Fw: Fwd: [IP] Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: jeffrey epstein littlestjeff@yahoo.com
To: me jeeproject@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 1:49:49 PM
Subject: Fw: Fwd: [IP] Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Linda Stone linda@lindastone.net
To: littlestjeff@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 11:50:35 AM
Subject: Fwd: [IP] Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
thought this would be interesting for you to read....
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Farber dave@farber.net
Date: June 16, 2007 4:05:06 AM PDT
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
Reply-To: dave@farber.netBegin forwarded message:
From: Lauren Weinstein lauren@VORTEX.COM
Date: June 16, 2007 12:18:39 AM EDT
To: USACM-INFO@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG
Subject: Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
Reply-To: Lauren Weinstein lauren@VORTEX.COMSearch Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000253.htmlGreetings. I'd appreciate feedback from the Internet community
regarding the following issue.Search engines have of course become the primary means by which vast
numbers of people find all manner of information. For many firms,
if you don't have a high rank with Google, it's as if you don't
exist (or at least, many companies appear to feel that way).Increasingly, cases are appearing of individuals and organizations
being defamed or otherwise personally damaged -- lives sometimes
utterly disrupted -- by purpose-built, falsified Web pages,
frequently located in distant jurisdictions. Search engine results
are typically the primary means by which such attacks are promulgated
and sustained by providing a continuing stream of viewers to those
Web pages. Due to ranking algorithms, attempts to counter such
attacks with other Web pages may not be widely seen since they are
not directly associated with the attacking pages.Courts appear generally reluctant to order offending Web page take
downs in such cases, except where intellectual property (e.g. DMCA
orders) are involved, and take downs do not necessarily inform
viewers of the ongoing controversy in a logically connected manner.
Additionally, "remedies" that result in suppression of information,
rather than providing additional information, are generally
ineffective and counter to the "open information whenever possible"
philosophy that many of us share.Question: Would it make sense for search engines, only in carefully
limited, delineated, and serious situations, to provide on some
search results a "Disputed Page" link to information explaining the
dispute in detail, as an available middle ground between complete
non-action and total page take downs?Search engine firms have generally taken the view that they are akin
to telephone directories, and bear no responsibility for the content
of the pages that they reference. Similarly, when ostensibly
aggrieved parties approach these firms with concerns about
"offending" pages, the usual response is that the search firms can
do nothing about those pages, and that any complaints need to be
taken to the Web page owner or associated ISP. From a practical and
jurisdictional standpoint, this turns out to be impossible in many
cases.We clearly do not want to hold search engines responsible for other
sites' content, even when locally cached. To do so would likely
obliterate the entire search engine model and industry under a storm
of litigation, to everyone's detriment. It must be noted, however,
that increasing calls for holding search engines responsible in just
such a manner are being heard in some political and judicial
circles, likely out of frustration with the status quo, which
currently tends not to offer reasonable dispute resolution paths in
most situations. This is a serious warning sign, suggesting that we
should consider some new approaches on our own, or risk draconian
and damaging legislation.The telephone directory argument also has some problems. Unlike
typical phone books, search engines are not passive publishers of
information. In addition to third-party ads tied to the core
listings, a key facet of search engines is intensive ranking and
decision-based ordering of content listings, usually via highly
proprietary algorithms. Such ranking provides a high percentage of
the value-added represented by search engine results.So while search engines are not responsible and should not be held
responsible for the content of the outside pages and data they
index, they are very much directly involved as decision-making
gatekeepers (albeit, usually through fully automated algorithms)
that determine to a major extent which individual Web pages are
likely -- or unlikely -- to be discovered by Internet users.More questions: Given the power that search engines possess in these
regards, do they bear any responsibility for helping to untangle
serious disputes regarding the pages they reference and often profit
from? If search engines do not voluntarily move in this direction,
do they risk damaging legislation written without a genuine
understanding of the complex technical and business issues involved?In my view, an evolution by search engines to deal with these
situations should be predicated on that key concept of maximizing the
availability of information. Page take downs -- which are likely to
be ineffective in the long run as noted -- should be a last resort.
Similarly, a total laissez faire approach is also unlikely to be
tolerated indefinitely by the political and judicial establishments.So returning to where we started... Could some sort of "dispute link"
-- tied directly to information regarding particularly serious page
disputes -- provide a reasonable means to help ameliorate these
situations without risking the more destructive alternatives? If
so, how would such a system be effectively implemented in a
practical fashion? How could such a system be structured to avoid
being swamped by relatively trivial complaints?Would providing related dispute links only to persons with court
orders make sense to limit potential abuse of the mechanism, or
would requiring the use of the expensive and delay-prone courts be
far too restrictive a qualification? Could such a dispute system
operate purely on a voluntary basis? (Voluntary would be very much
preferred in my opinion.) What are the cost factors involved in
such a system and how could they be reasonably addressed?Overall then, is it possible to structure such a system along these
lines so that it is practical, workable, and also palatable to the
major search engine firms, as an alternative to barreling along
toward an onerous and likely politically motivated crackdown down the
line?Or would this concept just never work -- and that crackdown is
inevitable?Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks very much.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC- International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Founder, CIFIP- California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
thought this would be interesting for you to read....
Begin forwarded message:
16, 2007 4:05:06 AM PDT
Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@VORTEX.COM
Date: June 16, 2007 12:18:39 AM EDT
To: USACM-INFO@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG
Subject: Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
Reply-To: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@VORTEX.COM
Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000253.html
Greetings. I'd appreciate feedback from the Internet community
regarding the following issue.
Search engines have of course become the primary means by which vast
numbers of people find all manner of information. For many firms,
if you don't have a high rank with Google, it's as if you don't
exist (or at least, many companies appear to feel that way).
Increasingly, cases are appearing of individuals and organizations
being defamed or otherwise personally damaged -- lives sometimes
utterly disrupted -- by purpose-built, falsified Web pages,
frequently located in distant jurisdictions. Search engine results
are typically the primary means by which such attacks are promulgated
and sustained by providing a continuing stream of viewers to those
Web pages. Due to ranking algorithms, attempts to counter such
attacks with other Web pages may not be widely seen since they are
not directly associated with the attacking pages.
Courts appear generally reluctant to order offending Web page take
downs in such cases, except where intellectual property (e.g. DMCA
orders) are involved, and take downs do not necessarily inform
viewers of the ongoing controversy in a logically connected manner.
Additionally, "remedies" that result in suppression of information,
rather than providing additional information, are generally
ineffective and counter to the "open information whenever possible"
philosophy that many of us share.
Question: Would it make sense for search engines, only in carefully
limited, delineated, and serious situations, to provide on some
search results a "Disputed Page" link to information explaining the
dispute in detail, as an available middle ground between complete
non-action and total page take downs?
Search engine firms have generally taken the view that they are akin
to telephone directories, and bear no responsibility for the content
of the pages that they reference. Similarly, when ostensibly
aggrieved parties approach these firms with concerns about
"offending" pages, the usual response is that the search firms can
do nothing about those pages, and that any complaints need to be
taken to the Web page owner or associated ISP. From a practical and
jurisdictional standpoint, this turns out to be impossible in many
cases.
We clearly do not want to hold search engines responsible for other
sites' content, even when locally cached. To do so would likely
obliterate the entire search engine model and industry under a storm
of litigation, to everyone's detriment. It must be noted, however,
that increasing calls for holding search engines responsible in just
such a manner are being heard in some political and judicial
circles, likely out of frustration with the status quo, which
currently tends not to offer reasonable dispute resolution paths in
most situations. This is a serious warning sign, suggesting that we
should consider some new approaches on our own, or risk draconian
and damaging legislation.
The telephone directory argument also has some problems. Unlike
typical phone books, search engines are not passive publishers of
information. In addition to third-party ads tied to the core
listings, a key facet of search engines is intensive ranking and
decision-based ordering of content listings, usually via highly
proprietary algorithms. Such ranking provides a high percentage of
the value-added represented by search engine results.
So while search engines are not responsible and should not be held
responsible for the content of the outside pages and data they
index, they are very much directly involved as decision-making
gatekeepers (albeit, usually through fully automated algorithms)
that determine to a major extent which individual Web pages are
likely -- or unlikely -- to be discovered by Internet users.
More questions: Given the power that search engines possess in these
regards, do they bear any responsibility for helping to untangle
serious disputes regarding the pages they reference and often profit
from? If search engines do not voluntarily move in this direction,
do they risk damaging legislation written without a genuine
understanding of the complex technical and business issues involved?
In my view, an evolution by search engines to deal with these
situations should be predicated on that key concept of maximizing the
availability of information. Page take downs -- which are likely to
be ineffective in the long run as noted -- should be a last resort.
Similarly, a total laissez faire approach is also unlikely to be
tolerated indefinitely by the political and judicial establishments.
So returning to where we started... Could some sort of "dispute link"
-- tied directly to information regarding particularly serious page
disputes -- provide a reasonable means to help ameliorate these
situations without risking the more destructive alternatives? If
so, how would such a system be effectively implemented in a
practical fashion? How could such a system be structured to avoid
being swamped by relatively trivial complaints?
Would providing related dispute links only to persons with court
orders make sense to limit potential abuse of the mechanism, or
would requiring the use of the expensive and delay-prone courts be
far too restrictive a qualification? Could such a dispute system
operate purely on a voluntary basis? (Voluntary would be very much
preferred in my opinion.) What are the cost factors involved in
such a system and how could they be reasonably addressed?
Overall then, is it possible to structure such a system along these
lines so that it is practical, workable, and also palatable to the
major search engine firms, as an alternative to barreling along
toward an onerous and likely politically motivated crackdown down the
line?
Or would this concept just never work -- and that crackdown is
inevitable?
Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks very much.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
- International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Founder, CIFIP
- California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433