[escapetech]

This wouldn't be the first time a government is requiring Google to modify their search results. This case parallels the "right to be forgotten" cases brought against them by the EU several years ago. There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent.

In the US, with the murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals occurring at an alarming rate with increasing public outrage, it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her constitutional rights being violated (i.e inability to find employment, friendship, etc), and companies such as Google being forced to comply with the court's rulings.

[kbenson]

> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet

Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person and this is high in many search results, or people are defamed through libel and the jurisdiction doesn't allow allow for a legal remedy?

I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended? Freedom of speech is complicated, and not absolute in the United States. We have laws for libel and slander to prevent just this sort of thing, and I don't usually see those being called a bad idea. Perhaps that should be an indication that this issue isn't as black and white as it's often portrayed, and deserves a more moderate, considered solution.

[escapetech]

> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person.

You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

[kbenson]

> You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record.

So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record?

> The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

That's one potential danger. Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.

[escapetech]

> Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.

Sure, the Cosby trial might be an example of another danger. He was found not guilty despite claims that were ultimately found by a jury of his peers to be baseless or questionable.

But this really isn't about the spectrum of abuse of allegations, but rather the danger in how someone may legally try to suppress publicly available information because of a particular court deeming it in the public interest to.

[jacquesm]

You are confusing a mistrial with a not-guilty verdict.

[escapetech]

Considering that the DA threw everything but the kitchen sink at the Cosby case, a retrial would be either unlikely or unfruitful, given the judge's intentional leaking of juror's names to the press and hinging his judicial career on a guilty verdict prior to the trial, a second trial could result in legitimate claims of malicious prosecution, making any conviction easy to appeal and ultimately overturn by a higher court.

[leereeves]

Nothing imaginary about baseless claims.

False allegations are common enough that allegations shouldn't be reported until proven, but they are.

[IanCal]

> The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good

Off search engines, not the internet.

[thirdsun]

> I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended?

In my opinion it should.

It makes much more sense to fight the actual source of the offending content, those 20 SEO optimized sites containing false information or the company that counterfeits those products (in Google's case). By forcing Google to alter its index you're shooting the messenger and wrongfully consider the problem solved.

[kbenson]

It isn't an either or. You want to do both, because doing one or the other doesn't really solve the problem created. If you can't get the perpetrator for some reason, at least having a way to mitigate the damage is useful. In some cases that might be de-listing in the search engine, in others it might be making a service provider take action. The trick is to not give it undue power so it can be used as a bludgeon where it doesn't make sense, and that balancing act is actually the hard part, IMO.

[abc_lisper]

the only thing one can do now is to change their name :(

[ams6110]

People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty."

If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.

[michaelmrose]

Google isn't portraying otherwise they are a neutral 3rd party providing a conduit for others to communicate.

Having an unbiased conduit is essential for the truth else the conduit for nearly all information in the world will say only what people with money and influence say is correct.

Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet.

The right to be forgotten is a cure worse than the disease.

[kbenson]

> Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet.

Is it? It's not a necessary thing that we must be willing to bear to have freedom of speech in the United States (if you believe we have freedom of speech in the United States). We have libel and slander laws, and other exceptions. I don't see people shouting those down often. Do you believe those should not exist? If not, what makes the internet different?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[labster]

Libel and slander laws can only be applied if you know the identity of the person who did it, and have enough money to hire an attorney to go after the person.

Right now if you google my name, there's a forum out there that says I'm a child molester based on zero evidence, and the only reason it's up is because I am following my legal requirements as a website operator per the ToU to not release personally identifying information on one of my users. I've talked to attorneys about it, but the consensus is that I'd need at least $30k to chase the guy down, with no guarantee of a return at the end, and that in the meantime harassment from this guy would get worse.

So maybe people saying damaging untrue things is a necessary cost for freedom of speech, but it's sure as hell a pain in the ass if you're on the wrong side of it.

[dragonwriter]

> Libel and slander laws can only be applied if you know the identity of the person who did it, and have enough money to hire an attorney to go after the person.

The latter part is true, the former part is less so; you can use John/Jane Doe lawsuits and then subpoena third parties to discover the specific identities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena

[labster]

The problem is there's pretty good evidence that the person is in another country, based on activity time, etc. The problem isn't that I can't file, the problem is that there's no guarantee I can find someone actionable on the the other side of the filing.

[michaelmrose]

I have a feeling with a bit of research you could start enough of a lawsuit to convince the website to give up the information for less than $100 a few hours of work.

If they were reluctant their host might well be willing to drop them to avoid being dragged into it.

YOU can probably avoid thousands of dollars in costs by doing a bit of legwork they probably aren't as lucky.

[labster]

The website in question is owned by the libelous one, so the first idea won't work.

As far as the host, the problem turns into the same one as the IP enforcement has: Kill one head, and two more appear. My slanderer appears to not have a job, so it's no problem for him to keep moving on and getting new hosting. And for the next host he lands on, I've made myself a real target of that website.

Half the time I feel like this is a real problem with UBI proposals -- if we let people have free time all day, a certain fraction is going to waste it with libel or gamergate or SJW stuff, where the people who actually do something with their lives get attacked for no apparent reason. Like, I'm a huge fan of UBI, but without social support for self-worth outside of paid work, it's going to create a whole new set of social problems. Still a more tractable problem than poverty, I'd hope.

[CobrastanJorji]

> If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder.

That is not the case. You are describing "found innocent." "Not guilty" is just that: the absence of having been found guilty of a crime.

In other words, legally that person has not been found to be guilty of murder, but they also have not been found to have not committed murder. Nothing has been found one way or the other.

[KGIII]

Hmm...

In America, we find people not guilty. We also uphold the innocent until proven guilty thing. Perhaps your jurisdiction is different?

If they are not found guilty, the presumption is innocence.

[throwaway2048]

The presumption is innocence within the criminal justice system. It is not proof of innocence, nor a statement of innocence.

This has legal ramifications in the civil justice system (the one where somebody sues another), where the barrier of judgment is a "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

OJ Simpson escaped a murder charge with a verdict of not guilty, but was found in civil court to have committed the tort of "wrongful death", and had to pay a lot of money (civil court cannot jail you).

Does anyone really think OJ Simpson was actually innocent?

[CobrastanJorji]

I agree with you. I think we're simply going around in circles because English is weird.

People who have not yet been found guilty are presumed to be innocent. You are absolutely correct. However, the statement I disagreed with was different. It was "If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder." Legally, that person is presumed innocent, like everyone else, but being found not guilty grants no special "definitely didn't commit murder" status.

[deepsun]

Should be not <found "not guilty">, but <not found "guilty">, I believe.

[nerdponx]

"Not guilty" is a common enough phrase in English that you can use it like an adjective and native speakers will know what you mean. Pedantically, you might want to spell it "not-guilty".

[dragonwriter]

"not guilty" is the usual verdict. One is either "guilty" or "not guilty"; the latter is legally innocent, there is no third state.

[Analemma_]

It's not going to be the last time either. Sovereign countries are waking up to the dangers of letting the internet be run by 5 huge American companies, and they're not going to continue to take "the internet is global, your sovereignty isn't" as answer for why their laws and court orders can't be enforced. This is the beginning of widespread internet Balkanization, for better or worse.

[escapetech]

Yes, with matters like censorship and human rights abuses being allowed to continue under the guise of "national sovereignty" and "states rights", then yes, the Balkanization of information flow is the only outcome we can expect.

[dmix]

> There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent.

Yes, this sounds bad for the internet in many ways. One recent particular case comes to mind of this guy who is suing Encyclopedia Dramatica (a 4-chan style wiki with a satirical and intentionally humorous backstory for most internet memes). The banner on top of their site asking for donations for a legal battle now says:

>> "JONATHAN MONSARRAT FILED A SLAPP SUIT AGAINST US. "

SLAPP = https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public...

This is a guy who had a profile on the wiki because he was internet famous setting up a fake dating site while a student at MIT in order to get preference to message all girls who signed up. He was investigated for harassing girls. http://hlrecord.org/2003/04/dating-service-creator-accused-o...

He's also a known lawsuit troll who is trying to repair his name in search engines via DMCA claims and lawsuits. He has also sued online commenters who spoke ill about him: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130608/08444123372/jonat...

More about the latest lawsuit here: http://theralphretort.com/encyclopedia-dramatica-in-danger-o...

This just offers people like him another outlet to waste peoples time in court.

But in practice the Streisand Effect has the opposite effect of actually helping him protect his name so I really wonder what practical benefits this really provides anyone.

It seems like there are far more illegitimate reasons for this to be used than good ones. And considering there is no automated way to filter these I'm much more inclined to say there should NOT be a centrally controlled way to remove things from being listed on Google in this way.

Even with this particular court case if a business moves away or shuts down then Google's algorithms will eventually downgrade the ranking of the companies presence online in relation to that location. If they want a global presence then it's up to them to outrank other sites by getting press or for Google to properly flesh out the better sites.

This is a problem that is obviously better solved by Google's engineers than the courts.

[redm]

"court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet on the grounds that his or her constitutional rights being violated"

"Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought."

So if they are found innocent, it wasn't Murder thus the scenario your suggesting is not valid. The principle of Innocent until Provent Guilty still applies and is a fundamental tenant of American law.

[toomuchtodo]

You're confusing murder and manslaughter. Murder requires a level of intent. Manslaughter does not.

[redm]

I believe you misunderstood my point/opinion.

The original comment stated a murderer (alleged in this case) is tried and found innocent of Murder by a court of law and then, due to this ruling, may take down information to the extent it defames them.

My point was that if a Judge/Jury acquited the alleged murderer, then they are, by definition, not guilty of murder.

Of course, it's rarely that black and white, i.e. OJ Simpson or someone getting off on a technicality, but since were discussing this at a high and abstract level, the alleged murderer should not be considered and treated as a murderer.

Furthermore, my second point was that everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and be innocent until proven guilty. The fictitious person in question should never have been called a murderer in the first place, just an alleged murder.

[toomuchtodo]

I believe I did misunderstand your point. Thank you for the clarification.

[greglindahl]

Google has been ordered to do stuff by courts many times -- that's not new. The unusual thing about this case is that Google is being ordered by Canada to do something worldwide, for a bunch of people who have nothing to do with Canada.