And another person confuses Google for the entire internet…
Sounds like Google needs to check its privilege.
The only reason they’re suing Google is because it’s the only one they can try to strong-arm into giving them enough money.
This isn’t a new thing. Lawyers have always looked around for a peripheral party with deep pockets.
True story: mechanic says to a driver, “you need a brake job immediately, this car is unsafe.” Driver ignores him and drives away. Brakes fail, of course, at the top of a hill. Car zooming downhill toward traffic swerves into telephone pole. Driver sues phone company.
How about celebrities, and anyone else for that matter, stop taking nude pictures of themselves and storing them in unsafe places, or letting untrustworthy people take nude pictures of themselves, if they don´t want nude pictures of themselves on the internet.
If this sounds like victim-blaming, admittedly it´s a bit of that. I don´t want to excuse scumbags who leak pictures like that. Also, I´m not into taking nudes or having them taken of myself, so maybe it´s that much easier for me to say. But if I were, I can say with confidence that I would not store them on an online-connected computer HD, my cellphone, “the cloud”, or any other place were there is even a remote chance of someone gaining access to them without my consent or knowledge.
Then again, it´s just one of many problems that could be solved rather easily if people just put their brains to work a little more often.
Hello,
The article claims that many of the images are hosted by Google on services like BlogSpot (Google Blogger) and YouTube. If that is the case, Google should be responding promptly to takedown requests.
Don’t want to get in a car accident? Don’t use cars. Yet another problem that could be solved rather easily.
Of course we don’t want to discourage car use because it leads to a lot of great things and people like them a lot, so we encourage driving in the name of efficiency and instead allow people to sue. We probably don’t want to discourage nude pictures/selfies per se because people really seem to like them and derive a lot of pleasure from them in comparison to the small risk.
You must admit cars are more useful than naked selfies.
In this WSJ article on the lawyers’ letter, a Google spokesman claims that,
We’ve removed tens of thousands of pictures — within hours of the requests being made — and we have closed hundreds of accounts.
It looks like the issue may be that people simply create new Blogspot/Youtube channels and new non-Google sites that get indexed. Google’s position seems to be that it only removes images when specific DMCA notices are filed rather than, say, algorithmically trying to proactively prevent the image from showing up in its index or on its hosted sites.
The lawyers’ complaint is similar to ones made by the MPAA and RIAA – that Google could do much more to prevent certain kinds of content from showing up in its index and services.
An attorney is complaining about someone making a profit off of an unfortunate situation?
He’s just jealous.
If your wives, daughters, or relatives…
It’s a shame none of the women he knows know how to read.
Depends on your definition of “useful”.
i am confused again , or possibly over or under medicated ~
skyclad is bad ?? i think not !!
google encourages peoplez to get and give concussions and then to let them go untreated ?? not according to the blogs that i read !!
on the other hand , google clearly did not do enough to stop isis or ebola !!
wait , errr , ahhh , nevermind !!
sell that soap !! sell those cars and such !!
powder to the free market !!
and , encyclopedia britanica is prolly responsible for anything evil or untoward that happened before the birth of google !! or , that notorious index of periodicals that was so usefull when i was in school in the late 60’s
Someone steals something from Apple, and it’s Google’s responsibility to clean up the mess?
Only after rigorous testing of proficiency and being taught where and how to drive and not drive. Safety first. You don’t drive down a one way street so you can get to your destination more efficiently.
If you want to drive without a seatbelt do it on your own property, not on the highway.
The voice in my head reading this was Jackie Chiles, the lawyer from Seinfeld.
No, it’s not "a bit’ of that. It’s only and entirely that.
You don’t blame sexual assault victims for walking around at night in possession of a vagina. You don’t blame mugging victims for possessing a wallet in public. And you don’t blame the victims of this particular sex crime - because that’s what this is, it’s the same old sex crime of voyeurism by modern means - for using their phone’s capabilities in intended ways.
How about we stop victim-blaming? It’s fucking grotesque. Also, you apparently need to put your own “brain to work” a little better because your “advice” is pretty useless - we have cases of people whose nude photos were the result of their web-cam being hacked and paparazzi intruding on private spaces (they are now using drones to make sure there’s no such thing as privacy) not to mention burglars physically stealing secured tapes and non-digital photos.
Maybe? That’s a pretty severe lack of self-awareness there, bud. There’s a lot of problems that could be solved with a bit more of that, too.
Are you equating the use of cars with storing naked pictures of yourself that you don´t want anyone else to see in unsafe places?
