Google Patents Guilt-By-Association 199
theodp writes "Guilt by association is defined as the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty. It's also at the heart of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,922, which was awarded to Google on Tuesday for Detecting Content on a Social Network Using Links, the invention of three Googlers. In its patent application, Google argues that if an individual posts content to social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. 'that is illegal (e.g., content violating copyright law, content violating penal statutes, etc.), inappropriate for minors (e.g., pornography, "R" or "NC-17" rated videos, adult content, etc.), in contravention of an end user licensing agreement (EULA), etc.', then their friends 'may be likely to post content to their profile pages related to similar topics.' Google further explains: 'For instance, a first user and a second user that are designated as friends on a social network may be friends based upon a set of common interests (e.g., the first user and the second user are both interested in tennis). If the first user adds content to its profile page that is related to sports, then the friendship (link) between the first user and the second user can indicate that the profile page of the second user is likely to contain content related to sports as well.' By extension, the same holds true for porn, pirated videos and music, etc., right? So, would you feel comfortable being judged by the online company you keep?"
This is simply collecting existing data (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how it does anything to indicate someone's guilt or innocence. Can it detect trends and probabilities that should be investigated? Sure, but so does a 24-hour tip-line where anyone can call and report suspicious activity.
This is just a tool that can be used and abused by law enforcement, just like their guns, their search warrants and their overall authority. Society has to give them a certain level of trust to fulfill the duties that we expect of them. Sure, sometimes we get burned. There are bad apples everywhere. But reining in the authority that law enforcement is entrusted with is OUR JOB, not theirs. We, as voters and taxpayers, are responsible for electing representatives who will determine the level of authority that law enforcement gets to use to enforce the law.
Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
So,they've managed to patent using statistics? Is anyone actually doing their job in the patent office?
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
"So, would you feel comfortable being judged by the online company you keep?"
That is pretty much how people are judged in real life too (minus the word online).
Pigeonholing without purpose. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bwa-ha-hah. The porn I like is nothing like the porn my friends like, and vice versa. Not even my girlfriend and I agree on porn. I'm also willing to bet that the illegal activities I've done in my life are nothing like the ones my friends have committed.
Where did Google get this correlation theory? It seems completely counter to my experience of human beings as individuals.
Do not too much evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why instead of Google Drive, I'm looking for an alternative that encrypts my family photo's rather than analyzes them.
I don't THINK I have anything illegal in my photo drive, but you never know what may be spotted by a robot looking through my thousands of photos.
Re:Statistics (Score:0, Insightful)
If the USPTO can grant patents on rounded corners(Apple) why not this ?
Re:This is simply collecting existing data (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also at the heart of U.S. Patent...awarded to Google on Tuesday for Detecting Content on a Social Network...
Look, we've been over this again and again. Don't fucking social network. Are you really that starved for attention and distraction, that you have no friends you could call or text, that you're willing to give up what little privacy you have for 1,000 fake friends?
Anybody who didn't learn those lessons during the MySpace days should be smacked in the mouth with a rolled-up newspaper.
-- Ethanol-fueled
Oddly good news. (Score:2, Insightful)
If Google didn't patent this someone else would and then any relationship-linking done by Google would be at the risk of patent infringment. That is a problem with the patent system, not Google in particular.
This is one of those cases where decent behavior intersects poorly with mathematics. Most of the people I consider friends do share the same view of copyright that I do (i.e. Lawrence Lessig's view) and some of that is simply due to my recommending his book and advocating its principles. That said, Mom is a friend and has never changed any of her views based on my input (e.g. she still runs Windows Vista). So in my single person anecdote I can still see the strong exception and the obvious correlation. Spread over millions of people I'm guessing the correlation between shared views on honesty/dishonesty issues is pretty strong.
The question isn't about the patent, its about what they will do about it. The people who purchased YouTube, and spent $millions digitizing books are not going to become *AA puppets any more than absolutely required by law.
So if this idea must be patented (as our current system dictates it must) I'd rather Google had it than Apple or Microsoft.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
nothing to see here (Score:3, Insightful)
We have retarded patent, copyright, and trademark laws in the US. This is not news.
DING fries are done
Yes, Very Comfortable (Score:5, Insightful)
"By extension, the same holds true for porn, pirated videos and music, etc., right? So, would you feel comfortable being judged by the online company you keep?"
Definitely. Most of the people whose company I enjoy favor a liberal interpretation of the authority of copyright and prefer adult-oriented content to PG and lighter fare. They speak ill of their government when it is justified (and sometimes when it is not) and accept that the four boxes of liberty are all unfortunate necessities. And they believe that even suspected terrorists who worship the wrong deity are endowed by their creator with the rights documented in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
I rather like that sort of person, and hope that the world sees me as one of them. I think people who are not proud to fit that description tend to lie somewhere between pretentious and dull, and are detrimental to our advancement as a productive, open, honest, and self-aware society.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that my online company includes friends at locations thousands of miles away
And yet, they are still friends. The association begs the question, "Why are they friends?" If you like and share their comments about the joys of smoking pot, even though you live in NC, it is an indication that you lean toward approving of the use of pot. No big deal, in and of itself, but if combined with an extremely large utility bill, and a propensity for buying large amounts of gardening chemicals, even though you live in a town home, and being caught with a large roll of cash, there may be a suspicion that you might be growing and selling pot. At least, that will be the argument used by the police to get a warrant to break down you door and pointlessly ruin your life.
Birds of a feather, flock together, and you WILL be known by the company you keep. These cliches don't go away just because you keep the company digitally.
Re:This is simply collecting existing data (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not who you know, it's who you hate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing illegal in your photo drive?
Do you have a flag of Taiwan [boingboing.net] in a picture? Perhaps you took a picture of your car [boingboing.net]? (Especially if you post it on your company's vanity page...) Or maybe there was a stranger in the background [yahoo.com]?
It's not so much what is illegal in your photos, as it is "who takes offense at your pictures". And when anyone can sue (civil court) anyone for anything, there doesn't even have to be a law against it.