Fake Reviewers Will Have Their IP Addresses Disclosed by Google Added: Thursday, March 10th, 2016
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, www.extratorrent.cc, 2016
The tech giant received a court order to disclose the contact details of accounts relating to fake reviews that attacked a Dutch nursery. The latter won a court order against the company that requires Google to reveal details on users posting a series of fake reviews alleging child abuse through Google+.
Those fake reviews were visible through Google search results and Google Maps. The nursery argued that they tarnished its reputation for more than 6 months. It also turned out that one of the fake reviewers took on the identity of a dead person from the United States.
However, the tech firm refused to take down the fake reviews, claiming that those fell under freedom of speech protections. The nursery went to court, which ordered Google to remove them – there was a precedent in the past in the Netherlands with other fake reviews and other plaintiffs.
The company was also ordered to pay fees and hand over the IP addresses of the accounts linked to posting the fake reviews. It was also ordered to do so by the Dutch civil courts in past cases a decade ago. The search giant has 2 weeks to comply with the court order. In the meantime, the nursery is considering legal action against the fake reviewers.
It must be noted that fake reviews remain an ever-increasing problem across Internet giants like Google and retail websites, where such reviews are used to boost reputation or destroy rivals. For example, a travel site TripAdvisor has a special team engaged in identifying and removing fake reviews from its listings. At the same time, Cornell University is developing technology designed to weed out fake hotel reviews through machine learning.
Thursday, March 10th, 2016
|Unless a law enforcement agency wants to do a formal investigation into the allegations that this daycare is molesting children, how can it be legal to expose the person claiming it or have the review removed?|
Leaving a review is a protected thing. Your privacy as someone who claims anything about a company is protected... Or should be. This will endanger any whistle-blower. Any business owner will now be able to lash out against anyone who leaves a bad review by claiming it is fake.
|posted by (2016-03-10 17:38:32)|
|@Juliustmouse ... "how can it be legal to expose the person claiming it or have the review removed?" Ever heard of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? The rule of law that MOST of the democratic world lives by (France and a few other countries excepted)|
If they were in any way guilty they wouldn't want to get anywhere NEAR a court! Anyway, if the claims are real then the person who posted them has nothing to worry about. (You can't be sued for libel OR slander if you're stating the truth and can PROVE IT ... HOWEVER, doing so WITHOUT proof or evidence is a sure way to be broke for the rest of your life.)
ANY business that 'lashes out' had BETTER be ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE the review is fake, because if even one of the claims of the whistle-blower is proven true they're toast.
This is just a way for FAKE reviews (which are seen more and more lately) to be forcibly removed. Most aren't worried about the odd bad review, as there should be a lot more positive reviews to counter it, but a fake review claiming CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, with NO supporting evidence, can have SERIOUS consequences.
Imagine if this happened in the USA, and some incensed father used that post as reason to shoot the administrators of the school, or to firebombed the place, etc
People need to LEARN that their actions have consequences, and they'll be held responsible if anything untoward happens because of those actions.
|posted by (2016-03-10 20:26:04)|
|Nailed it Crash1, nice breakdown. The language of free speech vs hate speech vs libel and just plain poor conduct is a popular line to blur. Concurrently it us just as tricky to comprehend and tell the difference. I enjoyed your well formed digest of the article. Thanks for the solid discussion guys.|
|posted by (2016-03-10 20:35:43)|
|i meant to say there are a lot of interests in money keeping people like google from doing the right thing, if a child is molested people don't just post anonymously, they take serious action outside of poor catholic dynamics as illustrated in spotlight. So 1. google makes money by any traffic even fake armies of computer mercenaries or bot farms altering public perception and companies image on the internet. In a small place like the Netherlands one might imagine less options in child care, so some other entity or competitor most likely is responsible or hired someone on the darkweb to make the posts.|
Google makes a great deal of its revenue off the very principal of internet image modifications, advertisements, paid first page search results and ad results, data collection and resell. I'd have to see their unwillingness to cooperate being the typical cold policy of large corporate entities to protect the self or bottom line of money. Selling integrity is like most pawn shops in my opinion. You can sell anything for the right price when u need to, but ur gonna find the price of retrieval much much higher. No offense to the pawnshop business model. Just a personal belief not to give money away to fringe businesses that exist off income inequality and exploit more than assist poor money managers
|I don't get it. What does a reviewer have to do with a dutch nursery? What? Do they review the nannies using google or something? Maybe it is a dutch thing and I will never understand it. ..europeans....|
|Humans are so stupid I hope that there is a swine cloned zeka cum ebola virus just waiting in the air we breath that will come and wipe the human race of the face of this earth.|
|Mr Crash 1 Put it all in perspective. Nicely done|
Mr. Smith While I can't give you a specific answer, Google has a review service for businesses. You can also review something that appears on google maps. It's the same concept as Yelp. Someone posted a review using google that was slanderous and it takes a court order for google to do the right thing. Google keeps getting farther and farther from one of their founding principles
You can make money without doing evil
Things like this and the fact they are one of the biggest investors in Uber (a truly evil company) is causing me to look to alternatives
Your wish may soon be granted. In America, we have something waiting to "come and wipe the human race of(f) the face of this earth". It's called Donald Trump. This is an example of speech that truly is protected because it is political speech and clearly a humerous type of allegory. But to knowingly make false claims is slander, and the reviewer could be held liable for damages to a business caused by these lies (if they actually are lies.)
|@mike_oxhard: all good in theory, but we're talking about ONLINE slander here, and given a reviewer has half a brain, how can the reviewer be held accountable when making the posts via a fake account coupled with a VPN / proxies? And by fake account i'm talking one impersonating a real person that isn't them. Evil i know, but it's funny when authorities run in circles with no chance of even tracking the real culprit down let alone suing them ... and funnily enough attempting to sue the poor bloke who's name the fake account is in. Given enough of such cases the courts / corporations doing the suing will receive such a PR backlash that hopefully a new precedent will be set to reverse this account holder disclosure direction the law is moving in. Hell, if they let this slide, keep in mind this is a torrent site - and i'm quite sure users of torrents will potentially run into a greater quantity + magnitude of drama that already surrounds the scene.||
Most Popular Stories