Google loses Australia 'gangland' defamation lawsuit(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Google loses Australia 'gangland' defamation lawsuit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20153309
6 comments
I'll go ahead and say that I feel bad for him, but he's still wrong. He shouldn't have the right to have it taken down, but it does get into the interesting area of how "free speech" is defined around the world. In theory, Google (web search) just helps you find what other people are talking about.
"What are the sites that mention 'Milorad Trkulja'?"
"well, one of the sites is this melbourne crime site..."
It's kind of interesting to consider that Google -- by finding that result and giving it to you (especially with a snippet) -- is in fact repeating the statements contained in the result. However, it seems like they should be able to argue that it's not libel, because it is a fact that some site wrote that content. If that's not upheld, search engines become useless or sued out of existence (as does, say, the news).
This is the dangerous water we're wading into with any "right to forget" focusing on search engines (because they're the big fish and can bear it financially, essentially) instead of the actual source of whatever a person wants forgotten. You can pretty easily imagine large sections of the internet that aren't allowed to be indexed based on arbitrary submissions by people, presumably unevenly applied if there's not a central clearinghouse of "statements of which we shall not speak", but instead, notices are sent to whatever search engines/major sites that the person happens to notice (DMCA takedown notices fit that bill too well already, but this would be even worse, as it's not specific links, but "don't associate my (somehow disambiguated) name with this subject").
It's hard to know exactly what to do in this case, though, because the original offending site really does appear to be "defunct" and the only links I can find to it lead to a domain registration page. The search results are also now flooded with this story, of course, so, is he only winning on past defamation? The procedure should be to get the offending site to take down the content and then have Google remove it from its cache, but that appears to be already done.
"What are the sites that mention 'Milorad Trkulja'?"
"well, one of the sites is this melbourne crime site..."
It's kind of interesting to consider that Google -- by finding that result and giving it to you (especially with a snippet) -- is in fact repeating the statements contained in the result. However, it seems like they should be able to argue that it's not libel, because it is a fact that some site wrote that content. If that's not upheld, search engines become useless or sued out of existence (as does, say, the news).
This is the dangerous water we're wading into with any "right to forget" focusing on search engines (because they're the big fish and can bear it financially, essentially) instead of the actual source of whatever a person wants forgotten. You can pretty easily imagine large sections of the internet that aren't allowed to be indexed based on arbitrary submissions by people, presumably unevenly applied if there's not a central clearinghouse of "statements of which we shall not speak", but instead, notices are sent to whatever search engines/major sites that the person happens to notice (DMCA takedown notices fit that bill too well already, but this would be even worse, as it's not specific links, but "don't associate my (somehow disambiguated) name with this subject").
It's hard to know exactly what to do in this case, though, because the original offending site really does appear to be "defunct" and the only links I can find to it lead to a domain registration page. The search results are also now flooded with this story, of course, so, is he only winning on past defamation? The procedure should be to get the offending site to take down the content and then have Google remove it from its cache, but that appears to be already done.
> The procedure should be to get the offending site to take down the content and then have Google remove it from its cache
I agree. What happens when the original site takes down the content, but it stays in Google's cache even after they've been contacted?
What if the content was very much worse? (eg, 'NAME is a convicted pedophile', with images of the person's face; where that allegation is totally false and malicious.)
EDIT: Looks like I'm mostly wrong about this particular case.
(http://ozsoapbox.com/melbourne/yahoo-held-liable-for-search-...)
I agree. What happens when the original site takes down the content, but it stays in Google's cache even after they've been contacted?
What if the content was very much worse? (eg, 'NAME is a convicted pedophile', with images of the person's face; where that allegation is totally false and malicious.)
EDIT: Looks like I'm mostly wrong about this particular case.
(http://ozsoapbox.com/melbourne/yahoo-held-liable-for-search-...)
> I agree. What happens when the original site takes down the content, but it stays in Google's cache even after they've been contacted?
I believe that is the way you do it. In theory, it will fall out of results on its own, but you can request it be removed from results (but only after it's been removed from the site):
http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...
(appears to require a google account, which is shitty, but maybe they get a lot of fraud here or something)
> What if the content was very much worse? (eg, 'NAME is a convicted pedophile', with images of the person's face; where that allegation is totally false and malicious.)
That's pretty close to the Bettina Wulff case[1]. Yes, you want that down immediately, but I don't think that should change the procedure. Again, if you think of web search as "what's out on the web", it becomes just a statement of fact. I will grant that it gets pretty abstracted for people, especially in that case, which is more about search suggestions, and is instead "what are other people searching for when including these words?", but there's no indication of the actual source of the suggestions.
> EDIT: Looks like I'm mostly wrong about this particular case.
Can you be more specific? Nothing lept out at me. Was it that he hadn't gone after the sources of the story, just yahoo and google?
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19542938
I believe that is the way you do it. In theory, it will fall out of results on its own, but you can request it be removed from results (but only after it's been removed from the site):
http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...
(appears to require a google account, which is shitty, but maybe they get a lot of fraud here or something)
> What if the content was very much worse? (eg, 'NAME is a convicted pedophile', with images of the person's face; where that allegation is totally false and malicious.)
That's pretty close to the Bettina Wulff case[1]. Yes, you want that down immediately, but I don't think that should change the procedure. Again, if you think of web search as "what's out on the web", it becomes just a statement of fact. I will grant that it gets pretty abstracted for people, especially in that case, which is more about search suggestions, and is instead "what are other people searching for when including these words?", but there's no indication of the actual source of the suggestions.
> EDIT: Looks like I'm mostly wrong about this particular case.
Can you be more specific? Nothing lept out at me. Was it that he hadn't gone after the sources of the story, just yahoo and google?
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19542938
The BBC article makes it seem like he's unrelated to any criminals, and was a victim of a shooting. It seems that he was the victim of a shooting, but that he was associated with a criminal, and a newspaper reported that when they reported the shooting, and a website covered that report.
So it's not malicious people creating false stories that have no basis; and the "link" between him and crime isn't something accidentally falling out of Google algorithms. Someone put it in print; a website covered it; Google indexed it; I think the guy then got the newspaper to take their page down, and got the site to take their page down, and then made a mistake when he asked Google to remove their pages?
So it's not malicious people creating false stories that have no basis; and the "link" between him and crime isn't something accidentally falling out of Google algorithms. Someone put it in print; a website covered it; Google indexed it; I think the guy then got the newspaper to take their page down, and got the site to take their page down, and then made a mistake when he asked Google to remove their pages?
Hey nodrama, you seem to have gotten hellbanned for insulting QR codes, despite usually making good posts.
In reply to your comment of:
it didn't work exactly as intended: "As a result of the attack Mr Trkulja said that entering his name into Google Images brought up images of other people beneath which his name appeared. He said some of these figures were allegedly murderers and one a drug trafficker."
If the internet thinks that his name is associated with murderers and drug traffickers, then I think it's part of the job of a search engine to reflect that. Search engines don't just help you find information, they also help you find conversation.
In reply to your comment of:
it didn't work exactly as intended: "As a result of the attack Mr Trkulja said that entering his name into Google Images brought up images of other people beneath which his name appeared. He said some of these figures were allegedly murderers and one a drug trafficker."
If the internet thinks that his name is associated with murderers and drug traffickers, then I think it's part of the job of a search engine to reflect that. Search engines don't just help you find information, they also help you find conversation.
Regarding hellbanning, I just checked nodrama's history as well and there are a lot of posts by nodrama since he/she was hellbanned. I tend to think before I post so even a small reply by me may have taken me five or more minutes to think about before composing.
It's sad to think of all the wasted time this person is spending posting here, all because he/she called someone's post "stupid". Hellbanning should be reserved for true trolls.
It's sad to think of all the wasted time this person is spending posting here, all because he/she called someone's post "stupid". Hellbanning should be reserved for true trolls.
It was a comment worth downvoting, but every other commenter on the post agreed with him, and the post itself was flagged into oblivion. Hellbanning is a pretty harsh sentence for something that probably only deserved negative karma.
Even worse, qrafti.com is a joke/troll site. It's not particular surprising that nodrama fell for it. The joke is not revealed until you try and use the site. nodrama cannot be faulted for only reading the cover copy.
If you have showdead on, you can check it out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4217358
Moderators, please correct this injustice. Thanks.
Even worse, qrafti.com is a joke/troll site. It's not particular surprising that nodrama fell for it. The joke is not revealed until you try and use the site. nodrama cannot be faulted for only reading the cover copy.
If you have showdead on, you can check it out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4217358
Moderators, please correct this injustice. Thanks.
Moderation around here is hardly transparent, I doubt we'll see anything change any time soon.
This seems like an especially egregious case. Where does one complain/appeal round here?
You send a very short email to pg with links to your user name and comments, and asking for an unban.
Or you just create a new username.
Or you just create a new username.
Except the point of hellbanning is that the accused never knows they've been banned.
Which is why it seems particular unjust in borderline cases. It should be reserved for intentional trolls and spammer only.
Which is why it seems particular unjust in borderline cases. It should be reserved for intentional trolls and spammer only.
There seems to be something of a problem with hellbanning here, in the last few months. I've actually turned showdead on because comment death -- at least in the middle of the page -- no longer seems a reasonable predictor of comment quality.
Image search is a bit different, due to the decontextualization of separating the image from the page when presenting results. Image search doesn't show snippets like "here is a picture of someone who is not XYZ", it just shows a problem future of not-XYZ when you search for XYZ
it didn't work exactly as intended: "As a result of the attack Mr Trkulja said that entering his name into Google Images brought up images of other people beneath which his name appeared.
He said some of these figures were allegedly murderers and one a drug trafficker."
This doesn't make any sense. Google doesn't make any claims about its search results. They have mathematical algorithms that try to do a good job for search.
How can anyone call this defamation? They link to websites that make associations. Shouldn't he sue those websites instead?
He's just asking for it by angering the internet. I'm waiting for 4chan to google-bomb him now.
How can anyone call this defamation? They link to websites that make associations. Shouldn't he sue those websites instead?
He's just asking for it by angering the internet. I'm waiting for 4chan to google-bomb him now.
He's 62. There's a chance he doesn't have a good understanding of written English. He types his name into a www Search engine, and sees results returned that are his name, and photographs of criminals, or his name and words like "gangland" or "criminal".
He fills in a form, but does so incorrectly.
IMO Google's notorious lack of customer support left them open here. Getting him and his lawyers in a room with a good translator and someone who can explain the situation and walk him through it may have avoided the court cost. This is cheaper than the $250,000 that Yahoo have paid him.
But then I have no idea how many people send valid (but malformed) requests to Google asking for tweaks to web-results. Maybe it's millions each year and there's not much they can do.
It's hard to tell from the linked article when the "now defunct" website became defunct, and why. Did it just close for normal reasons, or was it shut down because of legal action? Because if a website was closed for defamatory material, and Google still has a cache of it, and someone tries to get that cache removed (but botches the request) then really Google should try a bit harder.
Obviously my post contains a bunch of guessing, and Google is unlikely to release information about this, so I'm happy to accept that perhaps I'm wrong.
He fills in a form, but does so incorrectly.
IMO Google's notorious lack of customer support left them open here. Getting him and his lawyers in a room with a good translator and someone who can explain the situation and walk him through it may have avoided the court cost. This is cheaper than the $250,000 that Yahoo have paid him.
But then I have no idea how many people send valid (but malformed) requests to Google asking for tweaks to web-results. Maybe it's millions each year and there's not much they can do.
It's hard to tell from the linked article when the "now defunct" website became defunct, and why. Did it just close for normal reasons, or was it shut down because of legal action? Because if a website was closed for defamatory material, and Google still has a cache of it, and someone tries to get that cache removed (but botches the request) then really Google should try a bit harder.
Obviously my post contains a bunch of guessing, and Google is unlikely to release information about this, so I'm happy to accept that perhaps I'm wrong.
So because he's old and confused, he should win nonsense lawsuits?
Two judges in two separate cases don't think these are nonsense lawsuits.
I think technical companies should realise that sometimes unclueful people will need to interact with them, and those people will not be able to use the provided forms and will not be able to use the correct jargon but it is still in the company's best interest to listen to, and understand, those people so as to prevent court action.
You avoid court action because it's slow and expensive and because it is unpredictable. (Although, since he'd already won a case, it's not that unpredictable.)
What should this guy have done? He's tried to jump through the unnecessary hoops, and it didn't work. Why should he "suffer"[1] while the multi-billion dollar company makes money off "associating his name with criminality"[2]? (Please note careful use of scare quotes.)
[1] for various values of suffer, including not something that's probably not too severe for most people
[2] assuming they had ads on the search pages with the relevant results; and I know the association (if any) is caused by the creators of the original website.
I think technical companies should realise that sometimes unclueful people will need to interact with them, and those people will not be able to use the provided forms and will not be able to use the correct jargon but it is still in the company's best interest to listen to, and understand, those people so as to prevent court action.
You avoid court action because it's slow and expensive and because it is unpredictable. (Although, since he'd already won a case, it's not that unpredictable.)
What should this guy have done? He's tried to jump through the unnecessary hoops, and it didn't work. Why should he "suffer"[1] while the multi-billion dollar company makes money off "associating his name with criminality"[2]? (Please note careful use of scare quotes.)
[1] for various values of suffer, including not something that's probably not too severe for most people
[2] assuming they had ads on the search pages with the relevant results; and I know the association (if any) is caused by the creators of the original website.
I don't even understand why there should be a way for them to remove his search results.
The search engine reports on what other sites say about people. They are not generating new content -- they consolidate results that are a map of reality. Silencing them, does not change the fact that the other sites have that content. Google is reporting true facts in its search engine: this site says X about Y. How is that not a true statement of fact? Truth should be (morally not legally) a defense here.
This is where libel laws in these ridiculous venues goes wrong.
The search engine reports on what other sites say about people. They are not generating new content -- they consolidate results that are a map of reality. Silencing them, does not change the fact that the other sites have that content. Google is reporting true facts in its search engine: this site says X about Y. How is that not a true statement of fact? Truth should be (morally not legally) a defense here.
This is where libel laws in these ridiculous venues goes wrong.
I'm assuming he's already had the other sites remove their content, and he's just trying to get the cache cleared. I'm assuming that he followed Google's procedure to have the cache cleared, but made a mistake, and that's why they didn't do it.
Rather than continue to struggle with a faceless corporation he just gave up and went to law.
Rather than continue to struggle with a faceless corporation he just gave up and went to law.
The court should tell him that he sued the wrong party...
Looks to me like Yahoo's lawyers set a precedent by previously agreeing to equate linking to "publishing" and paid this clown off to the tune of $250K.
Now the clown and his lawyers are capitalizing on that judgement to collect another check.
Now the clown and his lawyers are capitalizing on that judgement to collect another check.
It's clear from your comment that you are against the ruling and the man's actions, but calling him "clown" doesn't add anything and, in some cases, takes away from any point you're trying to make.
If you have a point to make, I'm sure you can make it without name calling.
If you have a point to make, I'm sure you can make it without name calling.
You're making an ad-hom attack for making ad-hom attacks?
Any one from Australia want to chime in here on how the court system is setup? From the article, this was a jury trial, so that should mean that there will be appeals following shortly. If this were left to stand, that would make it very difficult to run any sort of automated search engine. You'd have to make it possible to remove content from your index on demand - just because someone might disagree with it.
From the article, they already have some sort of process in place to handle that. Out of curiosity, anyone know where that is?
From the article, they already have some sort of process in place to handle that. Out of curiosity, anyone know where that is?
> From the article, they already have some sort of process in place to handle that. Out of curiosity, anyone know where that is?
(http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...)
(http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...)
Why not give him what he wants by simply giving no results at all for searches involving his name? Making special cases in the software or data to take out the offending links seems to imply non-trivial engineering complexity, and a decent search engine as it is already has enough complexity for other concerns.
He should have nothing to complain about, since it's not a right for someone to be found in a search.
He should have nothing to complain about, since it's not a right for someone to be found in a search.
If they do this for him, then that means anybody can successfully request that google return no results for their name. Even names that are also commercial products? If I was google, I would not want to be in the position of letting people dictate what results appear when their name is searched.
Also, names are not unique. Why John Doe #1 should have the right to remove John Doe #2 from search results?
It's not just his name.
Even better yet, they should ban him from ever using google products.
This is to be expected. Defamation law works very differently in the Commonwealth than it does in the U.S. (or in most other legal systems).
British and Irish newspapers have lost defamation cases even though their claims were proven true. Unfortunately, Commonwealth defamation law does not concern itself with the truth of statements--the effect on reputation is what matters.
Edit: Changed UK to Commonwealth, as Australia is a Commonwealth nation but not a UK member.
British and Irish newspapers have lost defamation cases even though their claims were proven true. Unfortunately, Commonwealth defamation law does not concern itself with the truth of statements--the effect on reputation is what matters.
Edit: Changed UK to Commonwealth, as Australia is a Commonwealth nation but not a UK member.
The 'truth of the statements' is not in doubt here. Google admits that there's no evidence that he's a criminal. The question is whether indexing a 3rd party site and showing images/snippets makes you a publisher. And whether once notified, you have to evaluate the truth or falsity and take it down if false. That's obviously not a scalable option for Google...
It is in doubt here. The truth Google is affirming is: "does a website say he's a criminal." The only report on what other sites say. I'm not sure how they aren't telling the truth when all of their generated content comes from some source.
You can downvote all you like, but it is an accurate statement of the defamation law of Commonwealth nations such as Australia.
Google would have handily won this case long before trial in the U.S., but this case did not take place in the U.S. It took place in a different country, where the laws allow plaintiffs to prevail in these sorts of situations. If you have a problem with that, become an Australian voter/legislator and lobby for the laws to be changed.
Google would have handily won this case long before trial in the U.S., but this case did not take place in the U.S. It took place in a different country, where the laws allow plaintiffs to prevail in these sorts of situations. If you have a problem with that, become an Australian voter/legislator and lobby for the laws to be changed.
> it is an accurate statement of the defamation law of Commonwealth nations such as Australia.
It's not accurate for Australia. Truth is a defense here.
It's not accurate for Australia. Truth is a defense here.
I'm not saying the man was wrong for demanding Google take down the results. I'm also not saying he is right. Google was working as intended. The site they had crawled made an unfortunate implication. This isn't Google's fault, this is the downside to being involved in a crime. You have limited control over what others say about you or how they use your information. Google is in the sticky situation of legally needing not to offend, but also legally needing to be as impartial as possible. The courts are making this extremely difficult for them. If anything is directly to blame, it's a lack of understanding the nature of search engines.
This further goes to show startup founders the troubling legal situation that exists in the world. Bring a lawyer onboard, but even then you have to recognize that you will likely find yourself in a sticky situation at some point.