More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

[Veldan Rath]

We are calling Google journalists now?

Granted...they would be wise to maybe change that search auto-complete.

[LittleFuzzy]

We are calling Google journalists now?

Granted...they would be wise to maybe change that search auto-complete.

It looked to me like an analogy, an attempt to create a similar scene that might be easier to grasp.

[Veldan Rath]

Yes, I know, but I don't think the analogy really fits.

Google is more like a library than a newspaper.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, in that case you would have a librarian who notices that you're searching for a biography and proceeds to suggest that you might also like other certain books.

Say, you're looking for a book on Clinton and you get the suggestion that you should also read: "How to identify psychopaths".

[Ominous Gamer]

Google is more like a library than a newspaper.

Libraries are way, way, more political than that. Take my 50 Shades of Grey thread.

[Dreadnaught]

Except they adjust it all the time. At the very least, a lawsuit should provide a clearer picture of when they change it, no?

Which is why I wouldn't award punitive damages, but I'd still very carefully consider an injunction to cease and desist. People would still be able to use the search terms, they just wouldn't be getting the "helpful" suggestion that what the searcher really wants to do is look into the woman's possible past as an hooker. And Dread, the fact that it's just what other people are investigating has absolutely no bearing on how it kinda looks like slander. The defense against claiming it is slander will most strongly lie on Google not having deliberate knowledge one way or the other. The fact that other people may think and say something in no way mitigates that the autocomplete most certainly is suggesting that she may have been a prostitute.

Or, to put it another way: Google is in the position of a journalist who writes that a certain amount of people think that she's a prostitute. While not saying that this is not true.

I probably wouldn't even have time to start the stop watch until the lawsuit due to slander came rolling in against that journalist.

Or would you, Dread, like to see yourself in the headlines of the newspaper going like this: "Dread suspected of murder!" with the article itself consisting only of rumors and hearsay?

Well, in that case you would have a librarian who notices that you're searching for a biography and proceeds to suggest that you might also like other certain books.

Say, you're looking for a book on Clinton and you get the suggestion that you should also read: "How to identify psychopaths".

I'm not sure I agree with any of these sentiments. The point of algorithms is that they are algorithmic — the search engines are processing billions of these connections each day. If we alter algorithms at the twitch of a court injunction, they cease to serve their purpose. It would be no different than changing search results for "Bettina Wulff prostitute" simply because Bettina Wulff isn't a prostitute. From the query suggestion to the search results, all are generated by algorithms which rely on some element of user behavior.

I think to compare this to librarians or journalists is exactly the problem.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm not sure I agree with any of these sentiments. The point of algorithms is that they are algorithmic — the search engines are processing billions of these connections each day. If we alter algorithms at the twitch of a court injunction, they cease to serve their purpose. It would be no different than changing search results for "Bettina Wulff prostitute" simply because Bettina Wulff isn't a prostitute. From the query suggestion to the search results, all are generated by algorithms which rely on some element of user behavior.

I think to compare this to librarians or journalists is exactly the problem.

What is there to disagree with in Flixy's sentiment? It's just plain fact, Google makes this sort of tweak all the time. And that consequently means that regardless of your sentiments, the threshold for intervention is plainly not that high.

[Dreadnaught]

Merely tinkering with an algorithm doesn't mean tinkering with it to avoid hurting the feelings of individual people. Manual edits to search results are, by design, extremely rare.

Flixy seemed to be saying that Google tinkering with the algorithms all the time means they should also be willing tinker with them when issues come up like with Bettina Wulff. I could be misunderstanding Flixy.

But I think there is a big distinction between-

A) The ordinary process of evolving a complex Websearch algorithm

and

B) Making individual changes to specific results (autocomplete or otherwise) because someone is offended.

[LittleFuzzy]

Merely tinkering with an algorithm doesn't mean tinkering with it to avoid hurting the feelings of individual people. Manual edits to search results are, by design, extremely rare.

Flixy seemed to be saying that Google tinkering with the algorithms all the time means they should also be willing tinker with them when issues come up like with Bettina Wulff. I could be misunderstanding Flixy.

But I think there is a big distinction between-

A) The ordinary process of evolving a complex Websearch algorithm

and

B) Making individual changes to specific results (autocomplete or otherwise) because someone is offended.

They're not "evolving" their algorithms when they cut out "google-bombed" results Dread. They're making the exact sort of individual changes to specific results you're referring to in B. They may get around to making A-type changes later but they do B first. And they'll do the same thing in all sorts of other situations, like that stunt to demonstrate another company (Bing, right?) was just copying the results of Google searches into their own engine. That's not tinkering. That's not evolving. That's focused intervention. And it tells us all sorts of things. It tells us the threshold for action isn't that high. It tells us that they care about the *heh* "truthiness" of their product regardless of what other people think/are entering into the search field. It tells us that self-interest can be sufficient cause for intervention. I can go on. It all adds up to there actually being a legal case here.

[earthJoker]

Merely tinkering with an algorithm doesn't mean tinkering with it to avoid hurting the feelings of individual people. Manual edits to search results are, by design, extremely rare.

Not true. For copyright issues they do this all the time, manually.

[Aimless]

I'm not sure I agree with any of these sentiments. The point of algorithms is that they are algorithmic — the search engines are processing billions of these connections each day. If we alter algorithms at the twitch of a court injunction, they cease to serve their purpose. It would be no different than changing search results for "Bettina Wulff prostitute" simply because Bettina Wulff isn't a prostitute. From the query suggestion to the search results, all are generated by algorithms which rely on some element of user behavior.

In spite of your hardon for google's invisible hand, () there is nothing in the definition of the word "algorithm" along the lines of "can't be manually altered to incorporate specific and/or arbitrary criteria/rules".

I wonder however if it might not be better to just put these things into the same category as porn and tie them to search safety levels.

[Flixy]

As fuzzy says, I was not talking about tinkering to improve the algorythm, but manual adjustments, which are done all the time.

[Dreadnaught]

They're not "evolving" their algorithms when they cut out "google-bombed" results Dread. They're making the exact sort of individual changes to specific results you're referring to in B. They may get around to making A-type changes later but they do B first. And they'll do the same thing in all sorts of other situations, like that stunt to demonstrate another company (Bing, right?) was just copying the results of Google searches into their own engine. That's not tinkering. That's not evolving. That's focused intervention. And it tells us all sorts of things. It tells us the threshold for action isn't that high. It tells us that they care about the *heh* "truthiness" of their product regardless of what other people think/are entering into the search field. It tells us that self-interest can be sufficient cause for intervention. I can go on. It all adds up to there actually being a legal case here.

Not true. For copyright issues they do this all the time, manually.

In spite of your hardon for google's invisible hand, () there is nothing in the definition of the word "algorithm" along the lines of "can't be manually altered to incorporate specific and/or arbitrary criteria/rules".

I wonder however if it might not be better to just put these things into the same category as porn and tie them to search safety levels.

As fuzzy says, I was not talking about tinkering to improve the algorythm, but manual adjustments, which are done all the time.

Threshold isn't that high? You are all (inexplicably) not differentiating between making changes to stop bothering Bettina Wulff vs. manual changes made to fight people manipulating the algorithm (IE spam) or to comply with court orders.

It's a distinction that's pretty clear, and one they clearly make as well: http://www.google.com/competition/ho....html#section4

My point in this whole thread is that the German legal and social culture about the Internet is ass-backwards. Saying that Google can make manual changes to satisfy backwards German legal requests isn't the point. It's that they shouldn't have to please German courts just because Bettina Wulff wants to hide the fact that most people who search for Bettina Wulff are searching "Bettina Wulff prostitute".

It undermines the whole point of algorithmic Web technology. Just like it undermines it if someone were to get a court Order to stop Amazon from making associations between "People who bought X also bought..."

[Ominous Gamer]

My point in this whole thread is that the German legal and social culture about the Internet is ass-backwards.

Curious, has Dread yet to provide an exampe of this that wasn't already attempted, currently being discussed, or was copied by/in a different country?

[Khendraja'aro]

He's making broad and sweeping statements about "German legal and social culture" when he doesn't know anything about my country in the first place. Back to ignore he goes again, the troll.

That was his last chance.

[LittleFuzzy]

Threshold isn't that high? You are all (inexplicably) not differentiating between making changes to stop bothering Bettina Wulff vs. manual changes made to fight people manipulating the algorithm (IE spam) or to comply with court orders.

That's right, I'm not differentiating between them. Because I'm not saying who should win if such a case gets brought to court. I don't know who should win, IANAL. I'm saying there's a legal case there. It looks to me that there's a justiciable issue here. If the threshold were higher that might not be the case but since it does not appear to be all that high, and because someone may well have a valid claim to injury, I don't think it's unreasonable that the issue go before the independent arbiters of the proper intersections between private self interests or the public interest and an aforementioned private interest. This is not luddism. It is not anti-tech lunacy. It is not a ridiculous cash grab. It looks like a reasonable and proper exercise of the capabilities of a legal system.

[earthJoker]

Couldn't someone change the title of the thread into "More Dreadish Anti-German Lunacy"?

[LittleFuzzy]

Couldn't someone change the title of the thread into "More Dreadish Anti-German Lunacy"?

Unfortunately, Dread is the only poster with a penchant for that sort of editorial shenanigans.

[Ominous Gamer]

Beyond basically making Google Analytics illegal, Germany has recently gone after Facebook for having facial recognition software

Going back to Dread's original brain fart, facebook has finally agreed to turn off their facial recognition software in the EU.

"Facebook has disabled face recognition features on its site for all new European users. The move follows privacy recommendations made by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner. Tag Suggest information has been turned off for new users, and Facebook plans to delete the information for existing EU users by October 15th. 'The DPC says today’s report (PDF) is the result of evaluations it made through the first half of 2012 and on-site at Facebook’s HQ in Dublin over the course of two days in May and four in July. The DPC says FB has made just about all of the improvements it requested in five key areas: better transparency for the user in how their data is handled; user control over settings; more clarity on the retention periods for the deletion of personal data, and users getting more control over deleting things; an improvement in how users can access their personal data; and the ability of Facebook to be able to better track how they are complying with data protection requirements.'"

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/...ognition-in-eu

------

and to show Germany's superior understanding of how tech works, Apple lost its patent case against Samsung and Motorola over there.

[Veldan Rath]

Well, in that case you would have a librarian who notices that you're searching for a biography and proceeds to suggest that you might also like other certain books.

Say, you're looking for a book on Clinton and you get the suggestion that you should also read: "How to identify psychopaths".

More like you go to the librarian and you ask what the most common/recent books have people looked at with regards to Clinton and at the top of the list is Disbarred Lawyers...

It is then up to the searcher to disregard as not relevant to their search nes pa?

How about we start using or brains and not taking everything the magic box (tablet) comes up as gospel?

[Khendraja'aro]

You completely missed the part where Google actually suggests search terms, did you?

Again: You ask for "Clinton" and the librarian tells you that you might also ask for "Psychopaths" as well.

And relevancy does not even come into play. That's what "slander" is all about, my dear.

[Ominous Gamer]

More like you go to the librarian and you ask what the most common/recent books have people looked at with regards to Clinton and at the top of the list is Disbarred Lawyers...

If something like this happens, my library has and will correct its suggestions and feedback if its determined that someone or some group is abusing our system. Authors, especially local ones, can be really nasty people when it comes to "bombing" their own books and the books of others.

[Veldan Rath]

You completely missed the part where Google actually suggests search terms, did you?

Again: You ask for "Clinton" and the librarian tells you that you might also ask for "Psychopaths" as well.

And relevancy does not even come into play. That's what "slander" is all about, my dear.

Sigh...if I'm mistaken fine, but take your aggressive crap elsewhere, my dear.

I was under the impression that Google is merely reflecting what is being asked by the multitudes. I don't see this as slander. Isn't slander a willful act?

[Ominous Gamer]

I was under the impression that Google is merely reflecting what is being asked by the multitudes. I don't see this as slander. Isn't slander a willful act?

If it was based solely on the multitudes, google bombs like this wouldn't be possible, and I think the slander part is where I agree with fuzzy. Since the action has been brought to google's attention, and they have committed to do nothing about it (even though they can, and have previously), the courts are a good place to decide where the line is and if google has run afoul of it.

[Dreadnaught]

Most importantly, there's a key difference in that a library is a person and Google is a machine.

Taking it even further, on what planet is it appropriate to sue a librarian for the topic suggestions they give you?

That's right, I'm not differentiating between them. Because I'm not saying who should win if such a case gets brought to court. I don't know who should win, IANAL. I'm saying there's a legal case there. It looks to me that there's a justiciable issue here. If the threshold were higher that might not be the case but since it does not appear to be all that high, and because someone may well have a valid claim to injury, I don't think it's unreasonable that the issue go before the independent arbiters of the proper intersections between private self interests or the public interest and an aforementioned private interest. This is not luddism. It is not anti-tech lunacy. It is not a ridiculous cash grab. It looks like a reasonable and proper exercise of the capabilities of a legal system.

My whole point in this thread is these cases rarely get very far in US courts. Our courts generally recognize that a machine which regurgitates other people's search trends can't slander someone. But in German courts, this shit gets taken seriously because of a bogus legal environment that (combined with the other examples in this thread) amounts to anti-tech lunacy.

[Ominous Gamer]

My whole point in this thread is these cases rarely get very far in US courts. Our courts generally recognize that a machine which regurgitates other people's search trends can't slander someone. But in German courts, this shit gets taken seriously because of a bogus legal environment that (combined with the other examples in this thread) amounts to anti-tech lunacy.

Google has lost previous word association cases in the US. The most famous being with American Blinds. They dont get very far because Google settles.

and you've already admitted to knowing that Google has lost other word association cases involving their autocomplete in other countries, so this has nothing to do with "German anti-tech lunacy"

[Veldan Rath]

If it was based solely on the multitudes, google bombs like this wouldn't be possible, and I think the slander part is where I agree with fuzzy. Since the action has been brought to google's attention, and they have committed to do nothing about it (even though they can, and have previously), the courts are a good place to decide where the line is and if google has run afoul of it.

My idea of slander and libel, could be just to simple then...I don't see where Google is accusing this person of being a prostitute...

[LittleFuzzy]

My whole point in this thread is these cases rarely get very far in US courts. Our courts generally recognize that a machine which regurgitates other people's search trends can't slander someone. But in German courts, this shit gets taken seriously because of a bogus legal environment that (combined with the other examples in this thread) amounts to anti-tech lunacy.

And back we go to my second post on this line of discussion. And it doesn't matter because regardless of whether it is actually determined to be slander or not, it resembles slander to a close enough degree that a complaint of defamation to the courts should not be summarily dismissed.

[Veldan Rath]

And back we go to my second post on this line of discussion. And it doesn't matter because regardless of whether it is actually determined to be slander or not, it resembles slander to a close enough degree that a complaint of defamation to the courts should not be summarily dismissed.

I can buy this...I'm just concerned that this is where we get into lawyers thinking: Eh close enough..SUE!

Google would be smart to address due to the legal climate...but that is what chafes me..even if Google should prevail in such a legal action they still lose.

[LittleFuzzy]

I can buy this...I'm just concerned that this is where we get into lawyers thinking: Eh close enough..SUE!

Google would be smart to address due to the legal climate...but that is what chafes me..even if Google should prevail in such a legal action they still lose.

And regardless of whether it meets the legal requirements of slander, if the rumors and claims about Ms. Wulff aren't true than she's been losing for a while and each autocomplete is an additional cut. This is a civil case, not a criminal one so the matter isn't necessarily entirely about who is at fault. There is a. . . not a rule, let's call it a legal principle *at least in the common-law system, I don't know if the same concept applies in Germany or not* which asks something like "who is in the best position to provide a fix to the situation?"