Re: Fwd: [IP] Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
From: Gmax <gmax1@ellmax.com>
To: J. Epstein <jeeproject@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 2:17:01 PM
Subject: RE: Fwd: [IP] Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
Cue Verbatim :)
G
PS - my e mail has changed to gmax1@ellmax.com
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Epstein [mailto:jeeproject@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sat 6/16/2007 1:58 PM
To: GMAX1@mindspring.com
Subject: 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.net
>
>
>
> 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
> 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:
<excerpt><bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>From:
</color></bold>David Farber <<dave@farber.net>
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Date:
</color></bold>June
16, 2007 4:05:06 AM PDT
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>To:
</color></bold>ip@v2.listbox.com
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Subject: </color>[IP] Search
Engine Dispute Notifications: Request For Comments
<color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Reply-To:
</color></bold>dave@farber.net
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
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
</excerpt>
____________________________________________________________________________________
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