NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Google loses Italy "autocomplete defamation" case + my comments
Google loses Italy "autocomplete defamation" case + my comments
http://j.mp/fsvCiO (This posting on Google Buzz)
- - -
http://j.mp/hFIw3o (ZDNET UK)
On Tuesday, lead counsel Carlo Piana wrote on his blog that the
Court of Milan has upheld its earlier decision to order Google
to filter out libellous search suggestions. These are the
suggestions that pop up in Google's search input bar, proposing
what the user might be wanting to search for. People searching
via Google for Piana's client, who remains publicly unnamed,
were apparently presented with autocomplete suggestions
including truffatore ("con man") and truffa ("fraud").
- - -
Amongst the many Google-related emailed queries and comments I receive
every day, there has been a major up-tick of late in questions related
to autocomplete suggestions (and Google Instant).
Many of these have focused on Google's removing (for example) various
"torrent"-related terms from the autocomplete lexicon, joining
other terms that were considered inappropriate for "suggestions"
display, which some senders (inappropriately I believe) equate
with censorship).
Others -- like in this Italy case -- are concerned about items that
*do* appear in the suggestions (and, via Google Instant, in the
displayed "intermediate" results pages during the query entry
process).
Since the autocomplete/suggestions mechanism can play an important
"discovery" role in the search process, potentially steering users
toward queries and results that they might not have otherwise made or
seen, this is overall a very complex topic.
So to review, there are parties concerned about terms that are not
presented via autocomplete (presumably via manually maintained
exception lists) -- and there are parties who are upset about terms
that are appearing (normally via automated processes).
I actually have in the works a fairly detailed analysis of issues
related to Google autocomplete/suggestions, that is not yet ready for
distribution. But I'll mention one key concern from that essay that I
know will be present in the final version.
It appears increasingly likely that the evolution of Google's
suggestion/autocomplete mechanism, now in tandem with Google Instant,
may have inadvertently created a path for outside parties to
increasingly demand (via court actions, etc.) the ability to
micromanage Google's search results in various ways, particularly in
terms of removing results -- not just from autocomplete, but
potentially from the main results index as well.
I have long asserted that many of the major battles over freedom of
information on the Net will involve attempts to interfere with search
engines' algorithmic autonomies. Parties unhappy with the
availability of particular material on the Net -- realizing that
stamping out all mirrors is increasingly impractical -- are now turning
toward search engines as a preferred avenue of attack, realizing that
if users can't *find* given material, that's almost as effective (from
a censorship standpoint) as if the material weren't available at all.
Those forces who wish to tightly control and regulate information on the
Internet are rapidly pointing their cross-hairs at search engines in
general, and at Google in particular.
There are associated enormous freedom of speech and other risks for
everyone involved.
Much more to say about this later.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com