Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 228 posts

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#51

Post by lubujackson »

FreshCode wrote: post #32

Picketing around the Google search box doesn't seem like the way to fight counterfeiters, but I symphatise with Chanel on this. What would the ideal solution be?

The ideal solution would be to seize the domains/servers/property of counterfeiters where legally allowable (i.e., in the U.S.). Where the U.S. has no jurisdiction (China, where the bags are likely made) they can follow the procedures of China. Unfortunately for Chanel, China doesn't seem to give 2 shits about people making similar-looking bags.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#52

Post by dsplittgerber »

andrewfelix wrote: post #43
dsplittgerber wrote: post #29

Not to be overly political, but: This is what you get when you support a modern liberal state. It's always going to over-extend and over-regulate, because that's just the way the bureaucracy works - it's preserving itself by always finding new areas of society and the economy that "just have to be regulated for the common good". It's a matter of basic principles, really. It's just never going to end unless you stand…

What if they had regulations limiting the judges oversight? What if there was a regulation that restricted evidence accepted from corporations? What if there was a regulation that allowed for some kind of process of appeal in these situations? You appear to be forcing your black and white political ideals onto something that is a little more complex that "Regulation Bad! Market Good!"

This is not complex at all. As long as new legislation concerning formerly unregulated areas of life is as easily introduced as today, and politics having as close a connection with money as it has, this is just not going to end, ever.

Good luck fighting the good fight, you're going to need it. The problem is a few meta-levels above.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#53

Post by marshallp »

FreshCode wrote: post #32

Picketing around the Google search box doesn't seem like the way to fight counterfeiters, but I symphatise with Chanel on this. What would the ideal solution be?

hire more seo's. in the pre-internet days they hire more marketers/distributors, in the internet age they need seo;s

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#54

Post by pavel_lishin »

jakeonthemove wrote: post #48
JonnieCache wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to invent the following things so we can be forever truly free: 1) A secure, peer to peer DNS system with no registrars and a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 2) An encrypted version of TCP that we can drop in without anyone noticing. 3) A way of distributing keys for our encrypted transport layer without certificate authorities and again with a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 4) A secure, pe…

But then you'd still be subject to existing laws - it's not like they're going away. With the same amount of effort, you could get the governments to stop making stupid decisions/laws or at least consult someone before they do. But then again, they have tech consultants who never get a say because ruling in favor of those with money is better for the lawmakers' careers or pockets. I do believe that most people are pr…

> you could get the governments to stop making stupid decisions/laws

I know we live in an age of hitherto unimagined prosperity and wealth and miracles, but you may be reaching a little too far.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#56

Post by kstenerud »

dsplittgerber wrote: post #47
kstenerud wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's only a liberal thing, then why was the bill submitted with bipartisan support?

There is no difference between US political parties as far as being in favor of regulating areas of society and life is concerned.

So why the talk of a liberal state? America is far more conservative overall than, for example, most Western European countries.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#57

Post by marshray »

nathanb wrote: post #49

Just out of curiosity, were Google to simply not comply with this ridiculous abortion of justice, what would be the result? Could Google appeal any sanctions imposed as a result of their non-compliance? What a mess.

IANAL, but it's unimaginable that Google, Twitter, Facebook, et al. would somehow be compelled by this with no possibility of appeal.

That kind of law hasn't passed yet.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#58

Post by ChuckMcM »

Sigh, don't panic, the system will work, just legislative time is not internet time. As far as I can tell by reading the order [1] the order is temporary, and as its from a district judge [2] really only holds for Nevada at the moment. If it gets to the appeals process and the circuit court upholds it, it will apply more broadly, up to the supreme court where it will apply to the US as a whole. However what that means with regard to Chanel I'm not sure as it really only means that from within the US are these things outlawed.

But having such cases is useful because it gives the system something on which to chew, and then publish opinions (not all cases get published opinions) which set case law. So the good news might be that it gets to the circuit court which then has a chance to publish an opinion that our courts can't make these kinds of claims, and that gets upheld in the Supreme court and life is better because all the judges have to follow along.

The system is cranky, and obtuse at times, but its remarkably resilient in the face of unexpected challenges.

That being said, for the folks who are complaining about the institutions in the US being subverted, I point out that nearly all the elections in this country are won or lost by at most a 10% difference in votes. Further, in general more than 20% of the registered voters don't even bother to vote. So one could argue that if 20% of the 99% really cared about stuff they could actully vote in whomever they chose to vote in and no amount of money, croniesim, or stupidity on the part of the voters who are being lead around by their noses could stop them. The math says it is impossible (short of fraud) but fraud on that scale is really really hard to cover up.

[1] http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Se...

[2] Federal courts have 89 districts, feeding into 13 circut courts, feeding into the supreme court. http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#59

Post by adgar »

maratd wrote: post #30
lukesandberg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is cowardly for Google to obey the law and court orders. At least they publish information about this kind of activity http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/...

> I don't think it is cowardly for Google to obey the law and court orders. I do. I would never comply with any government request unless it was preceded by a court order. And if a court order had been obtained, I would use common sense to determine if the request should be granted. Anything less IS cowardly. If you don't stand up to abuse, the abuse will simply continue.

> I do. I would never comply with any government request unless it was preceded by a court order.

... isn't the article in question about a court order?

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#60

Post by JonnieCache »

charliesome wrote: post #41
JonnieCache wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to invent the following things so we can be forever truly free: 1) A secure, peer to peer DNS system with no registrars and a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 2) An encrypted version of TCP that we can drop in without anyone noticing. 3) A way of distributing keys for our encrypted transport layer without certificate authorities and again with a dynamic, heterarchical network of trust. 4) A secure, pe…

We've already got Namecoin and Diaspora, but neither appear to be catching on.

Namecoin is pretty great, but as with all these things, there's the problem of the network effect.

Diaspora has all sorts of problems.

With the SSL certificate thing, there's Convergence, which basically solves the whole lot at a stroke. See http://convergence.io/ and the guy's Blackhat talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA

Post reply on HN