re A Family's Horror -- and the Role of Google Images

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> Date: February 4, 2010 6:14:42 PM EST
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] re A Family's Horror -- and the Role of Google  
> Images

> Dave,
>
> This is very interesting.
>
> I continue to be mystified by the apparent inability of some readers
> to get their heads around the concept I'm trying to explain.  Perhaps
> it's a failing in my abilities at exposition, or maybe it's just that
> preconceived notions in this area are so strong that they override
> the written word.
>
> Nowhere in ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000677.html ) or the
> links referenced therein where I discuss concepts for search engine
> dispute resolutions have I called for bans, censorship, DMCA
> take-downs, or anything of the sort.
>
> To the contrary, I oppose censorship, and I have long maintained that
> the reality of the Internet assures that it is very nearly impossible
> to effectively censor content once it has been publicly posted
> (whether oppressive governments can employ sufficiently draconian
> techniques to force populations into cowered compliance is a related
> but different issue).
>
> Search engines -- Google in particular of course -- have enormous
> power to determine what information actually is seen and in what
> contexts, since they tend to be the de facto portal for so many
> people's discovery of Internet sites and data.  (In fact, have you
> ever seen the interesting phenomenon of people who even enter explicit
> site domain names into a Google search field rather than entering them
> directly into browser Location bars?  Fascinating.)
>
> Search engine algorithms and classification routines are complex and
> generally proprietary.  Google uses (so I've heard, anyway) something
> on the order of 200 different inputs to help determine search
> rankings.  Google is free -- as they should be -- to arbitrarily
> change and tune those parameters, and those changes will represent
> Google's views of the relative importance of the different inputs in
> the overall ranking decisions.
>
> Fundamentally, my argument is that there are additional inputs that
> arguably are worthy of consideration in this process.  Does a stance
> against censorship require that innumerable, easily identifiable
> photos of an 18-year-old girl's headless corpse be quickly displayed
> even when search engine results settings are explicitly set to their
> strictest mode?
>
> Similarly, does the ability of false and slanderous materials to rise
> to the top of search engine results mean that it's impossible to
> devise a system where aggrieved parties could have some similarly
> ranked and visible forum to at least contest the information on such
> sites?  These are the sorts of issues I've discussed in considerable
> depth in the past, so I won't detail them all again now.
>
> Except to say this:
>
> The usual retorts (not by Google itself, but by some outside
> observers) to such suggestions include the idea that ethical
> considerations have no role in search results.  Yet Google itself has
> implicitly acknowledged the role of ethics in results, as in their  
> special
> handling of searches for the word "jew":
>
> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000255.html
>
> Google makes other judgments as well, including (quite appropriately)
> blacklisting sites that it believes are contaminated with malware.
>
> My assertion is simply that there are a range of other "ethical"
> factors that similarly would be appropriate for consideration in
> ranking and (for example) SafeSearch classification decisions.
>
> Even if this view is accepted as having some merit, the question of
> scale comes up immediately.  Would creating a system for dispute
> resolutions or other annotation of results in the manners I've
> described be practical given the scope of the search universe?
>
> Again, I won't repeat my previous writings on this, but I believe this
> to be a problem completely capable of being solved -- if the will and
> resources are put forth to do so.
>
> One final point.  It is unwise to assume that the status quo is
> stable, even if ethical considerations are set aside.  In fact, we
> have more evidence every day that governments are prepared to take
> often drastic and overbearing steps to try control the information
> flow into their countries -- this group even includes some traditional
> democracies of long standing.
>
> My view is that calls for censorship and information bans, which again
> I deplore, are best fought back by voluntary efforts -- not to
> restrict or block information -- but rather to help make sure that
> information is organized in ways that include the kind of ethical
> components that I've described above.
>
> Virtually by definition today, the bulk of that responsibility falls  
> on
> search engines in general, and on Google in particular.
>
> And make no mistake about it, I'm convinced that Google can do a
> fantastic job of solving these problems, if they choose to do so.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren () vortex com
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> Co-Founder, PFIR
>   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> Co-Founder, NNSquad
>   - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
> Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
>   for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
>
>
> - - -
>
> On 02/04 17:06, Dave Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: "Mike Tetreault, CISSP, CSSLP" <z0t5jtc02 () sneakemail com>
> > > Date: February 4, 2010 4:31:46 PM EST
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] re A Family's Horror -- and the Role of Google
> > > Images
> >
> > > Honestly, I'm confused by Lauren's comments. People have things they
> > > consider "bad stuff". Different people have different things they
> > > consider "bad stuff". If you want a company to decide what should be
> > > "bad stuff", use a filtering proxy with automatically updated
> > > blacklists. You are proposing that a company make a moral choice  
> > > (ie,
> > > what's "good stuff", "okay stuff", and "bad stuff"), and further,  
> > > to be
> > > prepared with guidelines for making further moral choices in the
> > > future.
> > >
> > > Can we deploy measures? Yes. They're called guidelines, policies,  
> > > and
> > > procedures. The pictures should never have been disseminated by  
> > > those
> > > authorized to create and possess them. Can we hold someone
> > > accountable? Yes. This happens through the courts, which is what the
> > > accident victim's family is doing. If an individual is acting on
> > > behalf of an organization, you hold both the individuals and the
> > > organization liable. Personally, I think CHP dropped the ball by not
> > > summarily dismissing the responsible parties, and deserves and
> > > sanctions the courts choose if only because of that. I can think of
> > > few more egregious breaches of the public trust thank sending out
> > > these images.
> > >
> > > Now, actually removing this content is where the challenge lies. The
> > > easiest way would be to use the DMCA to go after individuals that  
> > > post
> > > the images. Transfer copyright to the family (or an entity  
> > > controlled
> > > by them) and let them start sending out the take down notices.
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com