How Far Should Google Go To Protect User Privacy In Lawsuits?
from the questions-questions dept
We've already discussed the ridiculous circumstances under which a model, Liskula Cohen, ended up getting a judge to order Google to reveal an anonymous blogger who Cohen felt defamed her by calling her a "skank," among other things. That no longer anonymous blogger, Rosemary Port, is now planning to sue Google, though it seems her chances of winning are slim to none. Still, the whole thing did raise questions about the level to which Google should go to protect the anonymity of people who use its services.This issue is getting more attention, as Google has apparently alerted some anonymous Caribbean journalists that it may hand over their information due to a defamation lawsuit filed against the journalists, concerning their investigations into corruption in the famed vacation resort Turks & Caicos Islands. One of the people accused of being involved in the corruption filed the lawsuit, and Google sent the site a letter, saying:
To comply with the law, unless you provide us with a copy of a motion to quash the subpoena (or other formal objection filed in court) via email at legal-support@google.com by 5pm Pacific Time on September 16, 2009, Google will assume you do not have an objection to production of the requested information and may provide responsive documents on this date.Some are making a big "First Amendment" deal out of this, but it's not clear that's such a huge deal. Google, as a private company, can choose to reveal that information, and appears to be properly notifying the people in question of the legal situation and allowing them to respond. But, of course, some insist that Google should stand up for the privacy rights of its users, and there's an argument to be made there. How far should Google be expected to go to defend the privacy of its users in the face of a court order or subpoena? Given Google's reputation as being user friendly, many would expect it to go quite far, but is that reasonable? Is there a balance between obeying court orders and subpoenas and fighting for its users' rights? Or should Google always default to defending its users' rights as far as possible?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ip addresses, journalism, privacy, reporting, turks & caicos
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Flip the question
How far would a person go to protect family or friend? Would you lie or "go silent" in the face of a judges order in court?
What about an mere acquaintance or business associate? How far would you go?
Now keep in mind, Google is not a relative nor is Google your best friend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a) doesn't hand over the information without a court order/subpeona
b) gives the affected user enough advance warning to fight it in court
then I don't see too many problems.
Can a lawyer file a motion to quash on behalf on "John Doe" - i.e. file the motion without revealing the defendant's identity to the ccurt?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One of the things about being an "innocent host" is that they should be entirely and completely cooperative with court orders, summons, and other legal requests. It would be up to the user(s) that is affected by the legal action to do their work if and when they actually get served.
Google gains nothing from being obstructionist, if anything, they run the risk of finding themselves getting into further legal trouble by no cooperating. It's pretty simple, nothing to lose by cooperating, more to lose by being obstructionist.
This should be the basic requirements of any "innocent ISP / Host" deal. If it isn't you, you need to tell the court who your client / customer / user is. There should be no middle ground.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google hosts content for FREE, it's supposed to provide free legal defense too?? Giving users an opportunity to defend themselves is the right thing.
Also note that when the DOJ wanted search records en mass, Google was the only one who fought it. Those are the privacy battles they should be fighting, not providing free legal services to random individual's personal conflicts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Otherwise spurious legal claims are too heavy a of a cudgel in violating the anonymity of those who need it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think its complicated
Not only do I feel like this would be a kind gesture, but perhaps with the legal backing and technological giant influence, I think the outcome could fix laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Very Complex...
I personally hate that these people and companies overreact to mouthy bloggers and I really support protecting anonymity just to shut down frivolous lawsuits. I would like to think that if I were in Google's position I would fight tooth and nail to protect this ideology of mine. But I really can't say for sure what I would do because if you go too far then you risk shutting down your business and making your employees lose their jobs and I can't support that results either.
In this case, I think Google did the right thing by notifying the user weeks in advance so that they can take steps to protect their anonymity if they choose to do so. The whole situation is very frustrating. But I would like to see them focus on changing laws to protect all rights instead of protecting a few individuals that started the fight by running their mouths too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
While I agree with you conceptually, let me ask a question: what if it IS defamatory? What if the "reporters" lied?
I'm not saying that's the case here. I assume it's really corruption. But if someone proves in court that there is defamation, then shouldn't Google give up the info? Otherwise it's a free pass to lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Not that I agree totally with the A.C. Google should not immediately handover user information without giving the user a chance to respond. Which sounds pretty much like what they are doing anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Infringe everything infringeable. Always.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Infringe everything infringeable. Always.
Funny stuff, as always. Please keep it up. But, seriously, you could try a little harder. I mean, there isn't any gov't granted monopoly for privacy and your identity is actually a scarce good... but, I know, I know... nitpicking a joke. I just think you could do a better job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't be Evil
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hosting blogs .. ur doin' it rite
Google receives a legal request. They forward that on to the relevant party and advise them of what has transpired. The person can then take whatever action they see fit.
Google shouldn't breach the law for a vitriolic individual. To improve user's rights sure, but not for some sheila who may or may not be accurate in labelling the other party a skank. It's the blogger's opinion so -they- should defend it. Google's given them opportunity to avoid it in the case mentioned above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keep it simple unless it's a special case
At least in the USA, it's not Google's fight, to fight, unless the request was some absurd mass exposure situation foolishly requested by a stupid judge or some nonsensical law getting passed somewhere, and they chose to take a stand.
For more mundane court issues (libel, defamation, harassment, etc.) it's not their battle, nor any other provider's, nor should it be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You couldnt be any more wrong.
If google alienates its users, they will leave google, and then google will go out of business.
If google spends its resources protecting its users, it will suffer slightly in profits, but will increase the loyalty of its userbase protecting its future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
* The company refuses to give the U.S. government records of impersonal data regarding searches that threaten no one, but happily provides information about potential dissidents to the tyrannical, repressive dictators in Beijing.
China. Different country, different laws. In China, they would have been arrested if they didn't reveal this information, and then? Well, the government would have gotten the names, anyways.
* The company disregards commemorations of national American holidays such as Memorial Day, but never forgets to remind users about Halloween and Earth Day.
This is their choice if they skip over some holidays, of course, but I've not seen them 'miss' a holiday for us. You could always ask them why they missed it? But then again, they didn't miss Independence Day, did they. Huh.
* The company has refused to link to some news sources critical of radical Islam, but hosts blogs containing homosexual pornography.
Again, this is a choice. They can get into the middle of the religious boondoggle, or leave it alone. Perhaps they are looking after the safety of their employees? But you'd rather they stick out the necks of the people who work for them to satisfy your burning hatreds, right?
* The company hosts blogs promoting "boy love" and sexual relationships between men and adolescents, but refuses to run ads from a Christian ministry to homosexuals.
Let me see, they allow what they want, and avoid what many consider to be hate speech, right? Well, not always. So they're a little inconsistent, right? Start your own hate mongering search engine?
* The company's top executive presides over a business that makes it easy to find out nearly anything about anyone, but protests when people use his service to find out about him.
Yeah, that's standard hypocrisy. Live with it, because it happens in ALL companies.
* The company has blocked ads attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton, but welcomes ads attacking President Bush and other Republican leaders.
Yeah? And your point is...?
* The company, apparently in its bid to romance Beijing, wiped Taiwan, an independent and free island nation, off the face of its Internet maps.
Did they do that for China? Or for Taiwan? Seems a lot of countries don't like Google Maps, most particularly for the street view feature.
* The company, one of the great free enterprise success stories of the decade, gives nearly all of its political donations to those who seek to rein in and regulate capitalism.
So because they do what they believe with their own money, in a society that is open to doing such things so long as they are legal, and this is, they are evil? Sorry, not buying it.
Go shill somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a modest proposal
The best way to protect your clients' private information is not to collect it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a blogger
I'll see if I can find the article again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a blogger
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/08/31/googles-not-fighting-gmail-subpoenas/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not a blogger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Isn't that what this discovery is about? Setting up that case? Seems a bit circular.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right and wrong does not end at borders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unless it cost you money
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google at fault?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a blogger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Now those "foreign property developers" have filed suite in California asking for the IP address of the TCI Journal's email account with Gmail.
From the way TFA reads it says that the file sent to wikileaks was the original court document and there was a court order that said the media could not report on it. But that was overturned. FTA: "The Commission of Inquiry Final Report was released on the 18th of July this year in significatly redacted form. A full version was released by WikiLeaks. A High Court case ensued which initially enjoined all media in the Islands from reporting the redacted findings, however within a few days this restriction was overturned.".
So basically, the company asking for the info from Google did not like the fact that their name showed up in the court document and made it online. So they filed a supoena for information. Again, FTA: "Subpoenas for records are rubber-stamped by US courts, meaning that anyone in a position to start law suits in California can obtain private information about Gmail users who are not in a position to respond in kind, including cash-strapped corruption busting journalists from the Caribbean."
Sounds to me like this is a case of abuse by a powerful company. Not a case of the "leak" being illegal.
But who are we to let the facts get in the way...Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But then again. He may not. Unless there are lots more Rick Pool's out there. Of course I'm sure he's not the "Rick's Pools" in southern california. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Flip the question
"Don't be evil" generally implies following court orders in a reasonably timely manner, and does not include expensive defense of someone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Search away
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Search away
And if you read the rest of my comments you would have seen that I did agree with you that the docuement was leaked, full document, while the official copy was redacted. However, the court later determined that the un-redacted copy was not in violation and was not at issue with it being released.
Furthermore, I take exception to you assuming that I'm uneducated, for all you know, I work for the company in the article. How does being "anonymous", especially in a forum where everyone is that way regardless of what you say your name is, even begin to point at ones education, or lack thereof?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]