NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Cato / Public Citizen: Tim Wu is wrong claiming searchengines aren't protected by the First Amendment (Lauren Weinstein)
There is speech that is not protected--if speech causes reputation or physical injury to another there are consequences. How many courts have ruled that computer code is a form of speech? Computing heavily relies upon Mathematics. Mathematics is viewed as the only universal form of speech. We know that if construction and civil engineers who rely on mathematics are wrong they are held accountable for their errors. Search engine searches should be viewed in the same light as searching for a book in a library. But they should not be owned by the search engine provider, but the searcher. If it is not then this vital information resource for self and world exploration will not be fully realized. The chilling effect on search engine searches being treated as public information is obvious-- seeking information regarding very private matters--medical conditions, employment (while still employed), research on a wide range of topics from simple curiosity to professional or educational interest would be under a light. I understand why Internet Search Engine providers may want to argue that the searches belong to them--they are valuable commodities in micro-targeting driven online environment. These search request are worth billions. But the company would also not want to be responsible for searches that are deemed to be illegal in some countries -- certain topics are criminal offenses. There are no real firm numbers on how much profit is in selling data that include all forms of information on users//consumers/ citizens, but the estimates are in the billions. If users owned the information being sold that would present some serious difficulty for the data broker industry. Computer code is copyright protected, however many developers are moving to patents for additional protection of their work. Lillie On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:38 AM, dpreed@reed.com wrote: > I have a simple question, if Cato and Public Citizen claim that > algorithms written by humans are protected by the first amendment > because they are authored by humans ... > > If the algorithm discriminates against the conversations of (say) > black people, is it protected speech, or a violation of civil rights? > > The argument by Cato/Public Citizen presumes that the search results > are spoken by the Google company. Yet Google claims that it is not > prosecutable for libel under the laws of the UK? Yet Google claims a > purely human *authorship*. > > This argument by Cato/Public Citizen includes a significant element of > sophistry - a rhetorical equating of human voluntary speech to an > automatic process making a decision to synthesize a result in a > simplistic scenario - yet in contrast Tim Wu discusses the precedent > setting nature of giving automatic processes programmed by humans a > *First Amendment* right! > > Sophistry is meant to confuse and conflate. I don't know why Cato and > Public Citizen want to confuse and conflate - perhaps merely to retain > alignment with power? > > [ David, there are a number of aspects to the issues you've invoked. > The UK view of libel, which unlike the US system does not permit > a defense of truth, is one factor. Also, it appears to me that > ultimately you are conflating to some degree the issues of search > results per se vs. the contents those results refer to. > > But a more basic question is why you (apparently) don't feel that > search results should have the same level of first amendment > protection as, say, newspapers, magazines, and other media, which > have traditionally had such protection, and also express opinions, > make "best of" recommendations, and so on. > > If your concern is specifically the use of automated algorithms, > I would suggest it is misplaced. The algorithms are merely the > embodiment of the values and opinions of their human creators, > and I see no reason why those opinions -- as exercised through > algorithms -- should not have the same level of protections as > any other opinions. > > The alternative, to suggest that opinions as expressed through > algorithms should not be subject to first amendment protections, > would seem onerous indeed. > > -- Lauren Weinstein > NNSquad Moderator ] > > _______________________________________________ > nnsquad mailing list > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad _______________________________________________ nnsquad mailing list http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad