×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK MPs Threaten New Laws If Google Won't Censor Search

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the bittorrent-in-congress-means-us-is-next dept.

Censorship 154

It's not just Japan that wants to regulate how Google displays search results: judgecorp writes "A committee of British MPs and peers has asked Google to censor search results to protect privacy and threatened to put forward new laws that would force it to do so, if Google fails to comply. The case relates to events such as former Formula One boss Max Mosley's legal bid to prevent Google linking to illegally obtained images of himself."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

154 comments

Ten ton ball's a fate for the ecomedy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483409)

Remember that next time someone suggests a new law.

Re:Ten ton ball's a fate for the ecomedy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39484965)

a fate for the ecomedy.

And remember that next time you make a post.

Good thing (sort of) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483413)

If google is going to be coaxed into doing anything by a government, it better be written into law, so it can be tested and those who are responsible for proposing and passing it can be held responsible should the law be bad

Re:Good thing (sort of) (3, Insightful)

TeXMaster (593524) | about 2 years ago | (#39483539)

Except for the fact that I'm not aware of cases when those who passed a law being actually held responsible for it when the law is then challenged in court or otherwise "be bad"

Re:Good thing (sort of) (0)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#39483669)

If the materials distributed are illegally obtained, distributing them may already be against the law.

And if the material that comes up on a search is slanderous, that's grounds fir a defamation suit.

Re:Good thing (sort of) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483731)

And if the material that comes up on a search is slanderous, that's grounds fir a defamation suit.

Unless it's true. Telling the truth is never slander, no matter how embarrassing it may be.

Re:Good thing (sort of) (2)

ToadProphet (1148333) | about 2 years ago | (#39483851)

That's not necessarily true in the UK. Truth is only a defence if there's a demonstrable public benefit.

Re:Good thing (sort of) (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#39484309)

The GP is right. Slander is, by definition, an untruth. It sounds like you're conflating it with invasion of privacy, which is what the GGP originally brought up, but the two are by no means synonymous.

Re:Good thing (sort of) (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 2 years ago | (#39483969)

And if the material that comes up on a search is slanderous, that's grounds fir a defamation suit.

Unless it's true. Telling the truth is never slander, no matter how embarrassing it may be.

it is in UK.

Re:Good thing (sort of) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483877)

So now Google is going to be forced into modifying their search results to make sure "regime change" happens in all of these places. Japan as we saw yesterday, the UK as we see here, France as we've seen recently, and I imagine the US for reasons like ACTA, PIPA, etc. Google as a "force for good"?

"Gossip" Flag? (4, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | about 2 years ago | (#39483417)

The search engines from Google and elsewhere already flag sites that are "spam" or which host "malicious content."

Maybe they need to add a "gossip" flag as well.

Unfortunately there would be no shortage of lawsuits from "entertainment magazines" if they did so.

And that's really the crux of the problem. If Google capitulates to people who want their search results censored, it's just a matter of time before the censored sites sue Google for the censorship.

So really Google has a choice between being sued by the censors for not complying, or sued by the censored for complying. Either way, someone expects to be paid for doing nothing useful to society, as is always the case when there is a "big money" company or business involved in the equation.

The UK is free to block Google entirely if they so choose. And good riddance to them, the Chinese, and every other nation that thinks their censorship laws trump the free access of an international resource.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (5, Insightful)

samjam (256347) | about 2 years ago | (#39483481)

"If Google capitulates to people who want their search results censored"

I think you meant:

If Google capitulates to people who want MY search results censored

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (2)

msobkow (48369) | about 2 years ago | (#39483541)

It's pretty obvious why Google opts not to do the censorship. There's only one person or company to sue them in that case.

But if they comply with the censorship demands, they're open to dozens or hundreds of lawsuits from everyone who has been censored.

It's simple math in the end: The potential expense of one lawsuit is always less than the potential expense of hundreds of lawsuits.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483839)

You mean they opt not to do the censorship except when it's China who asks them to, right?

--
I value my privacy, so I NEVER use any Google product.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (3, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 2 years ago | (#39484119)

It isn't just the legal implications. They would have to setup a system (infrastructure, allotted person time, and so forth) to implement and manage the relevant filters, to deal with appeals, and other complications. All that before anyone had started taking legal action. They are not going to volunteer for that sort of hassle.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483627)

The UK is bloody well not free to block Google.... I think the general public might shout and scream about that one!

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (2)

TheMathemagician (2515102) | about 2 years ago | (#39483635)

Please don't hate on the UK because some of our politicians are assclowns. This has zero chance of becoming UK law.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 2 years ago | (#39483949)

Please don't hate on the UK because some of our politicians are assclowns.

I was going to say the same with regards to the United States and our politicians here, but then I looked at our federal and state governments and realized everyone's an assclown.

This has zero chance of becoming UK law.

I hope so. But over the last several years it's seemed most shitty law proposals in Western countries have become either laws outright or "policies" of some sort.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39484269)

I thought the same about the DEA but that just sailed through. Not only that but this ridiculous law was left in place by the new government.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#39483699)

I don't see how you could win a suit for being censored. Google has no obligation to publish anything about anyone. Censoring results that look too much like advertising but aren't paid for would be good for their bottom line.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483773)

Google could fire back by censoring all *.gov.uk from it's results for a week or two

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#39483961)

In the Max Mosley case the pictures were illegally obtained and possibly violated his human rights (in the EU a person has the right to a private life). If that is the case then it would seem that Google has a legal obligation to remove illegal images.

I'm not saying that the law is necessarily right to deem these images illegal, but if they are then Google, like any other company, has to comply with the law.

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39484061)

I disagree it should be the source of the image to remove the images not Google... Look would you sue a encyclopedia because it put your (not you specifically) picture next to the definition of stupid or would you sue the person who put it in the book?

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (2)

Woek (161635) | about 2 years ago | (#39484879)

The analogy is a bit off but I strongly agree with the sentiment that Google is not responsible for what people put on the internet; it just indexes it to help them find what they are looking for. This is killing the messenger!

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (3, Insightful)

demonbug (309515) | about 2 years ago | (#39484963)

In the Max Mosley case the pictures were illegally obtained and possibly violated his human rights (in the EU a person has the right to a private life). If that is the case then it would seem that Google has a legal obligation to remove illegal images.

I'm not saying that the law is necessarily right to deem these images illegal, but if they are then Google, like any other company, has to comply with the law.

Google isn't hosting the images. Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the people who are hosting the images and/or put them up in the first place? I realize that Google is a big foreign company, but that doesn't mean they should take over law enforcement responsibility just because the EU/UK can't be arsed to track down the actual offenders. "I saw it in a Google search, so it must be their responsibility." It seems that it is getting to the point where Google needs to put disclaimers on all search results pages for the small minds in the British and EU parliament - something like, "Google is not responsible for the content of outside websites linked in our search results, you twit!"

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39484413)

Hopefully, UK will take France with it into the oblivion of Internet invisibility....

Re:"Gossip" Flag? (0)

Malc (1751) | about 2 years ago | (#39484629)

The UK is free to block Google entirely if they so choose. And good riddance to them

The UK is also free to legislate how Google conducts business in the UK. Google is free not to conduct business in the UK if they so choose. And good riddance to them, and any other company that doesn't respect local laws.

Illegal images? Not really. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483425)

It's that Max Mosley doesn't want people to know that in private he enjoys orgies while dressed as a Nazi.

Re:Illegal images? Not really. (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#39483725)

Isn't that reasonable though? I don't want the world knowing about any of my fetishes either.

The behaviour may seem a little strange perhaps, but it's pretty harmless. The only harm is that it may upset certain groups who were persecuted by the Nazis, which means that not telling anyone about it reduces that harm considerably.

Re:Illegal images? Not really. (4, Informative)

jdgeorge (18767) | about 2 years ago | (#39483987)

The point is, the law already covers this. The defamation is done by the people who post the content, not by Google failing to censor its search results. The people who are posting the content should be sued, not the owner of the wall where they posted the pictures.

Re:Illegal images? Not really. (2)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 years ago | (#39484825)

Isn't that reasonable though? I don't want the world knowing about any of my fetishes either.

Do some research on who Max Moseley's father was.

Fuck you, MPs. (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#39483429)

Why should Google have to censor its search results? All Google is doing is indexing and displaying stuff that's already on the internet. It should be the people who posted it that have to take it down, not Google. Trying to censor Google, for whatever reason, completely undermines one of the things that makes the internet as brilliant as it is.

Re:Fuck you, MPs. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483523)

This.

Also applies to piratebay and other less reputable indexing & search engines.

Try reading the article (4, Informative)

andrewbaldwin (442273) | about 2 years ago | (#39483545)

First off - this is a report by MPs - not even on the first step of becoming law - despite somewhat hyperbolic reporting.

Second - it clearly states that a free press / freedom of speech are paramount

Third - the only "Censoring" of Google etc. is a requirement to follow the terms of a court order - in the UK the courts are separate and distinct from the government.

Exec summary pasted below [from a PDF document - hence some formatting funnies]

A strong, free and vibrant press is essential to the good operation of democracy. Over the past 12 months, the culture and activities of the UK media have become the focus of widespread public concern, particularly in light of the phone hacking scandal. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression is at the heart of these debates about the role of the media.
We have considered how this balance should be struck, who should determine where the balance lies and how decisions, once taken, can be enforced. In making recommendations, we have been guided by the followingâ"
â The fundamental right to freedom of expression lies at the heart of this debate.
â The right to privacy is equally important. It is universal and can only be breached if there is a public interest in doing so.
â Although definitions of public interest change from time to time, an over-arching definition of public interest is the peopleâ(TM)s general welfare and well being; something in which the populace as a whole has a stake. It is not the same as that which is of interest to the public.
â We support the freedom of the press. The vitality of national and local media, in all its forms, is essential to the good operation of democracy.
â The rule of law in protecting the right to privacy should be upheld by all. If a judge has made a decision, based on hearing the full evidence in a case, that decision should be respected by those who have not heard all the evidence.
â Justice should be accessible to all. Protection of the right to privacy should not be available only to the wealthy few.
â The Press Complaints Commission was not equipped to deal with systemic and illegal invasions of privacy. A strong, independent media regulator is essential to balance the competing rights of privacy and freedom of expression.
â The law must apply equally to all forms of media: print, broadcast and online.
It is important that privacy injunctions are obtained in circumstances which justify the intervention of the law; injunctions should not be too freely or easily obtainable. Departures from the principle of open justice should be exceptional. We believe that courts are now striking a better balance when dealing with applications for privacy injunctions.
We conclude that a privacy statute would not clarify the law. The concepts of privacy and the public interest are not set in stone, and evolve over time. We conclude that the current approach, where judges balance the evidence and make a judgment on a case-by-case basis, provides the best mechanism for balancing article 8 and article 10 rights.
Interim injunctions granted in one of the legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom should be enforceable in the other two UK jurisdictions in the same way as final injunctions are.
It is important that court orders apply to all forms of media equally. The growth of the internet and social networking platforms is a positive development for freedom
of of expression, but new media cannot be seen to be outside the reach of the law. We recommend that the courts should be proactive in directing the claimant to serve notice on social networking platforms and major web publishers when granting injunctions. We also recommend that major corporations, such as Google, take practical steps to limit the potential for breaches of court orders through use of their products and, if they fail to do so, legislation should be introduced to force them to. An effective deterrent against future breaches of injunctions online would be for the Attorney General to be more willing to bring actions for civil contempt of court for such breaches.
If a newspaper is intending to publish a story which concerns the private life of an individual then the subject of the story should be notified in advance unless there are compelling reasons not to. Although this should not be a statutory requirement, it should be included in the media regulatorâ(TM)s code of conduct. The courts, when awarding damages in privacy cases, should take into account any unjustified failure to pre-notify.
The ability to protect the right to privacy should not be available only to the wealthy few. We recommend measures to reduce the costs of privacy cases. These include more robust case management by judges and the consideration of cost capping.
The most important step towards improving protection of privacy is to provide for enhanced regulation of the media. We conclude that the Press Complaints Commission lacked the power, sanctions or independence necessary to be truly effective. The new regulator should be demonstrably independent of the industry and of government. It should be cost-free to complainants and should have access to a wider range of sanctions, including the power to fine and more power to require apologies to be published. Sanctions should be developed to ensure that all major news publishers, including digital publishers, come under its jurisdiction. The reformed regulator should develop an alternative dispute resolution process, to provide quicker, cheaper and easier resolution of privacy issues. A standing commission comprising members of both Houses of Parliament should be established to scrutinise industry-led reforms and to report on them to Parliament. However, should the industry fail to establish an independent regulator which commands public confidence, the Government should seriously consider establishing some form of statutory oversight. This could involve giving Ofcom or another body overall statutory responsibility for press regulation, the day-to-day running of which it could then devolve to a self-regulatory body.
Although freedom of speech in Parliament is a fundamental constitutional principle, we do not think that parliamentarians should reveal information subject to injunctions in Parliament unless there is a good reason to do so. We do not think some of the recent revelations of material subject to injunctions yet require a new parliamentary rule to prevent such disclosures; if such disclosures continue, then new rules should be considered. It is important that the media can be confident that they will be legally protected when reporting parliamentary proceedings in good faith. We therefore recommend that qualified privilege should apply to the reporting of all proceedings in Parliament.

Re:Try reading the article (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 2 years ago | (#39484001)

[I]n the UK the courts are separate and distinct from the government.

Then how are the courts funded? How are their orders enforced or, rather, by whom? I'm not trolling, and I'm sorry if I come off as if I were, but could you explain how UK courts are "separate and distinct"? Unless you meant that they're their own branch of government, separate and distinct from Parliament, in which case I wish to strike my first three sentences of this post from the record.

Re:Try reading the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39484149)

The word "government" gets used in a pretty funny way in British English, pretty different from what we're used to in the States.
In the US, "government" means the whole ball of wax: legislative, executive, and judicial.
In the UK, "government" (AIUI) means something more like our "administration": the current Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, etc.
In that sense (again, AIUI) the "government" excludes the judiciary, and almost all of Parliament.

Re:Try reading the article (5, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#39484405)

That's true, but there's also another bit:

In the UK, the courts have far, far more power than courts in the US. Stuff like super-injunctions ("you are not allowed to tell a member of parliament about this injunction") or ASBOs ("judges can now basically make up laws and apply them to a case") would never fly in the US - the legislature and executive branches would knock them down faster than you can say "constitutional crisis".

Basically, in the US system of checks and balances, the judiciary has no way to go on the offensive. They can block laws and actions, after they've already been passed, but that's about it. In the UK, the courts can actually be proactive instead of just reacting to what the rest of the "government" (US-sense) does.

There's probably a historic reason for the difference, but I'm not enough of a historian to know exactly what it is.

Re:Try reading the article (2)

Tim C (15259) | about 2 years ago | (#39484835)

I don't know the exact details, but remember that both of those things (super-injunctions and ASBOs) are only possible because of Acts of Parliament making them possible. Parliament writes the laws (proposed by an MP/group of MPs, voted on by the Commons, if passed then voted on by the Lords, optional back and forth if the Lords reject it and amendments are made, finally either passed or canned), the courts enforce them.

Also, super-injunctions do more than your example; they prevent absolutely anyone from discussing the injunction, including the fact that the injunction exists.

ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) are meant to deal with people who are being a nuisance, but not technically breaking a specific law, or breaking a minor one repeatedly in such a way as to cause a nuisance. E.g. someone may be regularly getting drunk, shouting at passersby and pissing in the street. Nothing they can be locked up for necessarily, but you don't want them doing it either and causing distress, so you have the option of giving them an ASBO preventing them from, say, being drunk in public. If they breach the ASBO, that potentially carries a jail term. In practice however there is a perception in some quarters that they're handed out like candy, sometimes for things that people can't realistically be expected to comply with (you can't expect an alcoholic to be sober in public - they need help, not an ABSO, etc) and poorly enforced (the prisons are too full to jail every petty ASBO-breaker).

Re:Try reading the article (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#39485053)

Second - it clearly states that a free press / freedom of speech are paramount

Oh well then. Nothing to worry about. If they say they'll respect freedom of speech, that's all I need. It's not like they're going to lie to us, right?

Re:Fuck you, MPs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483975)

You mean like the censor results in China?

--
Marcan, asshole [mailto] and proud.

Re:Fuck you, MPs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39484133)

Well, on the other hand, Google's algorithm has the uncanny ability to find the most embarassing or disparaging information about someone and that becomes either the first search result or at least a first page search result.

It happens too often to be an oversight or a bug. They hired all these smart engineers, many with PhD's? Well I believe that everything that makes the news that is unfavorable to Google is purely intentional on their part. There are just too many occurrences of that, for it to be an oversight or a bug.

For those that don't use willingly use Google, block these domains and subdomains to avoid running any scripts that may have someone passively using Google (though they will still get the graphical ad).

- Disable Adobe (formerly Macromedia) Flash.
- Block:
. Adchoices.com (and all subdomains). Yes, I am aware that multiple companies and not just Google are part of AdChoices. IE users can put *.adchoices in their Restricted Sites zone.
. *.doubleclick.com
. *.doubleclick.net
. *.googleadservices.com
. *.googleadsyndication.com
. *.googleanalytics.com
. *.google-analytics.com
. *.googleapis.com
. *.googlesyndication.com
. *.google-syndication.com
. *.googleusercontent.com
. *.gstatic.com

Welcome to the XXIst century (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#39483431)

Where corporations are, often, more powerful than old-school, sovereign nation-states.

Re:Welcome to the XXIst century (1)

Grygus (1143095) | about 2 years ago | (#39483655)

Running a sovereign nation-state is very expensive. I am not so sure it has ever been very easy to distinguish between government and business, except at the most superficial level.

Re:Welcome to the XXIst century (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#39483739)

In a sovereign nation-state, starting from the assumption that it is democratically governed, each and all have opportunities to change their leadership - as well as changing the course the collective body is following. I wonder if you call that a "most superficial level".

Re:Welcome to the XXIst century (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#39483813)

In a sovereign nation-state, starting from the assumption that it is democratically governed, each and all have opportunities to change their leadership - as well as changing the course the collective body is following.

LOL. You've clearly never lived in the UK.

Not only is the British government determined by the votes of about a million people in the Midlands, but they 'voted the bastards out' in the last election only to discover that the other bastards were just the same.

Re:Welcome to the XXIst century (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 2 years ago | (#39484183)

LOL. You've clearly never lived in the UK.

Not only is the British government determined by the votes of about a million people in the Midlands, but they 'voted the bastards out' in the last election only to discover that the other bastards were just the same.

And then did what those bastards said, and voted against changing the voting system. Madness.

Re:Welcome to the XXIst century (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39483697)

Google employs over 32,000 [google.com] people. Some of those old-school, sovereign nation-states (namely the Vatican City, Tuvalu, Nauru, San Marino, and Palau) have fewer [about.com] .

Considering the effects of a global economy, Google's business also affects the world more than many other countries who don't participate much in international trade.

Re:Welcome to the XXIst century (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483873)

You mean sovereign states. A nation != sovereign country by default. Lousiana and California might be of the same nation when compared to, I dunno, Belarus. But compare them together and they seem like different entities.

That is kind of the problem here. A nation is a cohesive group of people with a similar culture and can communicate between each other. I have more in common with people in other towns, states (US variety) and countries than I do with most people around where I live. I have trouble seeing myself as part of the same nation as some of the people who inhabit this country.

How do you reconcile a near atheist with someone who is hoping Jesus returns soon "cleans house" as a coworker of mine put it in response to the healthcare debate? How do you reconcile a government that has to rule these two? A government that has to rule someone who feels the TSA is too far and those who feel it doesn't go far enough, but both fully believe with all of their being that their view is the view needed for freedom?

Governments are tied to the land and have to deal with the people in their territories. Corporations are able to be more detached now and behave nation-like. To go after willing customers where ever possible. Corporations are only powerful because once they reach sufficient size they can draw from resources on a global scale. Countries have their own territories.

That doesn't mean corporations are sacred things that are always right. Neither are sovereign countries. Sometimes they are two devils fighting each other.

TL;DR version:

So what? Most of the time it is like watching Godzilla and some random kaiju fight anyways. Sometimes Godzilla is the good guy. Sometimes it is the other monster. There is always a sour after taste once all is said and done.

google is just trying to be helpful (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 2 years ago | (#39483433)

too damn helpful really, that lame attempt to being intuitive is annoying and sometimes more of a hindrance than helpful

Mr Mosley (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | about 2 years ago | (#39483435)

Max Mosley is an idiot; all he's doing with his legal action is drawing *more* attention to his Nazi-themed orgies and ensuring that, even if he's successful, instead of people finding stories and images about said orgies when they search for him, they'll find stories and images about him trying to censor the stories and images about said orgies.

It's hard to claim it's a privacy issue when it's already in the public domain.

Re:Mr Mosley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483569)

Sounds like something for Anonymous to take on - plaster his naughty bits all over the internet, including the British Parliament's web site...

Re:Mr Mosley (3, Informative)

Apps (21158) | about 2 years ago | (#39483629)

I think that it is more a matter of principal than the publicity
He sued the News of the World who had to retract the Nazi claim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosley_v_News_Group_Newspapers_Limited#The_Nazi_allegation [wikipedia.org]
I even believe that they had to retract the orgy claim! (can't find the reference)

But then went after them and exposed the phone hacking scandal which brought the newspaper down,
This is still ongoing and more News Corp / Rupert Murdoch investigations are continuing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Mosley#European_privacy_laws [wikipedia.org]

While I am not sure that going after Google will do anything, he has to have some way of being disassociated with "Nazi Orgies" when they were not Nazi nor orgies!!

Re:Mr Mosley (2)

mr_stark (242856) | about 2 years ago | (#39483645)

Max Mosley.... his Nazi-themed orgies

That is exactly the reason why he is taking legal action. The whole Nazi themed bit was made up* by the News of the World to sell more news papers. Yet hear you are repeating it as if it were true. I'm no fan of MM - he may be a pervert but he's not a Nazi pervert.

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_08mosleyvnewsgroup.pdf [bbc.co.uk]

Page 54, section 232

Re:Mr Mosley (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#39483931)

Indeed, as the judgement clearly showed, Max Mosely only commissioned a perfectly standard S&M incarceration scenario in which the use of German language, German accents and German uniforms was completely co-incidental.

*WINK*.

Re:Mr Mosley (2)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#39483713)

He knows this - and he is fully accepting that the cat is out of the bag (he talks about it openly in interviews, for example). What he's doing is "taking one for the rest of us" to put laws into place so that what happened to him (the exposure of his private life, captured during a time when an expectation of privacy was legitimate) can't easily happen to someone else.

Now, this does seem like an exercise in trying to staple gun sand to the wall (witness the Ryan Giggs superinjunction debacle), but it certainly is a privacy issue. He's not trying to retroactively put everything back into the box, just make it a little more difficult for other people's boxes to be opened.

Re:Mr Mosley (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#39484013)

I don't think it's reasonable to expect privacy when you're such a notable person engaging in such ridiculous acts. Even without the (untrue) Nazi thing, five hookers doing an S&M "standard prison scenario" is really, really weird. I know sexuality is a private thing, but this is off the wall and he involved hookers--women who have sex for money. You think they have barriers, or traditional notions of honorable behavior? Cripes. The reasonable expectation is that at some point, those hookers are going to screw you over. The reasonable expectation is that at some point, you will be caught.

All this guy is doing is trying to get a law in place that will make it look like he got a bum rap. He gets to play the martyr, and everybody else gets to deal with the consequences a law that will probably be used to suppress news of a patent troll or politician's scandal, so that celebrities can spend the ungodly sums of money they're given in whatever insane way they want without having to deal with the embarrassment of people knowing they pay money to screw disease-infested whores or snort $400,000 of cocaine in a weekend or just got their 14th DWI. Sorry, DUI. Celebrities don't get DWIs.

No, I think they get quite enough privileges, we don't need to give these assholes control of the internet too.

Re:Mr Mosley (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#39484279)

He did get a bum rap. Plus, it's hardly good business sense for the hookers (or the business that manages them) - word gets around. You think they'll see repeat business from him or anyone connected to him?

I see you're trying to bring patent trolls into this (for some reason?!) Slashdot seems to be *all about* privacy until someone actually tries to do something about it.

Also, where do you get off judging his sexual preferences, claiming it somehow justifies what happened to him. So what? If he was just fucking them one at a time with the lights off, missionary style while the others waited their turn outside then it would be "less weird" and thus subject to more stringent privacy?

His argument regarding the release of the information in a sleazy red top was that it was in no way "relevant" news to the wider public. This isn;t about whistleblowers, or patent trolls (?! again, wtf?!), or something like a politician running on an anti-gay platform getting caught with his cock up a guy's ass. It was a private (yet famous) person having their privacy violated to sell newspapers.

Re:Mr Mosley (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#39484689)

Hookers are very well known for being even more untrustworthy than waitresses. Losing repeat business due to a lack of discretion? Please. You think a bunch of people thinking with their dicks aren't going to fool themselves into thinking it couldn't happen to them, especially when the hookers are telling them it couldn't happen to them?

I'm bringing patent trolls into it because it was the first example that came to mind of news we don't want to suppress. Feel free to substitute corrupt politicians or alien first contact, my agenda is that I believe any laws supporting suppression of news will be misused, full stop.

As for where I get off judging his sexual preferences, I absolutely assert my right to judge anyone, anything, anywhere, any way I want to, and you can go fuck yourself if you think you can stop me. I also believe I have no right to interfere in what two, or ten consenting adults choose to do. Notice the lack of "in the privacy of their own home". If they want to do it not in private, that's fine. But they should be prepared to accept the consequences. And group sex with strangers is implicitly non-private. And furthermore, I wasn't judging the guy, but you're an idiot if you think that S&M scenarios with five hookers is so normal that it shouldn't occasion comment. My post wasn't about whether it's moral, it was about it not being normal. Non-normal is by definition interesting, and interesting things are talked about.

The fact is, one of the participants in the act voluntarily released the information. Not private anymore. Choose your sex partners more wisely next time.

Re:Mr Mosley (2)

BBadhedgehog (955308) | about 2 years ago | (#39484303)

Point of order sir. I have a number of friends who work in the adult services industry and they are certainly not the disease-ridden, duplicitious individuals you are generalising them to be.

Nick

Re:Mr Mosley (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#39484885)

Oh, sorry, yeah of course your friends are the clean, responsible hookers with hearts of gold that would never steal a guy's wallet and run out when he leaves them alone in the room while he's taking a shit. I'm sure they have a lot to offer society, and they just choose to act as a warm wet hole to multiple strangers every day for money because it's what they always wanted to do with their lives. I bet they're all geniuses, and none of them have drug problems to pay for or severe psychological issues.

Look, they're free to do what they want to do, but don't expect me to think of them as upstanding citizens without providing some sort of evidence. Everything I've ever seen and heard has shown me that the generalizations about them are true. Point me to one of their blogs where they speak like a rational human and don't say insane things, because I've gone seeking first-hand experience and read hooker blogs. I've talked to people about their experiences with hookers. I've asked them questions when they did ask/tells or AMAs on the internet. Guess what? They've all reinforced the stereotypes, often even while trying not to. So no, I'm not going to reject my entire lifetime of experience on your say-so.

Re:Mr Mosley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39484027)

If that were true, he'd be after the picture taker. Not Google. Censoring search results is, actually, trying to put things retroactively back in the box. It doesn't work, but its trying to do that.

Re:Mr Mosley (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#39484295)

If that were true, he'd be after the picture taker. Not Google. Censoring search results is, actually, trying to put things retroactively back in the box. It doesn't work, but its trying to do that.

He is after the picture taker, and also the newspaper that broke the story.

He can do more than one thing at once.

New Law (Hypothetically) (2)

Crasoose (1621969) | about 2 years ago | (#39483439)

Twitter user posts illegally obtained photos someone else, Google search results have Twitter in them, Google must remove Twitter from it's search results? That doesn't seem wildly excessive.

What the UK MPs really mean (4, Funny)

Valacosa (863657) | about 2 years ago | (#39483441)

Translation: Collecting, cross-referencing, and archiving personally-identifiable information is the job of the government.

Laws for the elite that can afford them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483477)

Basically they want Google (and others) to bear the costs of implementing a system that lets them remove content they don't like, using a legal/court system that only the rich are likely to be able to afford to use. Thus they can keep people from easily finding gossip on the web. The rest of the plebes can live with whatever dirt other people talk about on the web, but why should MPs, sport superstars, and entertainers?

Google and Others (2)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 2 years ago | (#39483493)

should block access from the UK and Japan for a week. Sure the stock price might take a brief hit but uncle with all this whiny BS. Let them go back to the internet stone age.

Re:Google and Others (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#39483537)

"Whiny BS" ? Do you mean the business of, in a democratically-governed country, making laws ?

Re:Google and Others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483633)

"Whiny BS" ? Do you mean the business of, in a democratically-governed country, making laws ?

These sorts of laws? In this context? Yes. Whiny BS.

Re:Google and Others (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#39484059)

Still better than national governments making laws on the global Internet. I can influence Google by choosing not to use their services. I have no way of influencing the UK government.

Re:Google and Others (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#39483615)

And in retaliation, I would love for the UK and Japanese governments to seize local Google assets for eminent domain reasons, and create a Google (UK) public body.

Google isn't above the law, and this entire story is about forcing Google to comply with a court order - if it doesn't, then it deserves punishment. If it retaliates against that punishment, then it deserves to, essentially, die a corporate death in the courts jurisdiction.

Re:Google and Others (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#39483743)

And cut off their nose to spite their face? They'd have to give their advertisers a refund.

Bureaucrats can't be fired (1)

retroworks (652802) | about 2 years ago | (#39483509)

Google can fire people. Terminating someone's employment in hopes for creating a vacancy for someone with better performance is part of the capitalist system. It's unpleasant and difficult to do, but sports teams show the results when someone refuses to do it. The problem (having worked in government) is that there's no incentive for management to terminate anyone. Good people eventually leave the job, and the weak remain.

The likelihood that dozens of governments can craft rules for the internet which will not outlive their usefulness is statistically nil. Let's just give a prize every year which Google and Bing can compete for who does the best job of filtering out bullshit. Kind of like a prize for cleanest water, or best hops.

Re:Bureaucrats can't be fired (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#39483967)

I was just thinking that Microsoft will likely shit a brick in its rush to volunteer to censor Bing in an attempt to have it mandated to (literally) tens or hundreds of millions of minions of repressive regimes (like China, the UK, USA...) around the world.

Note carefully that volunteering to censor is not the same as censoring. All they have to do is make the claim, delivering on it is an entirely different issue.

Only one end (2)

scotts13 (1371443) | about 2 years ago | (#39483571)

I don't get people. You can have something that SEARCHES, or something that doesn't. Once you start censoring the search, the engine becomes, to a varying extent, a PR outlet - and useless. But each person or organization that doesn't want THEIR pet bugaboo found apparently assumes they're the only one with that right.

Quality of legislative deteriorating rapidly in UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483581)

Wow. What's up with your lawmakers? Scrapie? Perchance some shop selling sheep hamburgers near Parliament?

Seriously.

Technical ignorance (5, Insightful)

RogueLeaderX (845092) | about 2 years ago | (#39483609)

Cases like this show an understandable lack of understanding about how this technology works.

As others have pointed out, going after an indexing service is pointless; however, I find it understandable. Google is the first point of contact to this content for millions of internet users. So, looking from the outside, I can understand how someone would confuse that with providing access to the content.

I hope that Google's laywers are able to make courts in the UK and Japan understand their role in the internet ecosystem.

These laws sound terrible until (5, Interesting)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#39483667)

These laws sound like the worst thing ever until someone posts your credit record online, a nude picture of your daughter, or your copyrighted code that you worked on for ten years and hoped to sell to finance your retirement.

Then, suddenly, they sound great.

The UK has a point about protecting privacy. If any point of failure can overcome the Streisand effect, it's the search engines. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Re:These laws sound terrible until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39483867)

in the cases of a) and b) the copyright is not owned by the subject and thus not applicable.

Re:These laws sound terrible until (2)

TheKnave (879982) | about 2 years ago | (#39484141)

Protecting privacy isn't the point. The point is that it's not Google's job to enforce the protection of your privacy - they're not hosting the breach - nor can Google stop what's happening on twitter / elsewhere on the web.

If google implemented some sort of magical context understanding blocking filter the people who cared would simply look for that gossip hit elsewhere and post it on twitter / whatever.

If anything this is more akin to the music industry insisting that ISPs should block what they want to block.

Re:These laws sound terrible until (3, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#39484181)

These laws sound like the worst thing ever until someone posts your credit record online, a nude picture of your daughter, or your copyrighted code that you worked on for ten years and hoped to sell to finance your retirement.

Then, suddenly, they sound great.

The UK has a point about protecting privacy. If any point of failure can overcome the Streisand effect, it's the search engines. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

That's exactly why these laws shouldn't exist. It's why the freedom of speech is explicitly called out in the US Bill of Rights--because it's such a clearly bad idea, but seems so reasonable when it's something you want to suppress. If I had my way, nobody would be allowed to talk about Justin Beiber or the cast of The Jersey Shore ever again. Luckily for them and their fans, I can't get my way.

A big part of being a good person is making it impossible to be otherwise when you would be tempted to do something immoral. We (used to) have checks and balances encoded in our laws that are probably very inconvenient at times, but they were added with the foresight that simple restraint wouldn't be enough when times get tough. It's human nature.

Another thing about human nature: I guaran-fucking-tee you, nothing can overcome the Streisand effect. It's practically a law of physics. It existed before the internet ever did, and will continue to exist for as long as people are interested in what other people are trying to hide. Bringing search engines into it will do nothing but whip people into an absolute frenzy to find out what's being hidden, and we'll just spawn or co-opt another communication channel. That news will get out.

Re:These laws sound terrible until (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | about 2 years ago | (#39484867)

Yes, because if I have a nude picture of my daughter, nobody else apart from me is going to masturbate to it!

white pages... (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about 2 years ago | (#39483729)

I see Google as the white pages and yellow pages for the Internet:

"I want the white pages to remove the phone numbers of convicted sex offenders, drug dealers, thieves and anyone else who has been convicted of anything." -- British Bloke

"I want the white pages to remove the listings for anyone else who has the same name as me, because it confuses people trying to find me." -- Japanese Guy

"We don't want you to list any of our businesses in the yellow pages." -- Authors Guild

Grammar Nazi (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#39484175)

Since he likes to dress as a Nazi, I'm going to call Grammar Nazi on

"The case relates to events such as former Formula One boss Max Mosley's legal bid to prevent Google linking to illegally obtained images of himself."

Please stop using the reflexive pronoun (himself) when you mean to use the object pronoun (him).

Hang on a second (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39484369)

"Illegally obtained images"?

Photographers own the images, so how can the race car driver have any say in it?

Hey Mosley, I've got a solution !!! (1)

sanotto (1471085) | about 2 years ago | (#39484607)

Hey Mosley, I've got a solution for you. Copyright those damn pics. Then issue a DMCA notice. Done!

The law works best .... (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | about 2 years ago | (#39484657)

Globally laws and politicians works best for those who can buy their rights.

US, EU, FR, RU, CN, Iran, Arabia ... you can buy your rights, but you have no rights.

The more world governments change, the more they become the same; So, PTL and live with your masters of destiny.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...