Google's reply to my complaint

Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team




--
Save photography - shoot a roll of film today!

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector entities with legal
power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to contemplate acting as one's own
"protective authority" and take serious, direct measures against offenders. If ever there
was reasonable cause for vigilante justice, this looks like it.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote

Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we
are not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of
information, not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of
the more than 1 billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing
your concern directly to the author of the post in question. For more
information, please see our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted
to our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made
by a court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our
policy, consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of
the Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are
alleged to be defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against
this author, we are prepared to abide by any orders involving the
postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team

When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector
entities with legal power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to
contemplate acting as one's own "protective authority" and take serious,
direct measures against offenders. If ever there was reasonable cause
for vigilante justice, this looks like it.

I agree, but
it's worse than that, not only are they inattentive, Google provides the
tools whereby the perpetrator can perform lawlessly, without recourse, or
repercussion. By allowing posting thru anonymous open proxies, even a
court order will not provide evidence that will lead to accountability.
The unfortunate result, Google owns Usenet. A Usenet which is a composite
of the lowest common denominator. So get used to it, because I don't see
any signs that the 'whole' will make it any different. I've been
suggesting the organization of Usenet for a long time, with little
success. (Much like trying to herd a passel of cats).

Don't we just love it?

Steve Young

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VIiRd.95309$0u.71575@fed1read04...

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted
to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged to
be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector
entities with legal power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to
contemplate acting as one's own "protective authority" and take serious,
direct measures against offenders. If ever there was reasonable cause for
vigilante justice, this looks like it.

Google is no more than a recorder of the scene, just as the telephone
company is no more than a transmitter of information. To sue Google over
something that they record is the same as suing the telephone company over
something that was said over one of their telephone lines. People have to be
responsible for themselves and their own actions. They cannot expect either
the government and/or service companies to take that responsibility. It is
unfortunate that there are people who push the edge of compatibility, and
make life hard for the rest of us, but I have had to live with that my
entire life, and I have long since given up on anyone in authority making
life any easier for me. In each instance, I have had to decide what to do,
and what actions to take on my own, without any help from anyone else. I
have long since learned to stop gnashing my teeth over things that I cannot
do anything about.

In article ,
"Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet writes:

I agree, but
it's worse than that, not only are they inattentive, Google provides the
tools whereby the perpetrator can perform lawlessly, without recourse, or
repercussion. By allowing posting thru anonymous open proxies, even a
court order will not provide evidence that will lead to accountability.
The unfortunate result, Google owns Usenet. A Usenet which is a composite
of the lowest common denominator. So get used to it, because I don't see
any signs that the 'whole' will make it any different. I've been
suggesting the organization of Usenet for a long time, with little
success. (Much like trying to herd a passel of cats).

Well, if they upset two many people then people can stop feeding to
and from them. Everyone should have some form of kill filtering
available to them that can do much the same job.

The whole point of usenet, and most likey why it has grown is that it
is not centrally organised. That is the whole point of it and how
it is set up. If you centrally organise it it is not usenet.


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VIiRd.95309$0u.71575@fed1read04...

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector entities with
legal power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to contemplate acting as one's own
"protective authority" and take serious, direct measures against offenders. If ever
there was reasonable cause for vigilante justice, this looks like it.

Google is no more than a recorder of the scene, just as the telephone company is no more
than a transmitter of information. To sue Google over something that they record is the
same as suing the telephone company over something that was said over one of their
telephone lines. People have to be responsible for themselves and their own actions.
They cannot expect either the government and/or service companies to take that
responsibility. It is unfortunate that there are people who push the edge of
compatibility, and make life hard for the rest of us, but I have had to live with that
my entire life, and I have long since given up on anyone in authority making life any
easier for me. In each instance, I have had to decide what to do, and what actions to
take on my own, without any help from anyone else. I have long since learned to stop
gnashing my teeth over things that I cannot do anything about.

When Google becomes a source for continual defamation (via ever-present search hits from
one's name which yield libel and slander), they become a conscious enabler of active crime
which extends into the future. Google is unique in the sense that it is a
recorder/publisher of sorts, with the difference being that it is "re-published"
constantly. It is actively re-distributed with the effect being the continual crime of
defamation, libel, and slander. When criminal statements are continually distributed
directly as a result of your company's policies, then the company becomes a part of the
activity...and a part of on-going libel/slander. These activities can create real damages
to real people. This is not needless "gnashing of teeth." It is a recognition that one
compmany--above all others--is facilitating known, present, and on-going criminal
activity.

I am not saying that present-day law is on my side here, because it doesn't seem to be.
What I AM saying is that law needs to be brought into the 21st century. This means some
accomodations in the law must be made in order to address the new tools of crime.

"Peter Chant" wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Steve Young" bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet writes:

I agree, but
it's worse than that, not only are they inattentive, Google provides the
tools whereby the perpetrator can perform lawlessly, without recourse, or
repercussion. By allowing posting thru anonymous open proxies, even a
court order will not provide evidence that will lead to accountability.
The unfortunate result, Google owns Usenet. A Usenet which is a composite
of the lowest common denominator. So get used to it, because I don't see
any signs that the 'whole' will make it any different. I've been
suggesting the organization of Usenet for a long time, with little
success. (Much like trying to herd a passel of cats).

Well, if they upset two many people then people can stop feeding to
and from them. Everyone should have some form of kill filtering
available to them that can do much the same job.

Kill filtering only plugs one's own ears.
It does nothing to stop real and legitimate damages of slander.

The whole point of usenet, and most likey why it has grown is that it
is not centrally organised. That is the whole point of it and how
it is set up. If you centrally organise it it is not usenet.

I understand that thinking.
But...the fact that something has existed with a particular nature by default should not
necessarily lead to the ignoring and willful enabling of specific criminal activity.

"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your
request, we arenot able to help in this instance. Google is a
provider of information, not a mediator. We make no claims
about the content of the more than 1 billion posts in our archive.
We suggest addressing your concern directly to the author of the
post in question.


Do they, anywhere, actually suggest how you might do that?

I'd write back to them thanking them for their open-ended offer to forward
all your complaints direct to the posters whose 'anonymity' they have
provided - how else are you going to be able to follow their advice, so
clearly that is what they are offering to do...



Peter

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:39:04 -0800, Mark² wrote:


"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
Got to wonder about this company's ethics.

Read this:

Original message:

Thank you for your note. While we are sympathetic to your request, we are
not able to help in this instance. Google is a provider of information,
not a mediator. We make no claims about the content of the more than 1
billion posts in our archive. We suggest addressing your concern directly
to the author of the post in question. For more information, please see
our Terms of Use at
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html

We are not equipped to assess the truth or falsity of statements posted to
our site by third parties. Instead, such determinations must be made by a
court of law or other government entity. Accordingly, it is our policy,
consistent with United States federal law (Section 230(c) of the
Communications Decency Act), not to remove postings that are alleged to be
defamatory. If you choose to pursue legal action against this author, we
are prepared to abide by any orders involving the postings in question.

Regards,
The Google Team


When the law isn't enforced by legal authority and/or private sector entities with legal
power and ability to do so, it is reasonable to contemplate acting as one's own
"protective authority" and take serious, direct measures against offenders. If ever there
was reasonable cause for vigilante justice, this looks like it.

Somebody mentioned something about a usenet "death penalty" for Google. I
am very interested in pursuing this route and would appreciate any advice
on how to go about lobbying to get this done.

That somebody is permitted to use the Google groups service to propagate
slander, hate speech or whatever they bloody well feel like without
repurcussion is just not on.

I am prepared to throw as much effort as I can against Google in this
regard and I am prepared to financially assist anyone prepared to take
this to the next level legally.

--
Save photography - shoot a roll of film today!

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Roxy d'Urban" wrote in message
news
SNIP
We suggest addressing your concern directly to the author
of the post in question.

Do they, anywhere, actually suggest how you might do that?

I'd write back to them thanking them for their open-ended
offer to forward all your complaints direct to the posters
whose 'anonymity' they have provided - how else are you
going to be able to follow their advice, so clearly that is what
they are offering to do...

IANAL, but to me that seems a more productive approach, especially if
one's willing (and able) to back it up with legal means. Disclose the
identity of the poster(s), or else...

Bart