Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 13 2018, @11:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the we've-all-done-it dept.

Milorad Trkulja was shot by an unknown gunman in Melbourne in 2004, then discovered that Google searches of his name brought up images of mob figures, including prolific drug trafficker Tony Mokbel. Gangland activity in the city was prevalent at the time.

Trkulja successfully sued Google in The Victorian Supreme Court in 2012, receiving AU$200,000 in damages (roughly $150,000). He then launched a second defamation action in 2013, alleging Google's autocomplete predictions, as well as searching phrases such as "Melbourne underworld criminals", wrongly brought up his name and image. Google took the case to the Victorian Court of Appeal and won that round.

Now the High Court has granted Trkulja special leave to appeal against that decision.

"In each of the pages on which images of such persons appear," the judgement said according to the ABC, "there are also images of persons who are notorious criminals or members of the Melbourne criminal underworld... coupled with images of persons, such as Mr Trkulja whose identity is relatively unknown."

Google tried to stop the case, but the High Court ruled there was clear potential for defamation.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Arik on Thursday June 14 2018, @12:29AM (1 child)

    by Arik (4543) on Thursday June 14 2018, @12:29AM (#692618) Journal
    Disconnect Victoria.

    What a bunch of retards. Of course when you search for this guy you get some of the underworld figures that have been reported in connection with his name. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

    Before seeing this, I would have figured he might well be an innocent man, but now I'm sure he's an underworld figure himself. How else would he have the juice to bribe or bully a judge into that ruling?

    Milorad Trkulja, notorious Melbourne underworld figure, we invited you here to ask a question that only a man with your experience would really be able to answer. Just how much is a Victorian High Court Justice worth? What's the current market value mate?

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:33AM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:33AM (#692734) Journal

      And now, this SN story will show up when searching either his name or the thugs or the Victoria Supreme Court.

      Streisand effect much?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @12:44AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @12:44AM (#692622)

    Google needs to meet the consequence of the real world.

    "Hey, I am just a cokmputer geek" don't cut it. The fuckers that came up with zyklon b said the same.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @01:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @01:04AM (#692633)

      Hey, I am just a cockpooter geek. Wanna anal?

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Fluffeh on Thursday June 14 2018, @03:04AM (11 children)

    by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 14 2018, @03:04AM (#692673) Journal

    It's an interesting conundrum here for the likes of Google. If his name is in stories linked to other underworld figures, his picture posted in articles about underworld figures... it is then implying that Google needs to actually VET the truth about any article before posting results.

    If google can be sued for linking a person with "negative" results, that also means that they should somehow be recompensed for providing "positive" results... except of course that's rubbish.

    This is such a slippery slope - If you can sue to stop this, you could sue to stop anything that is still before a court of law. And then sue about anything that is subjective. And then sue about things you simply don't like.

    Whatever the results are, I don't see a scenario where Google gets out without bruises.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @03:41AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @03:41AM (#692679)
      There's no need for Google to establish truth. They should make their search better then it's a win-win for us and Google.

      If there is a specific page that's defaming him then those responsible for that page are defaming him and he should get compensation from them.

      But if there are no pages claiming he's a mob figure and it's Google that's making him look bad because of some algorithm being stupid then Google should fix that.

      For example say there are zero pages claiming he is a mob figure and I search for Australian mob figures why would I want to see images of him? Or if I search _specifically_ for his name why would I want to see images of mob figures? Nor would I want Google to show me up stories of mob figures that do not contain his name.

      Often when I search for keyword A on Google I get loads of hits for keyword B that do NOT contain keyword A. So I wouldn't be surprised if Google is making him look bad even if by mistake or "trying to be helpful". However if mens rea is required for defamation in Australia then Google is not guilty of defamation unless he has brought it to Google's attention and Google did not fix the issue within a reasonable time.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:10AM (3 children)

        by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:10AM (#692732) Journal

        Or if I search _specifically_ for his name why would I want to see images of mob figures?

        Interestingly, I just did. The links were all about him suing Google. I then removed links with the word "Court". Suddenly apart from a Facebook Profile and a LinkedIn page (Showing up as: Michael Trkulja - Defamation specialist - Milorad Trkulja) there's no other links I could see in the first three pages that actually seemed to reference him directly.

        So, lets say that getting mysteriously shot at a time when there was a bit of a crime blitz going on was actually the most notable thing that happened to him as far as the internet is concerned. So, if you search specifically for him and flick over to images... why wouldn't you expect to see images related to things that happened around the time he had his 15 seconds. I used an exact search for his name and happened to see a Messi image there too. Does Google get credit for then applying a bonus in his search results?

        Interestingly, this whole article is just about him being ALLOWED to sue google in a court. The case will still actually have to be won on merits - which I happen to think he has few of.

        It's not my expectation that a google search result is a referenced, peer-reviewed and contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I am expecting it to be a combination of search results, associations based on a number of secret things that google knows and I don't - and in all that, I would hope that what I was looking for existed, hopefully standing out more than the rest of the stuff in there.

        Google your own name, then append a positive spin (is kind or has a mighty dong or is super smart) and you'll still get search results. Flipping it a negative one will probably return just as many results. Doesn't mean you got defamed. It just means a search algorithm isn't perfect or can't verify truth. I'm cool with that, and I would prefer to defend search engines as their benefits FAR outweigh their faults in my eyes.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:46AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:46AM (#692738)
          Nobody mentioned appending a positive or negative spin to his name. That's your strawman argument right there.
          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Fluffeh on Thursday June 14 2018, @10:54AM (1 child)

            by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 14 2018, @10:54AM (#692810) Journal

            His whole case is that Google is defaming him by putting a negative spin on his name. Pretty sure that makes it not my strawman argument.

            *sips coffee*

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:46PM (#693672)

              His whole case is that Google is defaming him by putting a negative spin on his name.

              That's different from googling while appending a negative/positive spin which was what you were talking about before. Then now you're talking about something different. You're either intellectually dishonest or you're mentally incompetent or you really need to do more than sip that coffee.

              Here's what you said (emphasis mine):

              Google your own name,then append a positive spin (is kind or has a mighty dong or is super smart)

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tfried on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:58AM (3 children)

      by tfried (5534) on Thursday June 14 2018, @06:58AM (#692739)

      Some guessing / generalization, here, as I cannot be bothered to dig into this particular case: I think a large part of the problem is that Google (and competitors) have stopped simply returning matches, i.e. content that really contains the search terms, and are instead trying to be clever.

      So, here, that guy got shot by an underworld criminal. There have been news reports on the incident, and these will be found when searching for his name or for "underworld criminal". Nobody to blame for this, but also no sign of a problem up to this point. The nature of the association between Trkulja and criminal remains fully transparent to anybody presented with these results.

      Well ... unless that somebody is an AI. Google's AI sees that association, and has no idea about its nature. It simply concludes that "Trkulja" and "underworld criminal" are related search terms, and if you were typing one, you are probably also interested in the other. So now, when you search for Trkulja, you are also presented with a diffuse array of underworld activities, where the nature of the association is no longer transparent. Similarly when searching for underworld activities, you get hits for Trkulja without the original context. It's not hard to see how the guy would be seriously pissed about that outcome.

      So: A qualitatively new association has formed. And in has not formed in the real world, it is not implied in the input data, it has formed inside Google's AI. If that same mistake - naively associating "Trkulja" and "underworld criminal", as if these were synonyms - had been made by a human being, then clearly that human being and their employer could be held responsible. But if it's an AI messing up, then nobody is to blame? Or perhaps it's not all that unreasonable to say "if you let your AI play in the wild, then you are responsible for its screw ups"?

      • (Score: 1) by tfried on Thursday June 14 2018, @07:08AM

        by tfried (5534) on Thursday June 14 2018, @07:08AM (#692743)

        Addendum: The possible path out also pretty clear, then: Just go back to searching for the terms the user has actually typed. And if you really want to add synonyms on top of that, then use a proper - human controlled - list.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:39AM (1 child)

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday June 14 2018, @09:39AM (#692789)

        AI is a trigger acronym for me. Please, just write "Google's algorithm". It really isn't a neural network anyway, and a neural network isn't an AI, so please don't write that.

        https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/algorithms/ [google.com]

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tfried on Thursday June 14 2018, @10:01AM

          by tfried (5534) on Thursday June 14 2018, @10:01AM (#692798)

          That's always a valid remark, and I've even spent half a thought on it while typing my post. But actually I found "AI" (pronounced with an ever so slightly ironic tone of voice) quite fitting this time, because:

          - In forming that (silly) association, the algorithm is actually exhibiting something that looks a lot like "creativity", which is a property that we do not generally think of when talking about algorithms.
          - The algorithm is trying to work with meanings and intentions, or at least it is employed in a setting, where an understanding of meaning would be essential. As much as the algorithm is failing at the task, dealing with meaning is a core feature of intelligence.

          So you are right, this is actually an algorithm (of course), but it is employed with that characteristic confidence that it can be employed without close supervision, as if it actually was intelligent.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 14 2018, @07:04AM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 14 2018, @07:04AM (#692742) Journal

      Whatever the results are, I don't see a scenario where Google gets out without bruises.

      How about extending "the right to be forgotten" approach even when the law of the place doesn't require it?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 14 2018, @04:45PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday June 14 2018, @04:45PM (#692999)

        “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.

        This was the gist of the notice. It said "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."

        This has led to some interesting consequences. For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Tralal literally (it said "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists"), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf.”

        Right To Force Others To Forget is stupid enough already, without going all U.S. about it and shoving it down the rest of the world's throats, Europe.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(1)