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

81–90 of 228 posts

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

#81

Post by lukesandberg »

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.

The other clear distinction to make here is that it isn't exactly Google's fight since the content that is being targeted is merely being indexed by Google not created by Google. So logically it is the content owners/creator (website owners) who should be standing up to this kind of action. Unfortunately such fights are often extremely lopsided (small publisher vs. huge corporation), so people expect Google to step in to help because it is tangentially involved, but most of the time it is simply not practical.

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

#82

Post by gnaritas »

gwright wrote: post #68
maratd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

While I realize that there are defensible reasons to actively reject some government directives the benefits of a lawful society should not be underestimated. Bad laws should be fixed via legislative action. Sometimes this means complying with the bad law in the interim. Selective enforcement and/or selective non-compliance may be justifiable as a tactical response but if taken too far then we no longer have the rule…

Bad laws should be rejected via jury nullification; you can't count on legislators who were the ones to enact the bad law in the first place.

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

#83

Post by 1010100101 »

alttag wrote: post #42
dchest wrote: post #22

Reading this order: http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-0... I wonder who is responsible for de-indexing and/or removing the domain names? Other points begin with "Plaintiffs shall...", "Defendants shall...", but in this point there's no party stated that must do the action: "The Group II Subject Domain Names shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed from any search results pages of all In…

IANAL, but isn't this outside the court's scope of authority, as many (most?) aren't parties to the case? As I understand the role of judicial review and precedent, I don't see how a party not associated with a case can be compelled to do anything without a due process opportunity.

Do you think they will resist the order in this case? Why or why not?

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

#84

Post by nupark2 »

dasil003 wrote: post #76
JonnieCache wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I edited my list to include a CA-free encrypted replacement for TCP, just before I saw your comment. To all the super-geniuses reading this: burn your socialmobilelocal startup to the ground tomorrow and do this instead. Start by watching this Blackhat talk I linked elsewhere in the thread, the guy has the right kind of ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA

ie. if you really want to change the world instead of paying lip service to it and going for the money grab, here's one opportunity.

How do you pay for it?

I have a team of capable engineers, and relationships with network/wifi hardware/firmware developers. What I don't have is $2-10M to spend designing open protocols (and building the software), especially with no obvious commercial upside.

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

#85

Post by JonnieCache »

dasil003 wrote: post #76
JonnieCache wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I edited my list to include a CA-free encrypted replacement for TCP, just before I saw your comment. To all the super-geniuses reading this: burn your socialmobilelocal startup to the ground tomorrow and do this instead. Start by watching this Blackhat talk I linked elsewhere in the thread, the guy has the right kind of ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA

ie. if you really want to change the world instead of paying lip service to it and going for the money grab, here's one opportunity.

Indeed. Listen up all you MIT kids: do you want to be cooler than Mark Zuckerberg, or do you want to be cooler than John McCarthy, Tim Berners-Lee and Captain Crunch all rolled into one?

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

#86

Post by billswift »

naner wrote: post #64
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…

You can't invent around policy problems.

At least not when the policy is enforced by the people with a willingness to use lethal force, ie government. People invent around policy problems, when the policies are business related all the time.

But I wonder how many of the people complaining about this and SOPA were in favor of Obamacare?

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

#87

Post by gnaritas »

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…

> This is what you get when you support a modern liberal state.

Nonsense.

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

#88

Post by tsunamifury »

zeteo wrote: post #70

It's very unlikely that this article is correct. Here is the legal ruling: http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Se... This is a temporary restraining order. Chanel is posting a bond for any damages to the defendants, should the trial prove them innocent. Regarding de-indexing, there is only one paragraph (10) which says the domains "shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed", without specify…

Right, so couldn't this order more resonably be interpreted by saying the web sites need to post no-robots in their meta info to delist themselves rather than Google having to do it?

More like, stop having yourself indexed rather than de-indexing.

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

#89

Post by zeteo »

danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

What is the base for your unsupported assertion that the judge is a "dinosaur who know[s] nothing of technology policy"? If you had read the ruling, you'd have seen there's a lot of technical detail in it.

Plus, the article is probably also incorrect, see my comment below.

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

#90

Post by dasil003 »

nupark2 wrote: post #84
dasil003 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ie. if you really want to change the world instead of paying lip service to it and going for the money grab, here's one opportunity.

How do you pay for it? I have a team of capable engineers, and relationships with network/wifi hardware/firmware developers. What I don't have is $2-10M to spend designing open protocols (and building the software), especially with no obvious commercial upside.

No idea, but that doesn't mean it can't be done either non-profit-wise or even with significant upside, it's just your chances of VC-money and selling to a major corporation for fuck-you money are diminished relative to TechCrunch friendly buzzword related startups.
Post reply on HN