Results 1 to 17 of 17
August 24th, 2009, 01:00 PM #1Blogger Sues Google over Identity Disclosure
A blogger stripped of her anonymity by the US courts has said she plans to sue Google for handing over her real identity.
Rosemary Port, a 29-year-old fashion student from New York, has said she will file a $15m (£9m) lawsuit against the internet giant after it complied with an order from a US court to reveal that she was behind the vitriolic "Skanks in NYC" blog.
How long before someone asks Haiko to "seriously" reveal an identity of one of his posters? Or perhaps someone already has, and of course was refused.
August 24th, 2009, 01:07 PM #2
August 24th, 2009, 01:07 PM #3
- Join Date
- April 6th, 2006
If I buy anonymous defamatory ads in a newspaper, I have no right to expect privacy.
She got caught. That's the problem.
While I do believe in protecting identities, if you become a cyber bully, you should be outed.
It has become far too easy to "hide", then blame the provider when they hand over your info for use in a lawsuit.
August 24th, 2009, 01:26 PM #4
August 24th, 2009, 01:31 PM #5
For the record: I tell everyone to G.F.Y. when they ask me to reveal someone's info.Continued Success,
The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli
August 24th, 2009, 01:37 PM #6anonymously accused a model of being a 'psychotic whoring skank'
-rematt"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." - Richard Nixon
August 24th, 2009, 01:43 PM #7
As a blogger shouldn't she be excited by the negative publicity? The only bad press being no press and all...Joseph Lilly
PartnerWeekly, LLC 702.407.0707 joe.lilly at partnerweekly.com
August 24th, 2009, 01:43 PM #8Originally Posted by Haiko de Poel, Jr.
So in the end, if I wanted, I could be afforded some anonymity here. Many of your posters do.
And moderators/you tend to do a good job of keeping potentially libelous etc material off the boards. Lawsuit threats and the like.
And comparing that blog (though I haven't seen it) to ABW is a monumental stretch. So I get that too.
Again though, a reminder that nowhere on the net is completely safe or anonymous.
August 24th, 2009, 01:48 PM #9
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
So, just to clarify my understanding of the facts:
(1) Google opposed the disclosure.
(2) The blogger was represented by her own attorney in the court proceeding.
(3) Despite this opposition, the judge ruled that the plaintiff (the "skank model," as she will forever be identified, because of her irrational decision to publicize these words with this desperate grab for attention) could properly sue for defamation and therefore was entitled to know the identity of the author.
As I wrote in my blog last week, "The judge made a mistake (perhaps acting in a 'legally correct, but unjust' way) by concluding that obviously-absurd comments about the sexual experience of a 37-year-old fashion model could potentially create a valid claim for defamation."(4) A court order was issued compelling Google to disclose the identity of the blogger.
(5) The blogger apparently did not ask the court to stay the order pending appeal, and did not immediately appeal the order.
(6) Google complied with the court order, and disclosed the information which it possessed regarding the blogger's identity.
How is Google to blame here? What does the blogger's attorney contend that Google should have done differently?
This lawsuit already looked like a "staged publicity stunt" by the model. A lawsuit against Google is even more absurd, which makes me wonder if the model and blogger are working together on the whole publicity effort.
August 24th, 2009, 01:56 PM #10Originally Posted by markwelch
You're also correct in stating that the model should never have pursued this, as the case is trillions of times more damaging than the actual blog post.
August 24th, 2009, 01:57 PM #11
August 24th, 2009, 02:13 PM #12
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
Yes, the blog was apparently hosted on Blogger.com -- but was deleted within a day after it was first created (by Google, apparently at the model's request), and apparently only a handful of people ever saw it -- until the model filed a lawsuit to publicize all the insults.
In the article linked in the first post of this thread, the blogger is quoted as saying:
"Before her suit, there were probably two hits on my web site - one from me looking at it, and one from her looking at it," Port said.If it is true that nobody viewed the page other than the blogger, the model, Google staff evaluating the model's complaint, and their attorneys) then the defamation action will probably fail because of the lack of any "publication" to a third party. Certainly, it's inconceivable that the model sustained any "actual damage" that wasn't of her own invention.
Last edited by markwelch; August 24th, 2009 at 02:25 PM.
August 24th, 2009, 02:35 PM #13Originally Posted by Haiko de Poel, Jr.
But would you defy a court order and go to jail for us?
Or pay a huge fine?
Especially if we were saying horrible, hurtful things about someone else and making complete asses of ourselves?
You know how hard I try to protect my privacy . -
I you did choose jail, I'd send you money for top ramen noodles and some kool-aid to tide you by. -
August 26th, 2009, 01:59 AM #14
very interesting thread.
I ran for a public office this past election and am on our local school board. First 5 minutes of training included ---- do NOT say or write anything especially in electronic form that you do not want to see as a headline in the NYTImes or any newspaper or major web site.
I know that this is wise because all district emails, every word I say in a meeting, etc are documented by audio tape and backed up, available at any time as public record but I think it's a good reminder for all of us to remember how easy it is to actually find info about people piecing together details in their posts and such. As someone else pointed out, anything thrown out there on the web almost becomes fair game and you never know who may read it.
I do think twice occassionally before I write something knowing that it could show up anywhere at anytime. Something to ponder....
August 26th, 2009, 03:49 AM #15
- Join Date
- January 17th, 2005
Anytime, anyone sues Google, it's a good thing, whether they win or lose.
First, it gives the Google legal beagles something to do. Second it costs them money.
Third, it is bad publicity for Sergey and his minions. Fourth it makes my Put Options
potentially worth more money.
And hopefully, one day, it puts these scum sucking, pompus ass hypocrites out of business. In the real world, Google is just the Lehman Brothers of technology.
The same thing will happen to Google that happened to Lehman Brothers. Because in the end KARMA does not take prisoners.
August 26th, 2009, 04:20 AM #16
Make public posts about common national issues is not recommended
August 26th, 2009, 03:56 PM #17
Google did everything according to their lengthy TOS that was probably never read but but was agreed upon signup. Whether they are scumbags is besides the point. The law is the law and a contract is a contract. The only winners here are lawyers and the big losers are privacy and free speech.
By Jon Nunez in forum AffiliateManager.comReplies: 0Last Post: May 30th, 2013, 11:50 PM
By Google Affiliate Network Moderator in forum Google Affiliate Network - GANReplies: 0Last Post: September 17th, 2012, 03:40 PM
By DressesByDaisy in forum Unethical AffiliatesReplies: 7Last Post: April 17th, 2009, 05:54 PM
By x10admin in forum Search Engine OptimizationReplies: 10Last Post: April 22nd, 2005, 01:22 PM
By happypoon in forum Search Engine OptimizationReplies: 7Last Post: October 24th, 2002, 12:05 AM