Germany's Former First Lady Sues Google 164
quax writes "Bettina Wulff faces an uphill battle for her reputation. Her husband had to resign as Germany's president due to corruption allegations and has many detractors. Apparently some of them started a character assassination campaign against his wife. At least that is, if you trust serious journalists who looked into the matter and stated that it is made up. Unfortunately though for Bettina Wulff, the rumors took off on the Internet. Now whenever you enter her name Google suggest the additional search terms 'prostitute' and 'escort.' Google refuses to alter its search index."
European law takes these things seriously (Score:3, Funny)
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
accidentally
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Funny)
Google should rethink their position. They should know that when and/or if they break European libel laws, then they absolutely
...will forget to finish their sentence.
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU really wants to force the issue, google can just threaten to withdraw from Europe. We will see how well that goes over with the people.
The European market is to big and to important for a company like Google to withdraw from it over such a small thing.
They didn't pull out of Europe after the Streetview fiasco, why should they now?
Plus, this isn't an EU wide thing but only effects Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their bluff would be called, and the amount of credibility it costs them would be considerable. Basically, it would be the last time ever they threaten anything and someone believes them.
Re: (Score:2)
They might, for a few days, but doing so would set the bar for making legal demands on Google again QUITE high.
Re: (Score:2)
What the should do is just block all searches that refer to her. No editorial distinction between whether it lauds her or scorns her. Just mention her is enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Que pesar
What to weigh?
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Informative)
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Informative)
Germany not wanting to remember the holocaust,
Are you out of your mind? The only nation on earth where you are more reminded of the Holocaust on every possible occasion is Israel.
You know very little about the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
He probably chose to not be reminded of the real world.
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, do I see a pattern, Germany not wanting to remember the holocaust,
Excuse me? Where do you get that shit from?
WTF are you talking about? (Score:2)
everyone in Argentina is proud about the Hand of God. It showed two things:
- If he wanted, Maradona was able to fool the referee and make fun of the brits, despite them having stolen their island shortly before.
- If he wanted, Maradona could just a few minutes later make one of the best goals in history. Of course the brits don't acknowledge it and just whine about the first one.
I don't wanna mix technology, sports, and politics here. I just wanted to point out that no one in Argentina is ashamed of the han
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think you will find most Brits concede that Maradona's second goal was spectacular. :-P
Unlike the Argentinians, we're generally gracious when defeated fairly...
Re: (Score:2)
everyone in Argentina is proud about the Hand of God. It showed two things:
- If he wanted, Maradona was able to fool the referee and make fun of the brits, despite them having stolen their island shortly before.
- If he wanted, Maradona could just a few minutes later make one of the best goals in history. Of course the brits don't acknowledge it and just whine about the first one.
I don't wanna mix technology, sports, and politics here. I just wanted to point out that no one in Argentina is ashamed of the hand of god.
We will concede many things, but you still not having your island back. It's our island now, along with oil rights that go along with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Informative)
Germany not wanting to remember the holocaust
Please take your pills again, otherwise you'll write more nonsense.
If you grow up in Germany, you will get fed everything about the holocaust until you are sick of it. It will be the topic of (mandatory) history class for at least half a year, usually one year.
There's stuff on TV about the holocaust every week. There's lots of books in the history section of book stores.
The jewish lobby organisations have a massive influence, and if you want to kill a political topic dead, all you need to do is find a convincing way to link it to the holocaust. For example, there's a current discussion regarding the legality of circumcision for religious purposes. We're not talking about something done by a doctor in a hospital under anesthesia, but about the religious ceremony where some priest cuts of a part of your dick as a child without any painkillers. A court recently ruled that strictly speaking, that is assault. There was an uproar within Germany because both muslims and jews do that to their kids. In the media, the jewish position takes headlines, while the muslim position is rarely mentioned. There are about 200,000 jews in Germany, but 3.6 million muslims. Jewish speakers seriously said that this court decision "is the worst thing that happened to judaism in Germany since the holocaust".
Israel is more likely to forget about the holocaust than Germany is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, there'd be quite a few more Jews if your relatives hadn't murdered them.
One, yes, though not as many as you probably assume. The official number is 570.000 - most of those murdered were in Poland and other invaded countries.
Two, my grandfather was murdered by the Nazis for being a member of the german resistance. So shut the fuck up.
Re:google can just threaten to withdraw from Eu. (Score:2)
No.
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
*sigh*
It's getting old.
Any CEO who pulled such a stunt would be kicked out and sued into oblivion before the ink is dry. Europe is bigger than the US, you don't pull out of there unless you have a business suicide wish.
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't have to not service Germany, just don't have any offices there. Then they can let the German government decide if they want to block google, or not.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea how business and laws work, do you?
Offices don't matter one bit. If Google wants to do business in Germany, it needs to abide by german law. And trust me, Google wants to do business in Germany. Google keeps the numbers secret, but estimates say it's roughly 2 billion $ per year, that's 1/8th of Google's world-wide revenue.
Big players like this don't play chicken. Google will never pull out of Germany and Germany will not block Google. There will be talks and negotiations and some compromis
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an expert, no, but I do have a fair amount of knowledge.
For example, I have enough to know that a company that has no presence inside a country does not have to abide by its laws, including Germany. Now Germany could for example make it difficult for German companies to do business with google, but even that would be difficult. Most of google's revenues come from serving ads and adwords, etc, so unless google has "offices" (including buildings serving content), I'm not exactly sure how Germany wou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And google has an office with 13 people in it in Hamburg Germany? Yes, it would be impossible to move that many people to a location just over the border.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but you do have no idea.
First, yes as someone pointed out, Google not only has offices in Germany (more than one, I think), it actually has a german subsidiary. Yes, that could be moved, however, it is almost certainly the legal partner of all existing contracts, which makes things quite a bit more complicated than moving a few small offices.
Second, Germany is part of the EU which has a common market and quite a bit more. If you think you can move just across the border and you're out of reach, y
Re: (Score:2)
Over some silly woman is trying to censor the internet?
Sorry, that spot is still taken by Ursula von der Leyen
Re: (Score:2)
However this is about germany, and germany is much smaller than the US.
I still don't know that it would be a good idea to close your door on about 82 million potential users (germany's population according to google)
Re: (Score:2)
But Germany is part of the EU and one feature of the EU is the common market. It is quite difficult to pull out of one country and not the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Google could also shoot themselves in the foot. Beside that, if Google loses the case in Germany then they have to filter for German users. This has no direct implication for the rest of the EU. It is like suing someone in Kansas, that has no direct effect on an US federal level or an (direct) effect on Canada.
Ob a side note: Misses Wulff just tries to promote her new book. So don't worry.
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Funny)
If it's libel to say that "when searching for X, people have commonly searched for X+Y" where Y is unkind towards X, then you may want to rethink your notion of libel. If Europeans don't like free speech, then they absolutely
Re: (Score:2)
If Europeans don't like free speech, then they absolutely
We do like free speech, but we do admit that there are limits. Libel is one of those.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not libelous to claim that "When people search for Bettina Wullf, they often search for 'Bettina Wulff prostitute'" if it is factual. That is the only claim google makes as inferred from its search engine. Facts are not libelous, and if you think they are, then you are absolutely
Re: (Score:2)
I was only replying to the sentence I quoted.
Personally I do think that Google should not change their suggestions.
Re: (Score:2)
I will happily admit that my "If Europeans..." line was both incomplete and merely a ruse to poke fun at the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Facts are not libel, the truth is an absolute defense.
Free speech implies that you have a backbone and are willing to accept speech that makes you uncomfortable.
If Google can show that people frequently combine those terms, then there is no libel. To prevent such factual statements as a matter of law is a hinderance to the very essence of free speech.
Re:European law takes these things seriously (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you and she know this but Google isn't hosting the content.
I don't know if you know this, but Google IS hosting the content.
Google keeps track of what other people are searching. When someone else starts typing into the search box, Google will automatch it to other popular search terms that Google is hosting.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to me that Google is making a purely factual statement. Most people who searched for X also searched for Y. Is truth not a defense against libel in Germany?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect what will matter is whether its clear that this is what the suggestions mean.
If there's possibility of confusion that Google is in fact claiming these things, there could be a problem perhaps, but clarity about what the suggestions are really should clear it all up on a legal level, or at least I'd hope it would.
Re: (Score:3)
Clear to who? Is Google responsible for making even the stupidest understand what their algorithms do?
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers and judges don't like to be called stupid...
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the shoe fits. That said, Google and their lawyers would never say that, they'll have a much more diplomatic way of explaining how the technology works.
We do get too many powerful people that legislate or litigate on technology issues despite not understanding anything about the technology, yet they feel plenty qualified to make such decisions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The former German president was married and divorced his first wife and then married Bettina.
The current German president is married but seperated, but not divorced, from his wife and living with his girlfriend.
The foreign affairs minister is openly gay.
The family affairs minister got her first child while in office.
I just tried to imagine this in the US, the heads of conservatives would explode.
BTW Germany currently has a conservative government.
Re: (Score:3)
A gay, a Vietnamese, a guy in a wheelchair, and an elderly East German woman walk into to a bar. "You're a funny bunch," says the bartender. "No, we're the German government."
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly...
Years ago political enemies (or fellow party members - who knows the difference anymore) started that rumour. Those rumours were quickly dispeled, but her book will be out in a few days.
And why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And why should they? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think Google is as hands off as you say. I just typed Mitt Romney in the search box and I got:
"Mitt Romney on issues"
"Mitt Romney vp"
"Mitt Romney tax returns"
"Mitt Romney wiki"
Judging by the commercials on television, I'd expect at Google to at least suggest some non-flattering search terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another think that keeps other terms near the top of the list is astro-turfing. Gaming Google is a common tactic in political circles. They won't do it to try bury an oppo
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of entertaining options to game Google's suggest with ...
A couple favourites are "how do you", "why do women" and "why do men" ... the suggested questions are often quite funny.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Romney would rather not discuss 'tax returns' yet there it is.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I don't know if it is popularity based. Maybe it is, maybe I've missed some obscure global trends, but I always found it amusing to type "Is it wrong". For some time this would end up with suggestions such as:
"Is it wrong to sleep with my mother"
"Is it wrong to sleep with my brother"
"Is it wrong to sleep with my sister"
"Is it wrong to sleep with my dog"
I tried it today and noticed in 4th place:
"Is it wrong to have a centipede in my"
Now, again, as I say, maybe I've missed something, but are these r
Re:And why should they? (Score:4, Insightful)
That'd be a fair and nice argument if they would apply these rules across the board. But there's quite a few cases where they've caved already, most notably to the lobbying from the entertainment industry. So they're at least making a statement that as an individual, you shouldn't expect them to alter their search index, but as a powerful corporate lobby, you can do what you please.
Re:And why should they? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considdering that there are lots of websites where Germans rate hotels, restaurants and the like and tell their experience, and I don't hear a lot about all those people and websites getting sued, I guess that your friend was very unlucky. Or maybe the situation was a little mor complicated than what you told us.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that friend hired a lawyer, so either his lawyer was a pussy (is this libel? *g*) or that hotel actually had something more substantial.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that friend hired a lawyer, so either his lawyer was a pussy (is this libel? *g*) or that hotel actually had something more substantial.
look, why would a lawyer tell a potential client that he doesn't need a lawyer?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like in the US, you can be sued for pretty much anything by pretty much anyone.
Whether or not that case would've been laughed out of court or not - well your friend didn't want to find out, which I can understand. But there's nothing Germany-specific there.
Google is already censoring the auto-complete (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is already censoring the auto-complete, just for other reasons:
It will not suggest "adobe photoshop torrent" or "adobe photoshop crack", even though that these searches and similar searches are extremly popular. And it will not autocomplete "Rocco" to "Rocco Siffredi". So google is censoring auto-complete against piracy and against pornography, why exactly shouldn't it do the same thing to protect people against libel?
Re: (Score:3)
Because whatever you think of filtering against piracy or pornography (I don't like either, but I can understand the latter for young children), it's fairly clear cut and simple to know what is piracy and what is pornography.
How do you quantitatively define libel? Do you just remove anything that anybody claims is libel against them? That'll work just fine, right?
Re: (Score:2)
it's fairly clear cut and simple to know what is piracy and what is pornography
Actually, no, no it's not, and what is piracy and pornography can be considered widely different in different places.
Re: (Score:3)
Is this a thing now? Where we just
Re: (Score:2)
Google has quietly expanded its list of censored search phrases with the addition of The Pirate Bay’s domain names. The blacklist prevents popular keywords from appearing in Google’s Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed. Although Google understands that there is no silver bullet to stop online copyright infringement, the search giant is convinced that the steps they’ve taken could help to decrease piracy.
https://torrentfreak.com/google-adds-pi [torrentfreak.com]
Google missed an opportunity (Score:3, Funny)
instead of just suggesting search terms like prostitute and escort, why not also mention the fees ?
It's even worse... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. She is just promoting her book and her new promotion company. She had to something like this, because otherwise no one in Germany would have noticed that she "wrote" a book. All the tree-killing would have been a waste of time without that promotion ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
But she learned her lessons well....
Hint: Those rumours were started the night before the presidential election (years back...) and now Bettina Wulff wrote a book.......
Coincidence? Maybe.....
Google is Sometimes Hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure I would agree with Google's typical defense on this issue, which is that they have an algorithm that automatically ranks all the search results and they can't change that. Except they manually change the results. When companies break their rules, they can punish them. For example, when BMW's German website was found to influence results [bbc.co.uk], Google banned them from their index. An eyeglass company, DecorMyEyes, verbally abused its customers to generate bad reviews ... and more publicity [nytimes.com]. After being published in The Times, they dropped the company from the index. Even in the Santorum case, they eventually made some results less prominent. Google has also been accused of pushing up the rankings of its own products. So it's kinda hypocritical to say that Google doesn't adjust individual results.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is, those were banning specific sites. This is a request to ban *any* negative mention of a specific person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They remove SITES or specific results, but they never stop you from typing searches.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd much rather not have Santorum go Santorum on my ass...
Reverse Streisand effect (Score:2, Interesting)
First time I heard about Bettina Wulff. So maybe her attempt to repair her bad reputation is going to damage it further instead?
On the other hand she could also benefit from a reverse Streisand effect. Surely a person everybody calls bad can't be that bad? There are a number of celebrities who actually benefited from getting "exposed" in public. Paris Hilton and Hugh Grant come to mind. They're much bigger stars now than they were before the scandal that outed them.
Re:Reverse Streisand effect (Score:5, Interesting)
a reverse Streisand effect. Surely a person everybody calls bad can't be that bad?
What annoys me most about this debate is that there are so many people who apparently think that having worked as a prostitute/sex worker is so very bad and would somehow disqualify a woman from being the first lady. People and the boulevard press in Germany even went so far as to take the first lady's mature attitude towards better sexual education at schools as a clear sign of having been a prostitute, as if any of that constituted any real problem (rather than, say, hypocrisy or the moronic politics of her husband).
Re: (Score:3)
What annoys me most about this debate is that there are so many people who apparently think that having worked as a prostitute/sex worker is so very bad and would somehow disqualify a woman from being the first lady.
I'd argue that being the first lady is so very bad that it should disqualify a person from being a sex worker.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I consider prostitutes to be more honest than politicians, at least you get what want, then you pay with prostitutes. Politicians hike taxes and then don't deliver on their promises.
I think Bettina Wulff is taking a step down the ladder with her attitude, especially in the name of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
The question here is which Bettina Wulff. First she would have to prove her name unique. Should her name not be unique she should be cited for overweening narcissistic arrogance in failing to take into consideration all the other Bettina Wulffs. As her name is not unique it should be thrown out of court and she should offer an apology to all the other holders of the name for the arrogant attempt of taking globally unique ownership of the name.
Google should not have to change anything (Score:2)
BING (Score:2)
Sue Google, but BING got the result.
Could be worse (Score:2)
She should be glad her last name isn't Santorum
Google Behaving Correctly (Score:2)
Google's proper role is to allow their object algorithms to work as designed. Their job is to enable us to search the content that is out there; making special exceptions in response to silly complaints defeats that.
Everyone knows the significance of the suggested search phrases. No reasonable person really believes that by displaying them, Google is uttering statements that predicate them of the entered phrase. In other words, no-one, including Bettina Wulff and her lawyers, honestly believes that Google i
typo correction (Score:2)
Make that "objective algorithms".
Shoot the messenger! (Score:2)
The typical politician's response.
two points (Score:2)
Not mentioned so far:
One, she has just "written" (no idea how much is ghostwritten) a book that is just coming out. The "discussion" about her past pretty much died down when her husband left office. Strange how it apparently got started with just the perfect timing, isn't it?
Two, so what? I know several people who either have been or still are sex workers. For most of them you'd never guess, and the ones I'm close with are good people. It's one of those "scandal! scandal!" topics that have no reason going
Nothing but a marketing scheme for her new book (Score:5, Interesting)
And it couldn't be more evident. Just two things:
1. The event in discussion now dates back half a year. When it was news, Mr Wulff was still Federal President (an office which, in Germany, does not carry too much power; his main job is to represent the state) and struggling against the corruption allegations which finally made him resign. Back then, when it was urgent, Mrs Wulff did not deem it necessary to do or say anything at all.
2. This week there is a book by Mrs Wulff coming to the stores titled "Jenseits des Protokolls" ("Beyond Protocol"), which is expected to tell a few stories from the couple of months her husband was President, including, of course, the events she is now suing Google for.
Any questions?
All this is of course exactly in line with what those Wulff people have already shown to be their character.
Re: (Score:2)
She wasn't. She has studied media science and worked for an internet agency and a supplier for the car industry. By the way, the rumour originated within Mr Wulff's own political party, the conservative CDU (christian-democratic union) which is also the party the head of government, Mrs Merkel, belongs to.
Re:Germany's 'what'? (Score:5, Funny)
I think they meant "first lady" as "the escort he chooses by default".
Re: (Score:2)
That term is not specific to the US president's wife any more. It refers to any head of state's wife.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what "first lady" means. It's not an offical title.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they meant first madam (-;