The Suggest feature in the Google search is defamatory, if approached as a person in words which may undermine the professionalism and dignity. This was established by the Milan Court, upholding an appeal by a citizen who felt defamed by the words that Google Suggest automatically associated with his name.
The court dismissed the complaint and the company's California-based company has imposed to eliminate quell'accostamento, charging the costs of litigation. Remarkable story, because it feeds the notion that the algorithms are not neutral, and makes the search engines be liable to web content indexed.
The story starts from the urgent application of AB, as indicated by the order "a trader in the financial sector which deals, inter alia, to organize training courses on financial contributions and to publicize the majority of its activities through the Internet" . He saw that as soon as you enter your name on Google, the site suggested to include in the search for the words "scam" or "crook." And 'the well-known tool for auto or autosuggerimento.
In essence, Google suggested keywords that appear most frequently sought in the research with that of other users. It means that a good number of people wrote about Google the word "scam" or "crook" together with the name of AB The contractor has not requested preventive filters to prevent a combination of unwelcome words.
But he complained that Google has not eliminated after his report. It refers to European standards on hosting providers, a figure which equates Google. Hosting providers are responsible for the information provided to users only if they are not to remove them after being alerted to a fault.
Google defended itself by saying that the search engine is neutral and is not responsible for pairing unwelcome. The court disagrees. First, Google equates to a hosting provider, noting that now the search engines are like database. Do not just search for information, but make a copy of the websites on their servers.
That alone is a significant step. So far, in fact, according to European standards, search engines have different responsibilities, lighter than the hosting provider and are not required to remove anything after the alert. But the judge goes on: it says that the autosuggerimento loses neutrality when it produces an incorrect match between the words.
This loss of neutrality could extend a reflection of Google, the very fact that they have taken the instrument. He wrote the judge: "It 's the upstream choice and use of this system and its specific mechanisms of operation to determine - in the valley - the addebitabilità Google results that the mechanism that produces conceived, with its consequent tort (ex art.
2043 cc) may be detrimental to the results determined by the operating mechanism of this particular research system. It is, "says the order," a choice that clearly has a definite commercial value, associated with highlighted the facilitation of research and thus serves to encourage the use (this made it easier and faster for the user) of the search engine operated by Google.
" In short, search engines, have become very intelligent people to meet, they risk liability and legal troubles. The court anticipates new regulatory guidance: The European Commission is moving it to assimilate the engine hosting providers, the liability in future version of the Code of electronic communications.
The aim is to involve mainly the engines, the providers of Internet access, in the war on online piracy. There are similarities, moreover, between this ordinance and that the Court of Rome against Yahoo, forced to remove some search results that led to web pages where to download or view the film illegally About Elly.
It remains to see what effect these new responsibilities may have on freedom of expression online. So far, it was considered that the intermediaries (ISPs, motors) were neutral. And, as such, do not act on the information provided to users. But if they become responsible, can be pushed to alter or censor certain information in advance or afterwards.
To avoid trouble or for the interests of companies, personalities or powers with which they have made arrangements. It 's the risk reported in the past few hours - in the wake of the affair Yahoo! - by many legal experts of the internet, including Fulvio Sarzana and Guido Scorza. It is also the underlying principle of the claim made by Yahoo, at the end of March, against the decision of the Court of Rome.
The court dismissed the complaint and the company's California-based company has imposed to eliminate quell'accostamento, charging the costs of litigation. Remarkable story, because it feeds the notion that the algorithms are not neutral, and makes the search engines be liable to web content indexed.
The story starts from the urgent application of AB, as indicated by the order "a trader in the financial sector which deals, inter alia, to organize training courses on financial contributions and to publicize the majority of its activities through the Internet" . He saw that as soon as you enter your name on Google, the site suggested to include in the search for the words "scam" or "crook." And 'the well-known tool for auto or autosuggerimento.
In essence, Google suggested keywords that appear most frequently sought in the research with that of other users. It means that a good number of people wrote about Google the word "scam" or "crook" together with the name of AB The contractor has not requested preventive filters to prevent a combination of unwelcome words.
But he complained that Google has not eliminated after his report. It refers to European standards on hosting providers, a figure which equates Google. Hosting providers are responsible for the information provided to users only if they are not to remove them after being alerted to a fault.
Google defended itself by saying that the search engine is neutral and is not responsible for pairing unwelcome. The court disagrees. First, Google equates to a hosting provider, noting that now the search engines are like database. Do not just search for information, but make a copy of the websites on their servers.
That alone is a significant step. So far, in fact, according to European standards, search engines have different responsibilities, lighter than the hosting provider and are not required to remove anything after the alert. But the judge goes on: it says that the autosuggerimento loses neutrality when it produces an incorrect match between the words.
This loss of neutrality could extend a reflection of Google, the very fact that they have taken the instrument. He wrote the judge: "It 's the upstream choice and use of this system and its specific mechanisms of operation to determine - in the valley - the addebitabilità Google results that the mechanism that produces conceived, with its consequent tort (ex art.
2043 cc) may be detrimental to the results determined by the operating mechanism of this particular research system. It is, "says the order," a choice that clearly has a definite commercial value, associated with highlighted the facilitation of research and thus serves to encourage the use (this made it easier and faster for the user) of the search engine operated by Google.
" In short, search engines, have become very intelligent people to meet, they risk liability and legal troubles. The court anticipates new regulatory guidance: The European Commission is moving it to assimilate the engine hosting providers, the liability in future version of the Code of electronic communications.
The aim is to involve mainly the engines, the providers of Internet access, in the war on online piracy. There are similarities, moreover, between this ordinance and that the Court of Rome against Yahoo, forced to remove some search results that led to web pages where to download or view the film illegally About Elly.
It remains to see what effect these new responsibilities may have on freedom of expression online. So far, it was considered that the intermediaries (ISPs, motors) were neutral. And, as such, do not act on the information provided to users. But if they become responsible, can be pushed to alter or censor certain information in advance or afterwards.
To avoid trouble or for the interests of companies, personalities or powers with which they have made arrangements. It 's the risk reported in the past few hours - in the wake of the affair Yahoo! - by many legal experts of the internet, including Fulvio Sarzana and Guido Scorza. It is also the underlying principle of the claim made by Yahoo, at the end of March, against the decision of the Court of Rome.
No comments:
Post a Comment