive combination out there.
Freedom of speech is not dead in Germany. The constitution just put a different (higher) weight on personality rights.
In this case, googleing the name "Bettina Wulff" of the first lady would autocomplete to things like "escort" and "prostitute", because some people wrongfully tried to make a past life as a prostitute stick to her public image (which has been shown is just nonsense).
Now, I would agree that it is perfectly reasonable to put a higher weight on the right of free speech. But personality rights, and the right to be protected from libel are also important. Those are two legally protected values that have to be carefully balanced.
Germany already has many anti nazi laws in place. For example holocaust denial is verboten. Google has removed many neo nazi and old style nazi sites for Germany.
TODO create witty sig.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1305790944
German's may not want to watch, in fear of being offended.
Almost there! Try adding 1, so that the maximum value of sense_of_humor isn't 0. I assume german_heritage is already in the range [0,1].
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like, nor does it mean you get an audience.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That Freedom of speech in Germany is dead. Mental note...
Slander is excepted from free speech in a lot of places. Say your name is "Bob Somelastname" and when you type "Bob Somelastname" into google it autosuggests 'pedophile', are you saying you should have no recourse and that should stay up forever?
If a lot of people are entering the search query "Bob Somelastname pedophile" then Google autocomplete will add the word "pedophile" whenever someone types "Bob Somelastname". Google is not trying to be offensive, its just an algorithm that is based on the most common searches. This is simply how it is supposed to work.
People really need to shut the fuck up and stop being "offended" by every little thing.
This is not about search terms or search hits but just about autocomplete. It's not about hiding what you did, but about not slapping people looking for you or your company into the face with terms that come solely from other people searching for something (and maybe even not finding anything).
I mean, if I start to type your name into Google and Google suggests completions of "sells drugs to minors" just because people search for this in connection with your name (or someone else with the same name) you wouldn't be happy either.
Besides: Google already IS redacting autocompletion heavily. It weeds out completions reeking of sex, of anything negative about Google itself... By doing this the completions become an edited publication and Google is responsible for what it "publishes" here.
It's much more about rights (of affected individuals) than about anything else. I don't think there's anything wrong with this. There's nobody else beside Google you can turn to to get this "publication" corrected or to sue (in case of libel), because it's Google who's publishing rumours here.
Exactly. Once more, this German court has confirmed that Germany has no freedom of speech.
Your signature is wrong. You _are_ a complete idiot.
I have a dictionary online.
I have perl.
What's the API for the "notify Google of offensive autocomplete words"?
You don't get this. It's not about "offensive words" but about connecting YOU to things you have nothing to do with just by suggesting completions others have searched for.
So the API is: Type your name into the Google search field and if you get completions that would be libel if published as a headline with your name in it in a newspaper, notify Google as you would notify the newspaper. It's not about search hits or things said on other sites Google just indexed. It's about what Google publishes about YOUR name in the completions and your rights.
If I start searching for "muslim teachings" Google will offer me "muslim terrorist" as soon as I type the first "t".
How long will that hold up if google is held liable for what it's autocomplete algorithm does.
German courts have their heads up their asses on this one. Autocomplete is nothing more than a basic statistical lookup. Germany is basically making the use of statistics a thought crime.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Actually it does, at least in terms of ideas. That's why where freedom of speech is limited in the states, it's not broad but very specific. The idea of fires in theaters, whether in fantasy or theories or reporting on actual fires is not forbidden in the US, just yelling it in cases which can cause a deadly stampede.
Germany otoh, has a free speech clause in it's constitution but has a whole host of illegal ideas, which is the exact opposite of free speech.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
...
If you're referring to Mein Kampf, you're mistaken. Publishing excerpts of it is prosecuted in civil courts, but only because the Bavarian state claims the copyright. When Hitler killed himself, his estate went to the state, including the publishing rights of that book. The copyright is about to expire after which everybody will be free to print copies in Germany.
On the other hand, distribution and use of some symbols commonly associated with Nazi ideology is a prohibited by the law. If and how much freedom of speech is restricted by these laws is a matter of debate. Certainly, the US is more permissive in this regard, but one should not forget that these laws grew out of denazification regulations instituted by the Allied occupation forces after World War 2.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Libel and slander are civil matters in the US; in Germany, they are criminal matters and potentially carry jail terms. Germany also has jail terms (up to three years) for insulting religions.
It's a valid comment, and the problem was that he recognized his own slippery slope and used it to support a bad decision.
Yelling fire in a theater is a bad thing. It's the application of that to "show" that passing out a communist flier should be illegal because it's like yelling fire in a theater. Yelling fire in a theater is illegal, so not all speech is always protected. Now that we are in agreement that we don't have "free speech" in the USA. The follow up question is "where do we draw the line?"
Fire in a theater helps us understand this and leads to discussion on it.
Learn to love Alaska
If a lot of people are entering the search query "Bob Somelastname pedophile" then Google autocomplete will add the word "pedophile" whenever someone types "Bob Somelastname". Google is not trying to be offensive, its just an algorithm that is based on the most common searches.
Sorry, but no. Google already filters out LOTS of things, among them many words related to porn and many things Google doesn't like to see connected to its name if you start to type "Google". Nobody knows what else they filter here. Basically Google is redacting its auto-completion heavily already.
If this were indeed a plain algorithm I would tend to agree with you. But it isn't.
You're the one who isn't getting it. I know where the "problem" originated. I'm pointing out that it is quite possible that some people will find the "autocomplete" suggestions offensive no matter what they are, and you might as well point this out to Google by notifying them about every possible word. The implication, which I'll spell out for the slow ones, is that I would write a perl script that would go through the online dictionary and submit every word as offensive.
You mean like any house owner in Germany could just request his house in Street View to be blanked out?
And of course you would need to point at a specific completion to your name to have it removed. Submitting a wordlist won't do. Even if you would do this it would just mean that your name wouldn't complete to anything. Hardly catastrophic.
And Google does this already anyway, just not for your name but for Google's name and for many porn-related things and who knows what else. People search for a lot of things you'll never see as a auto-completion. And if Google is redacting the completions it is responsible for what it publishes by doing this.
Actually, Germany has not exactly a "freedom of speach" clause in the constitution. Freedom of speach is not even something actually translateable to German (perhaps Redefreiheit?). After all "freedom of speach" taken literally is quite a strange concept, much like "freedom to move".
What Germany has are freedom of opinion, freedom of art, freedom of press and some other things.
If you translate "freedom of speach" to German and then back what you get is "freedom of opinion", which is the freedom to have an opinion and to state your opinion. Which is a much more precise term, because it has not the problem of all those "yelling fire" problems. If you talk about general "speach" you have to determine which speach is protected and which not, because it is obvious that not everything can be protected (heck, even in the US you get a full list of criminal offenses you almost can commit only by speaking or writing). While with opinion it is much easier: If it is an expression of your opinion, it is protected (and absolutely protected, not overrideable by any practical considerations like your "freedom of speach" often is.). If it is about claiming facts (Tatsachenbehauptungen) it is not (ast least not by freedom of opinion).
Yelling fire in a theater is a bad thing. It's the application of that to "show" that passing out a communist flier should be illegal because it's like yelling fire in a theater. Yelling fire in a theater is illegal, so not all speech is always protected. Now that we are in agreement that we don't have "free speech" in the USA. The follow up question is "where do we draw the line?"
Fire in a theater helps us understand this and leads to discussion on it.
Actually it doesn't help because more often than not it is misquoted. The actual quote is:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
The emphasis is mine. Falsely shouting fire in order to create a panic is illegal, or rather the person making the speech is accountable of the resulting harm. However, shouting fire in a crowded movie that is actually on fire is not illegal, as most reasonable people would agree that there is a moral responsibility to letting others know of imminent danger.
Didn't you know, "freedom" is whatever USA has at any given moment? As the liberties change, the definition of freedom changes with it. This is how we can say "land of the free" without choking on the words.
Then you would be busted for false advertising
"Delicious" is an opinion, not a fact. It can't be false but it can be offensive, "offensive" is also an opinion. My own opinion is that the US goes too far with free speech and Germany does not go far enough.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Are you really telling me you wouldn't get a bit offended if Google autocompleted pedophile onto your name?
I am offended by lots of things I read and hear everyday. That does not justify censorship. There is no "right to not be offended."
The general complaint is still true: in Germany (and most other EU countries), the freedom of speech is generally limited to what the majority finds acceptable.
That is not true at all. One can claim the same about the US and just be as correct as that.
In the U.S. the opposite is true. For example, the idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church can say and protest as much as they want, even though 99.999% of the U.S. population absolutely hates them (that includes me). Whould they have lived in Germany, they would have been in jail a long time ago.
Can you name me a law that would have put them in jail? I might be missing what they do, but if they only put those pesky "God hates fags" signs, then I see nothing applicable.
But I will defend their freedom to express themselves
Please, stop that pathetic slogan. You are not defending their freedom. You are defending your misunderstanding of the world.
, in that regard (note the 'in that regard', I'm sure other things are better in .de).
Like in Germany you have a codified freedom of opinion. An matter of opinion can not be an insult and cannot otherwise be against any law (as freedom of opinion tops any other law). From what wikipedia claims with all your "freedom of speach" you do not even have that in the US.
Are you really telling me you wouldn't get a bit offended if Google autocompleted pedophile onto your name?
I am offended by lots of things I read and hear everyday. That does not justify censorship. There is no "right to not be offended."
I was originally talking slander, the person who replied to me said they wouldn't be offended (which I found unlikely), but the original complaint was and still is about slander.
If someone googles your name and they see 'pedophile' come up, they're going to get a strong negative impression of you (especially if it's a somewhat unique name). If your livelihood or reputation is strongly tied to what people see when they look for you online that can have pretty drastic consequences and I'd say that's potentially slanderous.
The fix, telling Google, 'pedophile' and 'fraud' are both really ugly terms and I don't want them suggested with my name since I'm neither, sets a potentially pad precedent but it's particularly damaging to Google.
I stole this Sig
Can you name me a law that would have put them in jail? I might be missing what they do, but if they only put those pesky "God hates fags" signs, then I see nothing applicable.
here you go.
Please, stop that pathetic slogan. You are not defending their freedom. You are defending your misunderstanding of the world.
On the contrary. As soon as those idiots from the WBC are being silenced, someone else will be next. This is the same mechanism that is used for other methods of government surveillance. It starts out as anti-terrorism or anti-child pornography, but will soon be used for petty crimes and regular unwarranted searches.
Like in Germany you have a codified freedom of opinion. An matter of opinion can not be an insult and cannot otherwise be against any law (as freedom of opinion tops any other law). From what wikipedia claims with all your "freedom of speach" you do not even have that in the US.
German law differs a lot from U.S. law. German law is eventually governed by the European Convention on Human Rights. This, in turn, provides an exception for "protection of morals". Which is exactly the clause that undermines the entire protection, as "morals" are locally defined. The U.S. constitution does not have that exception, which is why it is my belief that freedom of speech is better protected in the U.S.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
You are correct in that the nature of free speech limitations can be different in the US vs. Germany. However, the limitations to free speech in the US are actually more broad rather than more specific. In the US, limitations are only based on broad categories such as libel, rather than making specific ideas illegal. For example, I can not legally publicly say that you enjoy frequent coitus with your mother. If false, it is libel/slander, and if true, a violation of your right to privacy (assuming you consider dissemination of such information damaging). But publicly proclaiming you to be a motherfscker is illegal not because statements regarding maternal copulation are explicitly outlawed, but because they fall under a restricted category.
OTOH, the topic of TFA is regarding a category, not a specific idea, specifically speech that violates ones right to privacy. As such, it is conceivable that a US court could make the same ruling that the German court did in this case.
There is little gain in sitting around debating or discussing events from 70+ years ago that have been beaten to death worse than a dead horse.
I would like a law outlawing atheists and Christians from discussing evolution while relating it to religion. It is boring as hell, goes nowhere interesting and you hear the worst possible opinions.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Accountability comes with that.
You see don't Google auto-completing Sergey Brin's name and saying "Did you mean dog rapist?" If it did, don't you think Google would change it ASAP?
Google's marketshare is too large and the use of its services is too widespread to just let some guy's reputation be hurt by offensive autocompletes.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
[I]n terms of content, you can say whatever you damn well please. Any government that doesn't recognize that doesn't recognize freedom of speech.
No.... no you can't. There are things like official secrets. There are things like libel (which although not criminal in itself _is_ backed up by the criminal system - if you don't pay, you go to jail).
There are things like AACS and DeCSS, which made numbers illegal. Just because people get away with it all the time, does not make it not illegal. People have been prosecuted for propagating numbers.
Fraud laws are a restriction on free speech - Fraud, almost by definition is all about speech, if it wasn't it'd be theft.
And of course, there's the big restriction on free speech : copyright.
I'm personally for some restrictions on free speech... people who claim they have absolute free speech are just wrong.
Then again, the States are slipping. Germany does have a number of restrictions (mostly revolving around Nazis or causing violence) but we're utterly bewildered by the American concept of "free speech zones", which apparently allow for the selective exclusion of arbitrary viewpoints from an event. (That's probably not what the law says they do but that's how they seem to be used.)
Come on, guys! We're supposed to defend human dignity to the point of restricting freedom of speech and you're supposed to defend freedom of speech to the point of restricting human dignity. What's next, America requiring all blood in video games to be green? That's our wart, get your own!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)