

Google told to halt auto-complete - tony_le_montana
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Google-told-to-halt-auto-complete/articleshow/12413586.cms

======
Grimbaud
A couple of points based on reading Japanese news reports: The reports are
vague (at least to me) as to whether the injunction covers autocomplete itself
or just the particular result. They say Google was ordered to stop the 表示
(hyouji, lit. 'display'), which I think could mean either, but seems more
likely to mean the particular result (otherwise I suspect they would have said
'function'). In any case, it should be noted that all the reports seem to be
based on a press conference by the plaintiff's lawyer, not on any court
documents. Also, the English reports are reporting it as an injunction, but
the Japanese sources have 仮処分 (kari-shobun, an interlocutory injunction), i.e.
this is a temporary order and the case itself is probably still ongoing.

(I am not a native Japanese speaker, but professional J>E translator with
legal translation experience)

------
rbarooah
"Google has responded to the man's complaints by saying that since the results
are compiled automatically there is no intrusion of privacy"

It's hard to see how this case is about privacy - it seems like it's really
about defamation, however the real details aren't disclosed.

That said, the argument that because something is done by a machine the
operators are not responsible for the consequences needs to be debunked once
and for all.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
Yes. The "nothin' to do with me, guv, it's the algorithm's fault" attitude is
disingenuous and unhelpful.

~~~
LesZedCB
Up until you said that, I assumed that was the general feeling. Though, I've
never been in this situation myself. Can you qualify why that attitude is
disingenuous and unhelpful?

~~~
AkThhhpppt
What jlarocco said.

But more specifically...

Disingenuous: Because if you genuinely can't, you don't control your
algorithm, you're just there to keep the lights on. I refer you to the joke
about the autopilot computer, the pilot, and the dog.

Unhelpful: because it is. This is someone who is being deeply distressed by
Google's actions in this small area of their operations, and their reaction is
to tell him to take a hike. They don't have any obligation to him, but it's
not good corporate citizenship. Vaguely related rant incoming; have some
patience, please. (",)

We make algorithms, feed them masses of data, and have them suggest things to
us based on our previous measured behaviour. This produces a positive feedback
effect; in news and current affairs, you gradually get directed more and more
towards news confirming your biases (see the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble> concept).

And we have psychological research showing groups without dissenting voices
get more radical over time - see here:
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/169/3947/778>.

So naive implementations of news suggesters should be "considered harmful" to
the public discourse. But those implementing these things don't seem to care,
and often seem to show exactly the "it's the algorithm, not me" attitude
displayed in this situation. We have a greater responsibility than that; if
we're going to cause the (almost-)elimination of the job of newspaper editor,
I'd hope we'd do it with something capable of doing at least as good a job.

~~~
LesZedCB
"if we're going to cause the (almost-)elimination of the job of newspaper
editor, I'd hope we'd do it with something capable of doing at least as good a
job."

That's a fair request. Though, google didn't design search or autocomplete to
do that right? Are they held responsible because some people figured it was
good enough to do that job? I completely understand that it is detrimental to
some people. At the same time, if it is changed, doesn't that take away its
core functionality, which is actually useful to everybody?

Search and autocomplete serve a specific purpose: to search the internet for
topics relevant to a query, and to aid in searching for common topics,
respectively. People give them more functionality then that. Is that google's
fault? Would they be fair in saying, "You're using it wrong"?

~~~
AkThhhpppt
I did put "vaguely related" in the rant warning, didn't I? :-)

Though news.google.com is what I was thinking of with the current affairs
example, it generalizes to the whole Google edifice, and to Facebook too. I
really suggest having a look at this:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s> to see what I'm talking about,
with actual examples.

Minor quibble: autocomplete isn't to aid in searching common topics, it's to
help Google avoid failed searches through misspelt queries. ",)

------
mseebach
Auto-complete is just a subset of search. Why is it more offensive to type
"john smith" and get the suggestion "serial killer" than search "john smith"
and have the first three results being about John Smith, the serial killer,
and only getting to John Smith, the mountaineer and cat lover, in position
four?

~~~
brk
I think that one valid argument could be if people searching for this guy were
commonly using a term like "John Smith Gym Teacher" they would likely never
see the results for "John Smith Serial Playground Rapist". Or, at the very
least the playground rapist results would be so far down the list that they
would naturally be mostly disregarded. But, in this case the fact that
"Playground Rapist" results are more common than the "Gym Teacher" results it
could be argued that this skews the perception of John Smith in peoples minds.

------
gradstudent
I'll go against the popular consensus and argue that Google needs to turn this
feature OFF by default. When ON, it's far too easy to assume the auto-complete
represents the "right" search terms. IMO, it should be clearer that what it
actually represents is similar searches other people have performed.

~~~
bryne
I think the point is in the overwhelming majority of cases, other searches are
the "right" searches.

~~~
LesZedCB
I agree. It's a nice feature. But then as far as features go, isn't it a meta-
feature to be able to toggle them on or off?

------
JohnnyFlash
Did Google even defend against this in the Japanese court? I don't understand
how this could get by if they did.

The fact is that names are not unique. Would he be complaining if his namesake
was a renowned scientist / businessman / whatever?

Just because someone with his name is linked to crime does not mean that he
is. It simply means that someone with a similar or same name is known for
their criminality. I don't have what I would term as a popular name but
hundreds of people share it. I would imagine in countries with far denser
populations that meeting someone with the same name would be fairly common.

I would also like to see an employer who received a CV. Went to Google and
typed in half a name and without even searching discarded the CV because auto-
complete had shown the name along with a buzz word like crime.

~~~
newman314
Your name may not be unique. That's not necessarily true for everyone else.

Given the prevalence of search, I would not be surprised at all if employers
(more specifically recuriters) did a search and discard. It does not mean it's
right or ethnical. But afaik there are no legal ramifications currently. Which
is unfortunate.

~~~
dennisgorelik
If you try to forbid every case of stupid behavior in legal system - legal
system would be totally unmanageable.

------
AznHisoka
Those auto-completes can be gamed, as most of them are just searches most
people have done. What you do is get a large group of people to search for
<NAME> \+ something else.

Of course you need to be creative, so rather than tell your friends, make it a
contest or something. Or in your Linked In profile and email signature, put
something like "If you want to see my latest resume, just google "<NAME>
resume".

~~~
mseebach
Aka Google bombing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb>

~~~
AznHisoka
Google bombing usually means artificially trying to get a webpage to appear #1
for a specific keyword. This technique is not about trying to rank, but trying
to get a phrase to appear in the search suggestions. Not many SEO blogs have
even touched on this...

------
shasta
The funny thing is that if these new stories included the man's name, it would
naturally probably bump the old ones off.

~~~
dennisgorelik
That's probably one of the main goals of the plaintiff - to loudly claim: "I'm
not that bad guy with the same name".

------
snnssnns
I have found one thing disturbing about autocomplete: Suppose I find a new
"association" between 2 ideas, one of which is rare. I intend to follow the
relationship up as a researcher or a programmer. Because of the rarity of the
first topic, it is suggested to anyone who types in the first keyword - (s)he
discovers the association for free, courtesy of my flash of inspiration and my
carelessness to search it on google.

It is surprising in the history of mathematics how often the same results are
proven simultaneously in several places - see for example, the HOMFLY
polynomial. It is as though the "result was in the air". Now this is a
concrete way of leaking such information so that if any one makes a
connection, it "leaks" to others.

------
billpg
Dear sir, I would like to apply for the position of squirrel hairdresser.
Please note, I am not the Bill Godfrey recently convicted of lightbulb
smuggling. That's someone else with the same name.

------
wdr1
There is no good that can come of government regulation of search engines,
regardless of which nation's government we're speaking.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
And if Google were at all willing to engage with users who have complaints,
government wouldn't have to.

------
rmc
Google have the ability to do this, since they don't include any sexual terms
in the auto-complete.

~~~
kamjam
I thought people also have the ability to turn it off themselves - at least i
thought they did, I'm struggling to find the option now. There is also another
option to turn off instant update of the search results, which annoys the hell
out of me (this is only for people logged into their Google account)

In any case, I'm sure it's just a case of Google flipping a switch
somewhere...

------
andos
Do you know what kind of auto-completing Google should really halt? Spoilers.
_Do not_ type Game of Thrones character names on Google.

EDIT. I'm really, really sorry. I didn't mean to spoil by implying that there
are spoilers. I removed the character name.

~~~
mseebach
Huh? I get "actress", "quotes" and "imdb".

~~~
andos
You missed the last space after her name.

~~~
tony_le_montana
Even i didn't get the 'spoiler' suggestion at first. But i did get it after
sometime. No idea how i got it.

------
Tichy
I am starting to regret that I gave my child only two first names. What would
be a reasonable number for the future? Maybe 10, or even 100?

The idea being that you can switch your "official" name easily...

~~~
sp332
Simple, just use your SSN as an identifier. That will secure your identity :)

------
pagekalisedown
Why turn it off instead of tweaking it?

~~~
micaeked
seems like that is what they are going for (according to the text of the
article, not the title): "...financial damages in a bid to press Google to
erase the suggested search..."

------
drhowarddrfine
When I look at "Wanted" posters, some of those guys have the same first name
as me. Can I sue?

You can find a scum lawyer anywhere in the world, can't you? I assume he has
proof all his charges are true.

