Donald Trump Happily Repeating Lie About Google Autocomplete Suppressing Negative Hillary News

from the lies-lies-lies dept

While politics isn't generally a topic we dive into around here, technology policy and issues certainly are. And, since presidential election cycles infect every conceivable topic like a wine stain spreading across your favorite couch, we've talked about the two mainstream candidates quite a bit recently. And I get the complaints from all sides against both candidates, but it's become somewhat breathtaking to watch Donald Trump build a campaign in large part on nonsensical and easily debunked conspiracy theories, such as how the planned internet governance transition will cede control of the web to China and Russia, or that our current sitting President might be a secret communist Muslim clay-person, but maybe not.

And, of course, there is the constant claim of victim-hood at the hands of that damned liberal establishment, which now apparently includes Google. Some background for you is in order. Over the summer, a really dumb video went viral after claiming to show that Google was manipulating autocomplete searches to keep any bad press out of the results for searches about Hillary Clinton. Compared with Bing, for instance, Google's autocomplete failed to finish off a search for "Hillary Clinton cr" with "Hillary Clinton crimes", instead completing as "Hillary Clinton Crimea." While your drunk uncle lost his goddamned mind over a conspiracy surely proven, Google chimed in to note that it specifically designed its autocomplete feature to keep disparaging results from anyone's name, not just Hill-Dog's. This was easily shown by putting in "Donald Trump cr", which likewise autocompleted as "Donald Trump Crimea."

And that really should have been the end of that. But, because Donald Trump's campaign isn't one to pass on a good chem-trails story, its candidate tried to deflect a general panning of his debate performance by repeating this already disproved accusation.

While discussing polling numbers at a rally in Wisconsin on Wednesday, Donald Trump offhandedly accused Google of manipulating search results in favor of rival Hillary Clinton, because hey, why not?

“The Google poll has us leading Hillary by two points nationwide,” said Trump. “And that’s despite the fact that Google’s search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton, how about that? How about that?”

I'm always reminded of a supposed quote from Michael Jordan back in the 90's when a reporter asked him why he didn't endorse political candidates, despite such an endorsement being so potentially powerful. His response was supposedly something along the lines of: "Because Republicans buy gym shoes, too." Imagine for a moment if Google, in the business of making money essentially by getting as many people as possible to use its search engine, decided to alienate roughly half of the American population by trying to dick around with search results for a political candidate. It would literally have to hate money to take such an action. Anyone think that Google hates money?

And, separately, I know that politicians generally lie, and have for quite some time, but it used to be that a candidate for president wouldn't simply be able to say something easily refuted and get away with it. I don't mean refuted in a murky way that can be debated. This conspiracy theory that Trump is continuing to raise has been debunked. It isn't a real thing. Yet he continues to repeat it. Some in the media may even call him out on the lie, but those that do will be accused of liberal bias and the whole thing will feed the playback loop.

This can't be a good method for picking our national leaders.

Filed Under: autocomplete, conspiracy theory, debunked, donald trump, hillary clinton, search results
Companies: google

Lawsuit Claims Accidental Google Search Led To Years Of Government Investigation And Harrassment

from the so-plausible-yet-so-bizarre dept

We've seen a few lawsuits filed over autocomplete suggestions, but those have all been aimed at Google by people who failed to understand a) how search engines work, and b) the unintended consequences of their actions. Targeting a search engine for unflattering autocomplete suggestions tends to make the problem worse. Each legal effort only results in more stories "confirming" the autocomplete suggestions.

This lawsuit is a bit different. The plaintiff is arguing that an accidental search triggered by an autocomplete suggestion ruined his life. But it's not Google's fault. It's… well, it's pretty much damn near everyone else.

Jeffrey Kantor, who was fired by Appian Corporation, sued a host of government officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry in Federal Court, alleging civil rights violations, disclosure of private information and retaliation…

He also sued Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Rand Beers, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, EPA Administrator Regina McCarthy and U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director Katherine Archuleta.

That's a lot of big names, all of which are somehow related to Jeffrey Kantor's errant search, a mistake anyone could have made. But in this era of pervasive surveillance, a mistake may be all it takes.

"In October of 2009, Kantor used the search engine Google to try to find, 'How do I build a radio-controlled airplane,'" he states in his complaint. "He ran this search a couple weeks before the birthday of his son with the thought of building one together as a birthday present. After typing, 'how do I build a radio controlled', Google auto-completed his search to, 'how do I build a radio controlled bomb.'"

From that point on, Kantor alleges coworkers, supervisors and government investigators all began "group stalking" him. Investigators used the good cop/bad cop approach, with the "bad cop" allegedly deploying anti-Semitic remarks frequently. In addition, his coworkers at Appian (a government contractor) would make remarks about regular people committing murder-suicides (whenever Kantor expressed anger) or how normal people just dropped dead of hypertension (whenever Kantor remained calm while being harassed).

Kantor also claims he was intensely surveilled by the government from that point forward.

He claims government officials monitored his book purchases and home computer, and implied that everything he did was being monitored…

Kantor [also] claims the stalking spilled over into his personal life when the government secretly attached a GPS antenna to his car to track him.

Kantor alleges this harassment continued long after he lost his job at Appian (who he's currently suing as well). The claims of stalking, harassment and surveillance fill a great deal of the 33-page filing. His suit also claims that personal information obtained through "FISA warrants" was routinely used against him (and repeated back to him) by a number of people -- the so-called "group stalking" or "gang stalking."

Kantor also makes the rather novel claim that the statute of limitations (for incidents over 2 years old) doesn't apply because the exposure of the NSA's PRISM program (which is how the accused apparently gathered much of Kantor's private info) didn't occur until 2013.

Section 223 of the Patriot Act gives citizens two years from the time they discover that their civil rights have been violated to sue. These privacy violations occurred between 2010 and 2013. Many of the privacy violations occurred in the last two years. Other violations that Kantor alleges occurred in 2010 and early 2011, which is beyond 2 years. However, the law says that the timeline is based on when the citizen had a reasonable chance to discover the violation. Since the PRISM program was only declassified in July of 2013, these earlier violations should not be time-barred.

All in all, the filing doesn't build a very credible case and comes across more as a paranoiac narrative than a coherent detailing of possible government harassment and surveillance. Here are just a few of the highlights.

One day in 2010, Kantor went to an adult web site from his home computer. The next day at work, a CRGT manager, Tony Buzanca, came up to Kantor, who was working at his computer, bent over and whispered in Kantor's ear, "people who go to pom sites are going to hell." Kantor contends that the government monitored Kantor's internet traffic, disclosed this private information to Buzanca, and had Buzanca repeat it back to Kantor for the purpose of harassment and group stalking. There was no legitimate investigative purpose to this disclosure of Kantor's private information, which must have been obtained through the Patriot Act enabled FISA warrant...

Two days before Kantor requested to be transferred, he drove to a park area of Ft Belvoir after work. He hiked on a trail and retumed to his car, which was in an isolated area (where no one normally parks). There was a van next to his car and there were three men. As Kantor returned to his car, one man said to the other, "He has been here two years 'and he won't quit. I guess he is trying to prove a point." Kantor later discovered that an antenna had been affixed to his Audi A4. The government must have been using GPS tracking to track Kantor and the stalkers were using this GPS information to follow Kantor around and stalk him…

Kantor had driven to lunch with his Appian manager, Mike Kang. Mike Kang asked Kantor what movies his wife likes. Kantor answered and politely asked Mike Kang what movies his wife likes. Kang stated that his wife likes "the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and the "Harry Potter" movies. Kantor thought that this was strange since at the time the only version of "the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" that existed was in Swedish and Harry Potter was a kids' movie. Kantor also thought this was disturbing because those were the exact two books that he was reading, and he had borrowed these books from his local library. The second book Kantor was reading to his son…

As Kantor left work that afternoon, he was followed by an African-American man in a suit. The man sat across from Kantor on the Metro train. At the West Falls Church exit, which is one stop before the Dunn Loring exit, the man got up and started screaming at the top of his lungs at Kantor, "You respect my privacy, I'll respect your privacy, bitch!" He screamed this around five times at Kantor at the top of his lungs, and then got off the train right as the doors were about to close...

[Kantor' boss] also sent Kantor an email that said, "It's the end of the world as we know it." Kantor forwarded the email to his house. The next day he showed his father, Lawrence Kantor Jr, the email, with the title, "It's the End of the World as We Know It" and Kantor's browser history, which showed that he had emailed for the chords and lyrics to REM's "It's the end of the World as We Know It" the night before his manager sent him the email. This group stalking had occurred hundreds if not thousands of times, but this was an instance where there was digital proof and a witness on Kantor's side that had seen it in action…

Kantor in this very draft alleged that he was being wrongly investigated as a terrorist and complained overhearing his coworkers saying that his car was being searched for an AK--47. In the evening of 8/5/2013, a Vienna police officer walked into the volunteer office and said to Kantor and the three other volunteers in the room, "So this is where all the terrorists hang out. I am going to go look for an AK-47." The police officer then left. He said nothing prior to this comment and nothing after it. Kantor had never seen the police officer before or hence. This illustrates that the privacy violations and group stalking are still occurring. Is Kantor supposed to Contact the town police and complain that police officers are stalking him (which is a crime that they themselves like the FBI are supposed to be preventing, instead of engaging in)?

Kantor has retained Christopher Swift of Swift & Swift, an attorney who apparently specializes in patent law, to represent him in this lawsuit against several government officials. The lawsuit seeks $13.8 million in compensatory damages and $45 million in statutory damages, as well as an injunction against the government to prevent it from further stalking him.

But that's not all!

The lawsuit also asks the judge to find that the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional and illegal and order the FBI to turn over all calls and contacts where violations of the PATRIOT Act are alleged to the DoJ and the administration's "privacy advocate."

Now, there are a couple of ways of looking at this. Kantor may have undiagnosed mental issues which have led him to believe everyone (at several consecutive jobs) is out to get him and has access to his personal info. Certainly, the idea that the government has access to all of this info is less dubious than it was back in 2009 when the harassment allegedly began, but the rambling nature of this filing (which was apparently written with the assistance of an attorney) sounds a bit more like unhinged near-ravings than a blow-by-blow account of long-term harassment.

On the other hand, there would be no better way for the government to harass someone out of the workforce (while maintaining plausible deniability) than to create a situation so over the top and ridiculous that it instantly strips the victim of all credibility. So, there's that to consider as well.

The alleged starting point (the wrong Google search) is also not that far off either, as far as that goes. With certain keywords triggering NSA activity, it's not exactly paranoid to express a concern that a few erroneous searches could result in some sustained surveillance.

Filed Under: autocomplete, google search, paranoia

Japan The Latest Country To Mistakenly Say Google Is 'Responsible' For Autocomplete Results

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

Following on similar results in France and Italy, a court in Japan has ridiculously ordered Google to change its autocomplete results after a guy there got upset that when people searched for his name, one of the autocomplete results involved his name and a criminal act which he did not commit. As we've explained over and over again, autocomplete is not someone at Google suggesting this is what the guy did, but rather an algorithmic look at what other people are searching for. Censoring that is silly. It's censoring factual information. It is true that the search on those terms leads to an apparently faked document which slandered the guy, but you'd think that any legal action would be targeted at whoever made that site, not at Google.

And, yet, the court has said that Google must block the truthful display of what people have searched for.

"A situation has been created by which illegally submitted documents can be easily viewed," chief judge Hisaki Kobayashi was quoted as saying by the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.

It seems bizarre that the response to this is to go after Google instead of whoever created and uploaded the false document. Get rid of that document, by the person who allegedly really slandered the guy, and you likely solve the overall problem, without trying to interfere with Google's algorithms.

As the article notes, an injunction had been issued earlier in the case, which Google ignored. Also, Google doesn't even run a data center in Japan, so it's unclear how much jurisdiction the Japanese court even has over forcing Google to change its system.

Either way, it's getting fairly ridiculous to see so many courts blame Google for the fact that it can find stuff that other people did.

Filed Under: autocomplete, japan
Companies: google

Another Lawsuit Filed For Google Autocomplete 'Defamation'

from the suing-algorithms-for-fun-and-profit! dept

Another day, another lawsuit filed against Google for defamation-via-search-results. And, yet again, it's being filed in a country that has proven amenable towards plaintiffs who somehow feel a search algorithm has the power to defame.

This time the plaintiff is Guy Hingston, an Australian cancer surgeon. His complaint revolves around the fact that Google's autocomplete suggests he's all out of money.

Guy Hingston, an Australian cancer surgeon, sued Google in Federal Court.

"When an individual computer user types 'Guy Hin ...', into the Google search engine as a search, the words 'Guy Hingston Bankrupt' appears," the complaint states. "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." (Parentheses and grammar as in complaint).

"Dr. Hingston is a surgeon practicing in Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia," the complaint states. "Dr. Hingston's surgical practice focuses on breast cancer. Given his professional practice and position in his community, maintaining his good reputation is critical. Dr. Hingston has lost a number of patients and financiers who are refusing to associate and/or deal with Dr. Hingston as a consequence of the reference on Google to a bankruptcy."

While this may be true, it seems odd that potential patients and financiers wouldn't actually follow through with the search term, which lists one link related to bankruptcy. (At this point there's more, thanks to Hingston filing this suit -- something those filing these types of suits fail to consider.) Clicking through on that link brings up details on a bankruptcy filing by Eclipse Aviation. A commenter has reposted a Port MacQuarie news story that links Dr. Guy Hingston to bankruptcy -- via CoastJet Group, seven companies Hingston "principally controlled" that ceased operation when Eclipse Aviation went under.

Port Macquarie surgeon Guy Hingston bought the 19-year-old business 2½ years ago.

Dr Hingston said the main reason for CoastJet’s demise was the loss of a $2.8 million deposit on two new jets when American company Eclipse Aviation Corporation went into bankruptcy. The business was made more vulnerable, he said, by its heavy investment in a new partnership with Sweden’s Lund University School of Aviation.

He said CoastJet was preparing for its first intake of 24 students from Sweden at the end of March.

Dr Hingston said he and CoastJet’s staff were devastated. “We had two jets we were about to take delivery of, but with the manufacturer going bankrupt, we’ve lost everything,” he said.

The jets were destined to for CoastJet’s growing air ambulance service, Dr Hingston said, as well as for international airline pilot training and charters.

A later story appears at the same site, detailing the eventual sale of CoastJet to a Chinese investor, which again mentions bankruptcy and liquidation. Both of these stories make Hingston's claim that "Guy Hingston bankrupt" link leads to article(s) that "have absolutely nothing to do with a bankruptcy associated with Dr. Hingston" completely false. He may not like the perception the words "Guy," "Hingston" and "bankrupt" give when placed next to each other in an autocomplete suggestion, but there's nothing inherently defamatory about having those words appear next to each, especially when it produces relevant search results.

Hingston claims Google's automatic search result is defamatory, show him in a false light, and are "highly offensive to a reasonable person."

He claims Google was "was negligent in determining the truth of the information or whether a false impression would be created by its publication."

"This issue, and Google's continued failure to remedy this issue, despite numerous demands to do so, has caused significant harm and economic loss to Dr. Hingston in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court," the complaint states.

Hingston seeks at least $75,000 in damages for false light, and court costs.

But the search isn't "negligent" or "highly offensive," unless the person searching for Hingston does nothing more than stare at the completion suggestion and draw all their conclusions from that single, incomplete phrase. Hingston is the only person "offended" by this search suggestion, and any "negligence" is solely on the heads of financiers, etc. who are unwilling to perform even the slightest bit of due diligence when researching Dr. Hingston. Every other link for Hingston points you in the direction of his apparently successful practice and book sales/public speaking sideline. And it must be pointed out again that Hingston is suing over one autocomplete suggestion, rather than the results of those searches.

It's really hard to see how this will come down in favor of the plaintiff, but then again, if judicial systems didn't occasionally head off the deep end, lawsuits like this one would very rarely be filed. 

Filed Under: australia, autocomplete, bankruptcy, defamation, guy hingston, liability
Companies: google

Google Drops 'Bisexual' From Its Taboo Words List

from the might-have-to-replace-it-with-'Santorum' dept

While I just wrote about the difficulty Google has put itself in with its selective enforcement of banning autocomplete terms, the search company also recently removed one such term from its oft-referred to "dirty words" list, which de-prioritizes results in its search algorithm.

The Advocate has the story of how, at the urging of bisexual advocacy organization BiNet USA, Google has dropped the word Bisexual from the results-altering list.

At the urging of bisexual advocacy organization BiNet USA, Google unblocked the term “bisexual,” and phrases such as “bisexual quotes,” “bisexual rights,” and “bisexual parenting” are now automatically suggested to Google users as of this month.

According to the article, since 2009, the word "bisexual" has been considered to be of the same ilk for Google search results as such fun terms as: bestiality, baby batter, gang bang, goatse, and many more (hat tip to 2600, and fair warning: if words can be NSFW, some of those are). While not all of those demoted search terms are treated equally, the idea that "bisexual" ranks as a banned word is ridiculous.

No matter what you think of bisexuality, the word "bisexual" is not a "dirty" word. To have "bisexual" on the list when "heterosexual", "homosexual", "trisexual" and "asexual" are not was just stupid. Fortunately, the Goog has reversed policy and dropped the word from the list completely. As BiNet USA notes, it will take some time for the search results to catch up, but at least the bisexual community can begin to be heard.

“It’s not every day one of the biggest companies in the world changes its mind, but we are thankful that Google now sees bisexual people just like everyone else,” said BiNet USA president Faith Cheltenham. “It will take time for bisexual search terms to be ranked as they were before the ban, but now bisexual people and their allies have a fighting chance to be seen, heard, and understood.”

Filed Under: autocomplete, banned words, bisexual
Companies: google

Google's Autocomplete Dilemma: Every Concession Makes It Easier For The Next Person To Complain

from the infringement-vs.-defamation dept

Back when Google decided to be the arbiter of what words were strictly for infringement in its previously useful autocomplete function, some of us saw the looming danger of such a move, in that it opens up Google to requests for all kinds of autocomplete modifications. The theory was that Google could placate movie studios and record labels by refusing to let autocomplete add words like "torrent" to searches, because lord knows that there isn't a legitimate use for those damned things.

But the problem with the permission culture is that it lives by that old adage: give an inch and they will take a mile. So, as was inevitable, what began with "torrent" and media files soon became fights over autocompletes like "jew" and non-infringing search results. And, as Google opens the door another inch each time it caves in, the floodgates continue to threaten. It would be problematic for Google to assert selective moderation of autocomplete. If they will block autocomplete terms for media files, why not defamation? If they'll block defaming terms, why not parodies? If they'll block parodies, why not controversial negative articles?

That's how we've arrived in a world where the wife of a disgraced former German President is suing Google because autocomplete offers suggestions like "escort" and "prostitute" to complete a search of her name. Bettina Wulff is the wife of Christian Wulff, who resigned the Presidency amid allegations of corruption earlier in his career. For whatever reason, there have long been rumors that she had a colorful past and those rumors spread like wildfire on the internet.

"My pseudonym is supposedly 'Lady Victoria' and my workplace was apparently an establishment called 'Chateau Osnabrück,'" Wulff writes, according to Bild. She continues: "I have never worked as escort." The rumors have been very hurtful for her and her family, Wulff writes, describing her concern that her young son Leander might discover the speculation while surfing the Internet.

Wulff, working with her lawyers, has successfully sent a myriad of cease and desist notices to bloggers and television personalities, some of them quite well known in Germany. Assuming the allegations are as false as she claims, that's all good. But now she's bringing Google into the mix because autocomplete...you know...works the way it's supposed to.

But last week they took on Internet giant Google too, filing a defamation suit with the Hamburg district court to force the search engine to remove a long list of damaging terms recommended by its "Autocomplete" function in connection with Wulff. Google, which has refused to comply, claims that the search suggestions are simply the result of an algorithm. The company seems confident about the lawsuit, having won similar cases in court with claims that the search engine only reflects what people search for most often online.

But... thanks to Google's double standard in editing for copyright, it's making it easy for some to argue that it should also do the same for stories like this one:

Simply put, Google's position is this: In response to pressure from a powerful lobby, the company will block search terms and hits, forcing undesirable results lower on their list of links. But when it comes to individual people, Google unscrupulously links users to websites that violate their personal rights.

[....]It would appear that Google's position on intervening in search results and suggestions depends on the influence of the parties involved. It hides links to pirated material, but not those that violate personal rights, and it places links to its own products prominently in its supposedly objective results.

Google appears to choose what is objectionable based on what might be bad for business. The company may well come through Bettina Wulff's suit legally unscathed. But ethically, questions will remain. Google's choices in the matter seem opportunistic. Given the quasi-monopolist's powerful position in the market, that is unsettling.

Whether or not you agree those claims are accurate, you can't deny that Google made such arguments much, much easier when it started editing autocompletes and search results in favor of copyright holders.

Despite what I think is a common sense notion that Google shouldn't need to bend its autocomplete algorithm under notions of comfort, the fact that it's opened the door to doing this before will make replying to this and other suits more problematic. A Google spokesperson is quoted in the article saying that the company won't give in this time because its autocomplete suggestions are objective. That may have once been the case, but it simply isn't any more.

Filed Under: autocomplete, bettina wulff, defamation, double standard, edited results, germany, search
Companies: google

Google Works Out Deal Concerning 'Jew' Suggestions In France

from the what-kind-of-deal? dept

Back in May, we wrote about a ridiculous lawsuit in France, where Google was being sued because when people searched on the names of certain famous people, sometimes Google's autocomplete feature would show the name with the word "jew" or "jewish." Of course, if you understand how Google works, you'd know that this is because a lot of people were searching for the names of those individuals along with the keyword jew or jewish. Those individuals doing the searching may or may not have been doing so for anti-semitic reasons, but it seems ridiculous to blame Google because of what its users were searching for. Also, I'm still at a loss as to why appending the suggestion of "jew" to someone's name is anti-semitic (and I say that as someone who is Jewish). The specific issue in France is that it's apparently "illegal to record someone's ethnicity in a database." But, of course, that wasn't what Google was doing either.

Either way, it appears that the lawsuit is being dropped after some sort of "agreement" was reached, though no one seems to want to explain what the agreement entails. The AFP article notes that searches on famous people still do seem to be returning suggestions that include "jew," so it doesn't sound like Google manually changed its results, which is a good thing. Instead, the only thing that's mentioned is that the parties "identified areas of useful cooperation in the fight against racism and anti-Semitism that put an end to the dispute." While the details may matter here, hopefully it just involves providing more information to people in an effort to fight ignorance, rather than trying to hide information. The fact that people are searching for names along with "jew" may be an indicator that those individuals are anti-semitic, but the way to do deal with that is by confronting ignorance, not hiding it.

Filed Under: autocomplete, ethnicity, france, search
Companies: google

Google Cryptically Alerts The World That It Will Nudge Chinese Searchers Away From Censorship

from the losing-access dept

It's no secret that Google has a troubled relationship with China: at one point leaving the market entirely, and later going back but with significant limitations, though where Google tried to be as transparent as possible about when information was being censored on behalf of the Chinese government. Last week, Google took another step, which was explained, somewhat cryptically, in a blog post about better search in mainland China. The company never comes out and says it, but it's basically hinting strongly at the fact that the Chinese government is censoring certain searches... and doing so in a way that basically blocks access to Google for a certain amount of time, if they catch you doing a "questionable" search. The way Google explains it:

Over the past couple years, we’ve had a lot of feedback that Google Search from mainland China can be inconsistent and unreliable. It depends on the search query and browser, but users are regularly getting error messages like “This webpage is not available” or “The connection was reset.” And when that happens, people typically cannot use Google again for a minute or more....

We’ve taken a long, hard look at our systems and have not found any problems. However, after digging into user reports, we’ve noticed that these interruptions are closely correlated with searches for a particular subset of queries.

Of course, they never say what that "subset of queries" might be, but you can take a guess.

The "solution" is that, similar (though slightly different) to Google's "autocomplete," Google, when accessed by Chinese mainlanders, will make suggestions on alternative searches that won't cause the user to be blocked from accessing Google: It's a smart move by Google, but it does make you wonder if even having that trigger will now lead to being cut off. It's going to be a back and forth, cat and mouse game for a long, long time...

Filed Under: autocomplete, censorship, china, great firewall
Companies: google

Google Sued Because Some People Wonder If Jon Hamm Is Jewish

from the they-should-just-ask-adam-sandler dept

We've written about a bunch of court cases around the globe, in which Google was sued (and often found liable) for the results of its autocomplete feature, which suggests popular searches based on what users have typed. For reasons that still are unfathomable to me, courts seem to think that Google should somehow be considered responsible for displaying what its users are searching for. These kinds of lawsuits appear to be particularly popular in France, and the latest one seems especially silly. Apparently Google is being sued because autocomplete sometimes shows the name of famous people with the keyword "jew" after them. This includes such non-Jews as Rupert Murdoch and Jon Hamm.
The lawsuit is being fought by a group, SOS Racisme, which claims to "fight discrimination," but if that's the case, then one hopes that racism has all but been obliterated in France, since the group has moved on to fighting ridiculous cases like this one. All that Google autocomplete is showing is that a lot of people (potentially ignorant ones) have searched for these names, along with the keyword "jew" or "jewish" to determine if the individual is Jewish. The fact that users search for something and Google displays that isn't something Google should be liable for. Why blame Google for the actions of its users?

But, more to the point -- and I say this as someone who is Jewish -- what the hell is anti-semitic about doing such searches in the first place? I'm really at a complete loss to understand why this is so horrible. Yes, the reason behind the searches may be ignorance (and some of the results may point to pages that spread ignorance), but the group bringing the lawsuit seem to be suggesting that this is an absolutely horrible thing that people may be prompted to do searches on whether or not non-Jews are really Jews. The only way this story makes any sense is if all real racism and anti-semitism and other forms of ignorance and bigotry have all been eradicated in Europe. Assuming that's not actually the case, perhaps it's just one clueless group overreacting.

Filed Under: autocomplete, france, jon hamm, rupert murdoch
Companies: google

Japanese Court Misunderstands Autocomplete, Orders Google To Turn It Off To Protect 'Privacy'

from the can't-judges-talk-to-techies? dept

Over the past few years, we've seen a number of lawsuits around the globe concerning Google's "autocomplete" feature, which takes common searches based on what you've already typed and suggests those as potential full searches. The feature can be pretty useful (and also amusing at times). In the US, the entertainment industry has freaked out about it, leading to Google's bizarrely hamfisted censorship of the results.

But that's not good enough for some. We've covered cases in France and Italy where Google was found liable for "suggestions" that a user didn't like (usually associating whoever was complaining with something bad). Of course, that totally misunderstands the feature and suggests that it's actually Google directly saying this is the best suggestion (in fact, I wonder if this is why Google stopped calling this "Google Suggest" and moved to simply calling it "autocomplete").

The latest, as pointed out by TNW, is that a court in Japan has actually ordered Google to turn off the feature entirely, claiming that it's a violation of privacy. Privacy? Huh? Basically, it sounds like a guy complained that searches on his name popped up suggestions with all sorts of bad things (the article says "criminal acts"), and the guy thinks his getting fired and difficulty finding another job was due to this. Of course, it's difficult to see how that's a privacy issue at all, or how it's Google's fault. Google claims that as a US company it has no obligation to obey the injunction.

The thing is, the guy remains unnamed. If he actually named himself, he might solve the problem by promoting more stories about how he's not actually associated with these crimes, and those would likely rise to the top. In the meantime, what does it take for a judge to ask someone who actually understands technology for some pointers before making a ruling that shows a basic ignorance of what the tech does?

Filed Under: autocomplete, japan, judges, privacy, technology
Companies: google