Cyber Hacker has posted Naked photos of many celebs Online (according to Daily Mail)
- Thread starter CeeJay
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
I do agree. . . for ethical and moral reasons alone Google should be "the bigger man".
Female Hacked Celebs Google is Evil They Support Perverted Predators
3 minutes ago BY TMZ STAFF
breaking news
Google is a hypocritical company that victimizes women and enables "habitual pervert predators"... so claim more than a dozen female celebrities who are now threatening to sue.
The women are outraged that Google refuses to remove the various hacked nude photos from their search engines and various sites.
In a scathing, threatening letter -- obtained by TMZ -- Marty Singer, the legal pitbull repping the women, lashes out at Google, claiming their motto, "Don't be evil" is a sham because that's exactly what they are by turning a blind eye to the hacking.
Singer -- who threatens Google with a $100 MILLION lawsuit if the pics aren't taken down stat -- says Google has distinguished itself from Twitter and other companies by "perpetuating the despicable conduct of these habitual pervert predators."
He even compares Google to the NFL scandal, saying, "Like the NFL, which turned a blind eye while its players assaulted and victimized women and children, Google has turned a blind eye while its sites repeatedly exploit and victimize these women."
Google ... you've been warned.
Read more: http://www.tmz.com#ixzz3Ezfp78ot
Female Hacked Celebs Google is Evil They Support Perverted Predators
3 minutes ago BY TMZ STAFF
breaking news
Google is a hypocritical company that victimizes women and enables "habitual pervert predators"... so claim more than a dozen female celebrities who are now threatening to sue.
The women are outraged that Google refuses to remove the various hacked nude photos from their search engines and various sites.
In a scathing, threatening letter -- obtained by TMZ -- Marty Singer, the legal pitbull repping the women, lashes out at Google, claiming their motto, "Don't be evil" is a sham because that's exactly what they are by turning a blind eye to the hacking.
Singer -- who threatens Google with a $100 MILLION lawsuit if the pics aren't taken down stat -- says Google has distinguished itself from Twitter and other companies by "perpetuating the despicable conduct of these habitual pervert predators."
He even compares Google to the NFL scandal, saying, "Like the NFL, which turned a blind eye while its players assaulted and victimized women and children, Google has turned a blind eye while its sites repeatedly exploit and victimize these women."
Google ... you've been warned.
Read more: http://www.tmz.com#ixzz3Ezfp78ot
Sorry, I don't agree. Google is simply the GPS when you're trying to find something. They're not responsible for what you see on the net, nor should they be. I see that as a direct hit against freedom of speech and information and can open to the door to many other requests to "hide" things. It sucks this happened, but it's not Google's fault, nor should they be held responsible to take any action about it. Besides, all you need to do is use Bing or Yahoo or any other search engine.
I said they could do the right thing if they wanted.
The article is very poorly written... I think a lot of the request is aimed at google based sites such as youtube, blogger etc. who haven't removed the content from their sites and who have failed to remove repeat offenders after receiving requests to do so. Apparently google hasn't responded to all the DMCA requests that were filed or something along those lines. I have no idea why they wouldn't have responded to those DMCA requests but it might be a little more complicated than the lawyer is making out.
I'm not sure what the legalities are regarding DMCA's and the google search engine but I think... I think... the bulk of the request is aimed at google based sites. I'm sure it's all a torrid legal tangle and it makes me happy I'm not a lawyer... maybe there's a lawyer around here that would know better.
I think the lawyer's request is sabre-rattling, I imagine a legal battle with Google would be difficult to win for many of the reasons you listed.
Ultimately if they want to sue people I'm wondering why they're not suing Apple.
Totally agree; the Lawyer is barking up the wrong tree .. they should be going after Apple .. it was their "cloud".
I found an article I read a few days ago about Justin Verlander's efforts to try and get his photos removed. Google only removed 51% of the photos, they used legal arguments for not removing all the photos.
What Kate Upton's Nude Photo Hack Reveals About Google
Only half of the model-actress and pitcher Justin Verlander's private photos are removed from indexes as the search engine grapples with legal theories over "selfies," copyright and fair use
When hackers grabbed naked photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and other celebrities this summer, Apple faced harsh criticism for allowing its iCloud security protocol to be breached. Thus far, Google has escaped the microscope. But now Google — no stranger to privacy issues — could face equally tough questions.
Just days after the stolen images were published, attorneys for Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander — who has dated Upton — delivered a legal takedown notice to Google that identified 461 URLs that were hosting racy pictures of the couple. A week later, Google had removed 51 percent of them from its search engine, according to its own records.
The 49 percent that remain online might reveal something about Google's policies toward flagged copyrighted content. Many of the URLs were inoperative, probably indicative of the success of Verlander's lawyers at the Baker & Hostetler firm in going after the website hosts themselves. The other URLs either featured images of Verlander, 31, or Upton, 22, wearing clothes or showed a risque picture of Upton in a mirror.
Google won't publicly comment on why it is distinguishing between nude and clothed photographs or whether it is adhering to a popular but untested legal theory that the person who holds a camera owns rights to a "selfie." But the prospect of insufficient proof of copyright (or fair use) is likely leading Google to give Verlander only half of what he has demanded. From a review of Verlander's takedown request, a significant amount of all the hacked celebrity nudes remain online, even if Google has scrubbed many from its index and most mainstream sites refuse to link to them.
Moreover, Google lodges takedown notices it receives at ChillingEffects.org, so Verlander's demand now is public. That creates another issue because Google has in effect provided a road map for any voyeur looking for sites that refuse to remove stolen photos. Google has contributed to ChillingEffects.org for the sake of "transparency" — a funny word in the context of a now infamous privacy breach — but IP attorney Jon Steinsapir says Google "could use some discretion here for good manners and good taste."
Source
What Kate Upton's Nude Photo Hack Reveals About Google
Only half of the model-actress and pitcher Justin Verlander's private photos are removed from indexes as the search engine grapples with legal theories over "selfies," copyright and fair use
When hackers grabbed naked photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and other celebrities this summer, Apple faced harsh criticism for allowing its iCloud security protocol to be breached. Thus far, Google has escaped the microscope. But now Google — no stranger to privacy issues — could face equally tough questions.
Just days after the stolen images were published, attorneys for Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander — who has dated Upton — delivered a legal takedown notice to Google that identified 461 URLs that were hosting racy pictures of the couple. A week later, Google had removed 51 percent of them from its search engine, according to its own records.
The 49 percent that remain online might reveal something about Google's policies toward flagged copyrighted content. Many of the URLs were inoperative, probably indicative of the success of Verlander's lawyers at the Baker & Hostetler firm in going after the website hosts themselves. The other URLs either featured images of Verlander, 31, or Upton, 22, wearing clothes or showed a risque picture of Upton in a mirror.
Google won't publicly comment on why it is distinguishing between nude and clothed photographs or whether it is adhering to a popular but untested legal theory that the person who holds a camera owns rights to a "selfie." But the prospect of insufficient proof of copyright (or fair use) is likely leading Google to give Verlander only half of what he has demanded. From a review of Verlander's takedown request, a significant amount of all the hacked celebrity nudes remain online, even if Google has scrubbed many from its index and most mainstream sites refuse to link to them.
Moreover, Google lodges takedown notices it receives at ChillingEffects.org, so Verlander's demand now is public. That creates another issue because Google has in effect provided a road map for any voyeur looking for sites that refuse to remove stolen photos. Google has contributed to ChillingEffects.org for the sake of "transparency" — a funny word in the context of a now infamous privacy breach — but IP attorney Jon Steinsapir says Google "could use some discretion here for good manners and good taste."
Source
There is a campaign on to basically neuter the internet, and I can't say I condone it.
The UK and the EU have been quite aggressive about it as well as some other countries. Certain entities within the US are also pushing it, but to say more would get into political areas.
It must stop.
The UK and the EU have been quite aggressive about it as well as some other countries. Certain entities within the US are also pushing it, but to say more would get into political areas.
It must stop.
^^ That's fine, but who decides what's right and how far it goes?
There's a story in the BritPress about the Royals wanting the Paps to stop taking pictures of the baby and making threats about legal action. Suppose some celeb over here decided they didn't want certain pictures in search engines that they considered embarrassing or didn't want pictures of their kids in search results. Not the same as nudies, but the issue of who is right can still be presented.
There's the bit about the EU's "Right to be forgotten" and the number of take down requests that have been made. Think what would happen if that were started here. How many celebs, politicians, business people and others would post demands for removal.
It goes to a very slippery slope.
The only way it should be able to work is with a civil court order.
Now, should they take things down when asked nicely? Maybe. But then again, where would that stop? The two teachers who just got arrested in Louisiana for example. Some of the media outlets are digging for personal pictures and posting them. Pictures that really don't have anything to do with the story at hand. Should search engines honor requests to hide those pictures?
There's a story in the BritPress about the Royals wanting the Paps to stop taking pictures of the baby and making threats about legal action. Suppose some celeb over here decided they didn't want certain pictures in search engines that they considered embarrassing or didn't want pictures of their kids in search results. Not the same as nudies, but the issue of who is right can still be presented.
There's the bit about the EU's "Right to be forgotten" and the number of take down requests that have been made. Think what would happen if that were started here. How many celebs, politicians, business people and others would post demands for removal.
It goes to a very slippery slope.
The only way it should be able to work is with a civil court order.
Now, should they take things down when asked nicely? Maybe. But then again, where would that stop? The two teachers who just got arrested in Louisiana for example. Some of the media outlets are digging for personal pictures and posting them. Pictures that really don't have anything to do with the story at hand. Should search engines honor requests to hide those pictures?