WebProNews

Tag: Legal

  • Google Sued By Fired Employee Alleging that White, Male Conservatives are Systematically Discriminated Against

    Google Sued By Fired Employee Alleging that White, Male Conservatives are Systematically Discriminated Against

    James Damore, the former Google engineer who was fired in 2016 after releasing a manifesto that questioned the benefits of diversity programs, has filed a discrimination lawsuit against Google. Damore also discussed his belief that Google is politically biased in the manifesto saying, “At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.”

    Damore and his attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon conducted a live video press conference on Facebook explaining why they filed suit this morning. He stated that he thinks his lawsuit will “help make Google a truly inclusive place.”


    Here are some highlights of Damore’s manifesto: (Read it in full here)

    I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

    • According to The Verge, Damore and another fired engineer claim that “employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business, such as ‘diversity’ hiring policies, ‘bias sensitivity,’ or ‘social justice,’ were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights.”

  • Google Now Sharing National Security Records Requests With the Public

    Google Now Sharing National Security Records Requests With the Public

    Google has begun sharing certain public records requests, many from the FBI related to national security, in order to illustrate to its users a high level of transparency. Google and all major search and social internet platforms are deluged with record request from law enforcement and court actions. One of the reasons Google may want to show samples of the requests to the public is to bring attention to the fact that they are overwhelmed with requests and also to defend themselves from accusations that they are not giving adequate privacy to those using their service.

    The fact is, no one has privacy when using Google or any online platform.

    “In our continued effort to increase transparency around government demands for user data, today we begin to make available to the public the National Security Letters (NSLs) we have received where, either through litigation or legislation, we have been freed of nondisclosure obligations,” said Richard Salgado, Director of Law Enforcement and Information Security for Google.”

    “As we have described in the past, we have fought for the right to be transparent about our receipt of NSLs,” he said. “This includes working with the government to publish statistics about NSLs we’ve received, successfully fighting NSL gag provisions in court, and leading the effort to ensure that Internet companies can be more transparent with users about the volume and scope of national security demands that we receive.”

    Google has provided links to 8 NSR’s here with the goal of creating a portal for all of them to be viewed in the future. Here is a sample from one of them:

    screen-shot-2016-12-13-at-4-12-51-pm

  • Progressive Tech Companies Want Trump to Protect Sharing Economy From Dem Attacks

    Progressive Tech Companies Want Trump to Protect Sharing Economy From Dem Attacks

    Michael Beckerman, President & CEO at Internet Association which represents big internet focused tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, Netflix, Twitter, Lyft, PayPal, Salesforce, Rackspace and many more, sent a congratulations letter to the Trump transition team today. In it they sought to inform Trump how important the internet is to the economy and gave their take on issues dear to them.

    screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-5-22-52-pm

    The entire letter is available here (PDF).

    One very interesting area the group focused on is the sharing economy, which has been under severe attack by progressives and liberal Democrats around the country. Perhaps Trump isn’t Silicon Valley’s worst nightmare after all, considering he is likely to agree with them on these planks:

    ON DEMAND OR SHARING ECONOMY
    By harnessing the power of the internet and internet-based commercial cloud technology, sharing economy platforms allow individuals to use their free time and resources to earn significant supplementary income under a flexible working arrangement that allows people to earn money how, when, and where they want. Although still in its nascent stage, the sharing economy is projected to account for $335 billion in global revenue in 2025, up from $15 billion in 2013.

    Offer Consistent, Smart Regulatory Approaches: The rapid rise of this new sector of the economy, however, has been met by piecemeal regulatory approaches at the local and state levels that often feature misguided or overly burdensome rules driving up costs for consumers and workers. By steering clear of burdensome regulations, policymakers at every level can ensure this rapidly growing sector of the economy sees its full potential.

    Protect the Flexibility and Economic Opportunities of the Sharing Economy: On demand and sharing economy companies are driving new economic growth and opportunities by providing individuals with unprecedented flexibility and control over the decision of when, and how, they earn income. By attempting to apply the same static workplace regulations of the 20th century to this new economic model, policymakers could threaten the very entrepreneurial spirit that drives these 21st century earning opportunities.

    One of their other key concerns is safeguarding platforms like Facebook from lawsuits because of things their users post which means not weakening current intermediary liability laws:

    “Weakening intermediary liability laws would not only chill innovation and free expression online, but would also threaten investment in the next generation of ideas fueling our digital economy. If digital content intermediaries were responsible for the content uploaded by users, over 80 percent of investors would be less likely to fund startups. In addition, 85 percent of investors are uncomfortable investing in digital content intermediaries open to unpredictable legal action.”

    Another major concern is copyright law safe harbors, such as fair use, exemptions, compulsory licenses and first sale doctrine:

    “Threats to the flexible framework, such as weakening limitations or exceptions to safe harbors, would create barriers to entry for internet startups and creators, which would deny users the ability to access content
    online.”

    They also want policies that promote pro data innovation rules:

    “However, new regulatory proposals on how data is used and collected threaten to reduce this value. U.S. policy must ensure businesses in every U.S. industry can keep a competitive edge by innovating with data. To do so, policies should champion data innovation by acknowledging the crucial role of data in the modern economy and promote pro-innovation rules. This includes taking a harms-based approach to consumer privacy, instead of a collection-based approach, and stopping data minimization efforts or other proposals that would inhibit innovation.”

  • Google Updates Transparency Report, Enables Search of Removal Requests

    Google Updates Transparency Report, Enables Search of Removal Requests

    Google released today an updated Transparency Report on their copyright removal requests from Google search results. These requests come from copyright owners who claim that sites linked to in Google search results are violating copyright laws. Often these pages are auto-scraped exact copies of a site trying to steal Google visits and ad clicks.

    “The report hasn’t changed much since 2012 and was getting a little rusty,” posted Google’s Manager of Public Policy & Government Relations, Jess Hemerly. “So today, we’re releasing a new version of the report that makes it easier for you to understand the data.”

    Picture 9

    Here are the changes that Google noted:

    • Examples of removal requests, similar to the annotations we added to government requests to remove content last year. These illustrate the range of things we’re asked to remove and the decisions we make in response.
    • A new Explore the Data page, which lets you search the database of removal requests and see a more detailed list of reporting organizations, domains, and copyright owners.
    • An explanation of how copyright notice and takedown is applied to Google Search, which we hope leads to a better overall understanding of the process.

    Google also made some earlier changes to other sections of the Transparency Report according to Hemerly:

    • In late July, we published the data on government requests for user data for the second half of 2015. We coupled this update with a blog postabout some of the recent advances in surveillance reform, including the Judicial Redress Act and the EU-US Privacy Shield.
    • At the beginning of August, we added added YouTube and Calendar to ourHTTPS Report Card, continuing to show our progress toward secure connections for people across our products. Learn more about YouTube’s efforts on the YouTube Engineering blog.
    • A few weeks ago, we updated the government requests to remove content section with data for the second half of 2015. The data show an upward trend in governments asking us to remove content from our products and services, with content on YouTube, Search and Blogger cited most frequently.

    From July to December 2015, the top three products for which governments requested removals were YouTube, Web Search, and Blogger.

  • WhatsApp Begins Sharing Data with Facebook

    WhatsApp Begins Sharing Data with Facebook

    In a reversal of previous pledges, WhatsApp is going to begin sharing data with Facebook in order to connect accounts, detect spam and improve ad targeting. This includes sharing your phone number and usage information for Facebook’s internal use, but not sharing any actual texts, since they are encrypted and neither Facebook or What’s has access to them.

    WhatsApp is giving existing users 30 days to grandfather themselves into not sharing their data with Facebook. After that all users will be subject to their new Terms and Privacy Policy.

    Here’s how WhatsApp describes the sharing of data with Facebook in the new Terms:

    We joined the Facebook family of companies in 2014. As part of the Facebook family of companies, WhatsApp receives information from, and shares information with, this family of companies. We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share with them, to help operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market our Services and their offerings. This includes helping improve infrastructure and delivery systems, understanding how our Services or theirs are used, securing systems, and fighting spam, abuse, or infringement activities.

    Facebook and the other companies in the Facebook family also may use information from us to improve your experiences within their services such as making product suggestions (for example, of friends or connections, or of interesting content) and showing relevant offers and ads. However, your WhatsApp messages will not be shared onto Facebook for others to see. In fact, Facebook will not use your WhatsApp messages for any purpose other than to assist us in operating and providing our Services.

    WhatsApp is seeking new ways for its users, especially businesses, to utilize WhatsApp which will open up additional magnetization opportunities in the future. They are exploring the use of WhatsApp in business transactions with customers related to online orders and sales, appointments and reservations, delivery and shipping notifications, business updates to customers related to their products and services as well as integrating WhatsApp in company marketing.

    “For example, you may receive flight status information for upcoming travel, a receipt for something you purchased, or a notification when a delivery will be made,” posted WhatsApp. “Messages you may receive containing marketing could include an offer for something that might interest you. We do not want you to have a spammy experience; as with all of your messages, you can manage these communications, and we will honor the choices you make.”

    “But as we announced earlier this year, we want to explore ways for you to communicate with businesses that matter to you too, while still giving you an experience without third-party banner ads and spam,” added WhatsApp.”Whether it’s hearing from your bank about a potentially fraudulent transaction, or getting notified by an airline about a delayed flight, many of us get this information elsewhere, including in text messages and phone calls. We want to test these features in the next several months, but need to update our terms and privacy policy to do so.”

    “We’re also updating these documents to make clear that we’ve rolled out end-to-end encryption,” they said. “When you and the people you message are using the latest version of WhatsApp, your messages are encrypted by default, which means you’re the only people who can read them. Even as we coordinate more with Facebook in the months ahead, your encrypted messages stay private and no one else can read them. Not WhatsApp, not Facebook, nor anyone else. We won’t post or share your WhatsApp number with others, including on Facebook, and we still won’t sell, share, or give your phone number to advertisers.”

    “But by coordinating more with Facebook, we’ll be able to do things like track basic metrics about how often people use our services and better fight spam on WhatsApp,” the company stated. “And by connecting your phone number with Facebook’s systems, Facebook can offer better friend suggestions and show you more relevant ads if you have an account with them. For example, you might see an ad from a company you already work with, rather than one from someone you’ve never heard of.”

  • Net Neutrality Upheld: No Blocking, Throttling or Fast Lanes, Cisco Slams

    Net Neutrality Upheld: No Blocking, Throttling or Fast Lanes, Cisco Slams

    The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released their ruling today upholding the FCC’s current Net Neutrality rules.

    The ruling stated:

    But nothing about affording indiscriminate access to internet content suggests that the broadband provider agrees with the content an end user happens to access. Because a broadband provider does not—and is not understood by users to—“speak” when providing neutral access to internet content as common carriage, the First Amendment poses no bar to the open internet rules.

    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the FCC praised the ruling:

    Cisco Slams Ruling:

    “Cisco is disappointed in the DC Circuit’s decision to uphold the FCC’s open Internet rules.

    We believe in an open Internet and that balanced rules to protect consumers and prevent anti-competitive behavior are necessary and appropriate. But uncertain regulation under Title II, as provided for by the FCC and upheld by this court, diminishes the enthusiasm for new investments in broadband networks and limits new innovation and business models.

    This is particularly true at a time when the Internet continues to evolve and innovative new services are coming to market every day, including Internet of Things technologies, telemedicine, distance learning, emergency services, and mobile 5G.

    One bright spot. The FCC rules do recognize that the open internet rules are not appropriate for enterprise networks and specialized services. This will enable new services to obtain the quality of service needed to foster innovation in these areas, and we anticipate that entrepreneurs will explore both of these options going forward.

    The discussion over these issues is not going away because the Internet ecosystem continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace. Policymakers need to remain focused on ensuring that these rules support the development of new technologies and business models.”

    Part of a dissent published in the ruling concluded:

    The ultimate irony of the Commission’s unreasoned patchwork is that, refusing to inquire into competitive conditions, it shunts broadband service onto the legal track suited to natural monopolies. Because that track provides little economic space for new firms seeking market entry or relatively small firms seeking expansion through innovations in business models or in technology, the Commission’s decision has a decent chance of bringing about the conditions under which some (but by no means all) of its actions could be grounded—the prevalence of incurable monopoly.

    I would vacate the Order.

  • Gawker Files Bankruptcy, Selling To Ziff Davis

    Gawker Files Bankruptcy, Selling To Ziff Davis

    Gawker announced today that it has filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors in order to safeguard its assets and keep publishing while it appeals the $130 million Hulk Hogan verdict. Gawker also said that it has an agreement with Ziff Davis to sell all 7 of it’s brands including presumably Gawker.com. Recode is reporting that Gawker has told its employees the price is somewhat less than $100 million. The Wall Street Journal added, “The sale auction will begin with an opening bid of $90 million from the digital media company and publisher Ziff Davis LLC, according to a person familiar with the matter.” The Gawker network reportedly has 6 million readers each weekday.

    In a memo to staff, Ziff Davis chief executive Vivek Shah said the auction will likely take place at the end of July and that he expected the bankruptcy court to set a schedule to take other bids soon. “There’s a tremendous fit between the two organizations, from brands to audience to monetization. We look forward to the possibility of adding these great brands—and the talented people who support them—to the Ziff Davis family,” he said. (WSJ.com)

    Gawker founder and CEO Nick Denton tweeted about the bankruptcy filing and took a direct stab at Peter Thiel who funded Hogan’s legal team:

    Felix Salmon, Senior Editor of @fusion tweeted that Ziff Davis intends to shut down Gawker.com and focus on its other brands such as Gizmodo.

    Gawker founder and CEO Nick Denton commented in the release, “We are encouraged by the agreement with Ziff Davis, one of the most rigorously managed and profitable companies in digital media. A combination would marry Ziff Davis’ strength in e-commerce, licensing and video with GMG’s premium media brands.”

    Bankruptcy is necessary in order for Gawker to sell the business free and clear of legal liabilities at its maximum value:

    Gawker Media Group is putting its properties up for sale after a coordinated barrage of lawsuits intended to put the company out of business and deter its writers from offering critical coverage.
    The protection afforded by the bankruptcy filing will allow GMG to exercise its rights to due process. The company is confident it will ultimately prevail in the Hogan lawsuit, but was not able today to obtain from the trial court even a brief stay without onerous conditions to seek relief from the appeals court.

    The Wall Street Journal added that, “Gawker will sell its business at a bankruptcy court-supervised auction. It has arranged a $22 million bankruptcy loan to stay open pending the sale. The company listed Mr. Bollea as its largest creditor with a $130 million claim. (He was also awarded an additional $10 million in damages from Mr. Denton himself.)”

    Gawker’s release went on to recap its accomplishments over the years:

    With a distinctive commitment to journalism as an honest conversation between writers and readers, GMG is the only interactive media group to have achieved scale and profitability without outside capital. The company is a leader in online commerce, native advertising and online discussion software, but the driving force is its distinctive editorial mission.

    Writer for writer, GMG has broken more important and interesting stories than any other digital news venture.
    Gizmodo, the company’s technology flagship, has energized the debate about Facebook’s control of the news, for example. Deadspin, which provides sports news without access, has exposed the cover-up by the NFL of domestic abuse allegations against players. Lifehacker is the smartest how-to site on the web. Jezebel has defined modern feminist thinking. Jalopnik and Kotaku are among the web’s leading sources for news and reviews of cars and video games. And the flagship site itself has shone light on powerful figures from Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to the new industrialists and investors of Silicon Valley.

    “Authentic writing, whether it takes the form of honest reviews of technology, video games and entertainment, or revelations about the way the system works, is more important than ever,” says Nick Denton, the founder of GMG. “We have been forced by this litigation to give up our longstanding independence, but our writers remain committed to telling the true stories that underpin credibility with our millions of readers. With stronger backing and disentangled from litigation, they can perform their vital work on more platforms and in different forms.”

  • France Wants To Impose Its Laws On Google Worldwide

    France Wants To Impose Its Laws On Google Worldwide

    Google is fighting a ruling in France that requires Google to not just honor search removal requests from users in France, but to also censor those results worldwide, including the USA. In March, the French data protection regulator (CNIL) ordered that its interpretation of French law regarding the right to be forgotten should apply not just in France, but in every country in the world.

    This runs counter to the long-standing principal, that existed way before the advent of the internet, that a law in one country can’t be imposed on other countries. Otherwise, you would quickly get down to the lowest common denominator where countries with strict censorship rules would be able to force their standards on more open countries that value free speech, such as the United States.

    Google’s global general counsel Kent Walker published an article in France’s Le Monde newspaper which Google republished in English in its Google Europe Blog. In the post Walker rightly attacks the concept that one country can tell other countries what to do stating:

    “For hundreds of years, it has been an accepted rule of law that one country should not have the right to impose its rules on the citizens of other countries. As a result, information that is illegal in one country can be perfectly legal in others: Thailand outlaws insults to its king; Brazil outlaws negative campaigning in political elections; Turkey outlaws speech that denigrates Ataturk or the Turkish nation — but each of these things is legal elsewhere. As a company that operates globally, we work hard to respect these differences.”

    The “right to be forgotten” is a right given to European Union member states allowing anyone to require Google to remove search result listings on request by individual citizens of those countries. This was based on a 2014 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As Walker points out in his article, “It lets Europeans delist certain links from search engine results generated by searches for their name, even when those links point to truthful and lawfully published information like newspaper articles or official government websites.”

    Walker revealed that Google has of now reviewed nearly 1.5 million webpages, delisting around 40%. In France alone, they’ve reviewed over 300,000 webpages, delisting nearly 50%.

    In March Google expanded the EU’s right to remove search listings even when searching on other domains from within an EU country. In other words, if you went to the main U.S. version of Google while in France you will now still only see the France version of Google search results. Also in March, in response to the Paris terrorist attacks, the French government enacted a decree that enables administrative de-listing of websites from search engines without requiring any judicial oversight. The problem with censorship for supposedly good reasons is that it often quickly leads to censoring benign content or censoring content that isn’t terrorism but is simply politically incorrect or disagrees with the governments perspective. A government for instance, may censor content that promotes free speech on the basis that it might be seen as sparking violence with Muslims. It’s a very slippery slope away from free speech and freedom in general.

    Google’s Global General Counsel went on to say”

    “As a matter of both law and principle, we disagree with this demand. We comply with the laws of the countries in which we operate. But if French law applies globally, how long will it be until other countries – perhaps less open and democratic – start demanding that their laws regulating information likewise have global reach? This order could lead to a global race to the bottom, harming access to information that is perfectly lawful to view in one’s own country. For example, this could prevent French citizens from seeing content that is perfectly legal in France. This is not just a hypothetical concern. We have received demands from governments to remove content globally on various grounds — and we have resisted, even if that has sometimes led to the blocking of our services.”

    Google has filed an appeal of the CNIL’s order with France’s Supreme Administrative Court, the Conseil d’Etat.

  • Homeland Security To Subpoena Techdirt.com Over Article Comment

    Techdirt published a story Wednesday about an Arab man being pulled over by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBC) in Indiana, seizing $240,000 and then refusing to give it back. A reader calling himself “Digger” posted a comment that caught the attention of CBC because it vaguely suggested the death of their agents.

    Screen Shot 2016-05-06 at 3.10.31 PM
    As everyone knows comments on the internet are often over the top and full of hyperbole, as Techdirt pointed out in an article today where they also wrote about being called by the CBC over the identity of Digger. They were told that they will be served a subpoena demanding the information.

    This raises a lot of questions about governments relationship with the media, the right of a news publication to protect the anonymity of its commenters and what constitutes a real threat. To me, it was just the commenter blowing off steam and was not a real threat. After all, he didn’t say that he was going to shoot an agent, he inferred that the man who is suing the government probably knows people who would. I think it was a stupid and foolish comment considering he’s talking about government agents, and because of that it is serious.

    However, the CBC in my opinion should be able to see that his comment wasn’t an actual threat and therefore isn’t worth their time. My two cents.

  • Google Loses Antitrust Appeal

    Google Loses Antitrust Appeal

    Google has reportedly lost an appeal in an antitrust related to Android in Russia.

    The complaint was lodged last year by Yandex, and in September, Russian antitrust authority The Federal Anti-Monopoly Service ruled that Google mustn’t require device manufacturers using Android to pre-install Google services.

    Google appealed, and according to reports, the appeal was just rejected by the Moscow Arbitration court. Reuters reports:

    The company now has to amend its contracts with smartphone manufacturers in order to comply with the ruling, and pay a fine.

    TechCrunch shares this statement from Yandex:

    “After careful consideration of all the facts in the case against Google’s anticompetitive practices, the court has upheld FAS’s judgement. We are satisfied with the court’s decision to uphold FAS’s judgement in the case against Google.”

    Google isn’t really commenting so far.

    Image via Google

  • Companies Pay Up For Fake Yelp Reviews

    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced settlements with Machinima, Inc. and three other companies in separate investigations regarding the companies’ role in posting fraudulent content on the Internet. This includes fake Yelp reviews.

    Machinima agrees to pay $50,000 for failure to require disclosure of payments to gaming experts endorsing Xbox on YouTube, while the other three companies (Premier Retail Group, ESIOHInternet Marketing, and Rani Spa) are also forced to pay penalties and agree to stop posting fake reviews.

    According to the AG, Premier Retail Group solicited reviewers through ads posted on Craigslist to write positive reviews in exchange for free samples, vouchers, and other compensation even if they hadn’t visited one of their locations. One such ad said, “Have a Strong Yelp account? Want to make money writing reviews?” The company paid a penalty of $50,000, $30,000 of which is suspended assuming compliance with the settlement agreement.

    ESIOHInternet Marketing, according to the AG, solicited over 50 freelance writers on Craigslist and Fiverr to write over 200 fake reviews of its small business clients for $10 to $15 per review. The company agreed to stop posting fake reviews and related deceptive trade practices and pay a $15,000 penalty.

    Finally, Rani Spa engaged in the efforts of a Candian businessman who offered to boost their online reputation by posting fake Yelp reviews. The company agreed to stop posting fake reviews and related deceptive trade practices and pay a penalty of $50,000.

    A press release from the AG’s office says:

    Ensuring honesty on the Internet is of paramount importance to consumers because of the effect that online reviews can have in influencing consumers’ purchasing decisions. According to one survey, 90% of consumers say that online reviews influence their buying decisions. Multiple studies have concluded that online reviews can make or break companies. A 2015 Nielsen Study reveals that 66% of the global consumers trust consumer opinions posted online, making it the third-most-trusted source of information about businesses after word-of-mouth and recommendations from friends and family. A highly-cited Harvard Business School study from 2011 estimated that a one-star rating increase on Yelp translated to an increase of 5% to 9% in revenues for a restaurant. Cornell researchers have found that a one-star swing in a hotel’s online ratings at sites like Travelocity and TripAdvisor is tied to an 11% sway in room rates, on average.

    The settlements announced today are a continuation of the Attorney General’s commitment to ensuring accurate and reliable consumer reviews. In September, 2013, AG Schneiderman announced “Operation Clean Turf,” the largest investigation into astroturfing by a law enforcement agency, resulting in settlements with 19 companies that paid over $350,000 in penalties. After an extensive undercover investigation into the reputation management industry, AG Schneiderman’s office found that companies had flooded the Internet with fake consumer reviews on websites such as Yelp, Google Local, and CitySearch; used techniques to hide their identities, such as creating fake online profiles on consumer review websites; and paid freelance writers from as far away as the Philippines, Bangladesh and Eastern Europe $1 to $10 per review.

    Yelp discusses the AG’s announcement on its blog:

    Through Yelp’s advanced recommendation software and Consumer Protection Initiative that includes undercover investigations, Consumer Alert program, and legal enforcement efforts, we’ve been able to mitigate the effect of these bad actors. We filed legal action in 2013 against James McNulty, the internet scammer paid by Rani Spa, which led to his admission that Yelp’s recommendation software had foiled his attempts to place fake reviews. ESIOH Marketing halted their services and took down their website in response to our demands in 2014, and Yelp caught Premier Retail Group (aka Infinite Beauty) soliciting reviews on Craigslist the same year, which resulted in us removing many paid reviews and closing associated user accounts.

    The sad reality is that some businesses will always be tempted to try to game the system, which is why Yelp is committed to continuing our efforts and leading the industry in an aggressive stance against astroturfers. We commend the work here of the New York Attorney General and hope to see other regulators follow their lead.

    Yelp posted its Q4 and full-year 2015 earnings earlier this week. The company reported 34% growth in cumulative reviews at about 95 million.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Google Faces Another Complaint From German Publishers

    Google is still battling German publishers over including their content among Google News links as it faces a new legal complaint related to a war that just won’t end.

    Will this end up with Google shutting Google News down in Germany? Time will tell.

    VG Media, a consortium of German news publishers, has reportedly filed a new complaint against the company for what common sense dictates is free traffic to their websites (go ahead and try to make sense of it). Reuters reports:

    They justified the step by saying that Google still did not want to pay to use their publications: “So bringing a civil claim before the responsible court is the only way to enforce the ancillary copyright for press publishers against Google,” the VG Media spokesman said.

    VG Media represents about 200 publishers.

    Once upon a time, the consortium pushed for an ancillary copyright law to force Google to pay for using snippets of content, but Google got around it. Eventually, Google just stopped showing snippers for the publishers in question, and then VG Media turned around and said they could again use snippets because they were “being forced to take this step because of the ‘overwhelming market power of Google.’”

    It was a head scratcher then, and it sill is.

    Google faced a similar situation in Spain and ultimately just shut down Google News. According to a study that came out last summer, the effects of that were damaging to the industry.

    Will the same thing happen in Germany? We’ll just have to see how the story plays out. So far, Google is keeping quiet.

    Image via Google

  • Yahoo Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Text Message Spam

    Yahoo Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Text Message Spam

    Yahoo will face a class action lawsuit related to unwanted text messages it allegedly sent to Sprint customers. According to reports, the company was ordered by a federal judge on Monday to face the suit, which claims it sent unsolicited messages to over 500,000 customers, who could potentially be part of the class.

    The messages in question were “welcome” messages received when other users sent customers separate messages using Yahoo Messenger. The lawsuit maintains that Yahoo’s welcome messages are unauthorized advertising for Yahoo and violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

    If Yahoo loses the case, it’s looking at damages of up to $1,500 per message.

    Back in October, a federal judge ruled that Yahoo would not have to face a class-action suit for violating the TCPA when Rafael David Sherman and Susan Pathman sought it, but the company’s luck changed this week with the suit brought by Rachel Johnson.

    According to Reuters, which first reported on the news, the judge declined to certify a separate class of T-Mobile customers for similar messages, claiming that these messages were consented to.

    Yahoo has yet to publicly comment on the suit.

    Last month, Yahoo relaunched Yahoo Messenger with a new design and added functionality.

    Image via Yahoo

  • Yelp Reviews Under Government Spotlight

    Yelp Reviews Under Government Spotlight

    On Tuesday, Yelp and other members of the Consumer Electronics Association, including Zenefits and R Street Institute, briefed Congressional staff, businesses, and advocacy organizations on SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and what it calls “chilling impacts” of lawsuits filed “to censor or intimidate critics.”

    In September, a Yelp reviewer was ordered to pay a business owner $1,000 after leaving a series of comments on Yelp and a local site, which a court found ventured beyond free speech and into defamation.

    Do you think the court got that decision right? Let us know what you think.

    Yelp has said repeatedly that it doesn’t want reviewers to be afraid to leave negative reviews, and the company seems to fear that cases like this could make them think twice.

    “We frequently find that a better course of action, rather than suing your customers, is publicly responding to a critical review in the same forum,” a Yelp spokesperson said in relation to that case.

    “Seventy percent of people online use a review site before making a purchasing decision,” said Laurent Crenshaw, director of policy, Yelp. “These platforms allow users to make better purchasing decisions and make businesses more responsive to consumers. For this virtuous cycle to continue, we can’t have chilled speech.”

    According to a press release, the CEA and its members shared with Congressional staff how SLAPPs were used to stifle free speech in many areas. In states without Anti-SLAPP statutes, online reviewers can face “prolonged lawsuits simply for expressing their opinion,” it says.

    Yelp has engaged in lobbying efforts on anti-SLAPP legislation that would prevent such suits. Earlier this year, the company attacked casino mogul Steve Wynn for supporting legislation that would make it easier to sue people for bad reviews.

    “We live in an age where public comment forums are getting a lot of feedback,” said Mike Godwin, innovation policy director and general counsel at R Street Institute. “How do we keep those channels open? States are the laboratories of democracy and 28 states have already put in place protection from SLAPPs.”

    The panel specifically championed the SPEAK FREE Act proposed by Representatives Blake Farenthold (R-TX) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

    “We thank Representatives Farenthold, Eshoo, and others for advancing federal anti-SLAPP legislation,” said Michael Hayes, manager of government relations, CEA. “Whether you express your opinion online or offline, you shouldn’t have to worry about the threat, and cost, of a SLAPP. We need a federal fix to ensure that these bogus lawsuits no longer undermine Americans’ free speech.”

    On Wednesday, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee was held to discuss “How Gagging Honest Reviews Harms Consumers and the Economy” and the Consumer Review Freedom Act.

    Crenshaw talked about this on the Yelp blog:

    Thankfully, Congress is taking an important step in protecting consumers’ right to free speech with the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 (S. 2044). This bipartisan effort, introduced by Senators John Thune (R-SD), Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Jerry Moran (R-KS), would nullify any of the non-negotiable clauses that allow businesses to slap consumers with large fines for sharing their honest feedback.

    The protection of free speech, both offline and on, has always been, and should continue to be, a top priority of the government. We at Yelp applaud the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee for their dedication to this issue and look forward to a long future where people can share their firsthand experiences with local businesses without facing the threat of fine or unfair retribution.

    This is a battle Yelp has been dealing with for years as businesses who feel they’ve been harmed by user reviews have repeatedly sought retaliation by way of lawsuit. As Yelp has repeatedly pointed out, this often results in a “Streisand Effect,” in which the business ends up getting more negative press as a result of their efforts and ultimately harms itself further.

    Do you agree with Yelp on this issue, or do you worry that any government action will result in negative effects? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image via Yelp

  • Being A Yelp Reviewer Doesn’t Make You A Yelp Employee , Rules Federal Judge

    It’s hard to believe that anybody thinks Yelp should pay them for the reviews they write, but some do, and some even banded together in a class action lawsuit against the company to try and seek out wages for reviews posted.

    The suit was filed last year by reviewers who claimed they should be paid for performing “the exact same work” that people who are paid by Yelp do.

    “This is a lawsuit merely to provide the wages to all writers of Yelp and not just the ones which Yelp, Inc. chooses to pay in wages,” the complaint said.

    A federal judge has now ruled that reviewers are volunteers, not employees (Duh.), and dismissed the suit. Courthouse News Service reports (via Consumerist):

    Lead plaintiff Lily Jeung complained she was “hired” by Yelp, that Yelp controls reviewers’ “work schedule and conditions” and that two of the three named plaintiffs were “fired” with “no warning and a flimsy explanation.”
     
    Seeborg found the plaintiffs “use the term ‘hired’ to refer to a process by which any member of the public can sign up for an account on the Yelp website and submit reviews, and the term ‘fired’ to refer to having their accounts involuntarily closed, presumably for conduct that Yelp contends breached its terms of service agreement.”
     
    But the reviewers’ contributions to the site “at most would constitute acts of volunteerism,” he wrote.

    Yelp finds itself at the center of a lot of different kinds of lawsuits, but this is one of the sillier ones if not the silliest. To think that anyone could sign up for a Yelp account and post reviews and just expect to be compensated as an employee is laughable, and it’s good to see that the court basically agreed.

    Image via Yelp (Flickr)

  • Uber Sued Again Over Employee / Contractor Issue

    Uber’s stance has always been that it’s a software company. Uber connects people wanting a ride to those offering a ride. It’s a logistics company. Uber simply connects third-party contractors with customers. Its drivers are independent contractors, not employees.

    That notion is being challenged quite a bit as of late, and it looks like Uber is facing another lawsuit over the question of employee or contractor.

    UK union GMB, which represents professional drivers, has engaged a law firm to file suit against Uber “on the grounds that Uber is in breach of a legal duty to provide them with basic rights on pay, holidays, health and safety and on discipline and grievances.”

    According to GMB, Uber drivers are employees and the company should conform to all applicable employment laws.

    “The Uber assertion that drivers are ‘partners’ who are not entitled to rights at work normally afforded to workers is being contested,” says Nigel Mackay,a lawyer involved in the suit. “Uber not only pays the drivers but it also effectively controls how much passengers are charged and requires drivers to follow particular routes. As well as this, it uses a ratings system to assess drivers’ performance. We believe that it’s clear from the way Uber operates that it owes the same responsibilities towards its drivers as any other employer does to its workers.”

    GMB demands that Uber adopt the national minimum wage, give paid holidays, ensure that drivers take rest breaks and have a maximum work week, and “adhere to legal standards on discipline and grievances.”

    “A successful legal action against Uber could see substantial pay outs for drivers, including compensation for past failures by the company to make appropriate payments to who we argue are their workers.” Mackay adds.

    Last month, the California Labor Commission ruled that an Uber driver was an actual employee – as Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.”

    But Uber’s argument is that its setup lets drivers choose everything.

    “One of the main reasons drivers use Uber is because they love being their own boss,” a spokesperson for Uber told Engadget. “As employees, drivers would drive set shifts, earn a fixed hourly wage, and lose the ability to drive elsewhere. The reality is that drivers use Uber on their own terms: they control their use of the app.”

    That lawsuit only applied to one woman, however, and didn’t result in any sort of mandate. GMB thinks that this new lawsuit could have farther reaching consequences.

    In other Uber news, the company is likely populating its in-app maps with ghost cars.

  • Uber Sued for $2M over Teen’s Sexual Assault

    Uber is facing yet another lawsuit after one of its drivers assaulted a passenger.

    The mother of a 13-year-old Virginia girl is suing the ridesharing company for $2 million, claiming that Uber and its lax screening processes are responsible for her daughter’s sexual assault.

    The assault itself is not in dispute. In April, 39-year-old former Uber driver Isagani Morin was found guilty of assault and battery in the case and received a six-month suspended sentence. The lawsuit focuses on Uber’s responsibility in the incident.

    According to the lawsuit, the 13-year-old girl used Uber between 10 and 20 times last October and November – mostly for rides to and from school. Most of the time, Morin was the one to pick her up.

    The complaint states that Morin made unwanted and inappropriate advances toward to girl, including Can I buy you a pair of panties for your birthday? and Age doesn’t matter if two people are in a relationship.

    The abuse allegedly culminated in Morin “reaching backward between the seats and rubbed Child Doe’s inner thigh and asking Child Doe if her mother was home.”

    The lawsuit says that the girl gave Morin a low rating on the Uber app, but he continued to be the one to pick her up.

    In asking for damages, the lawsuit admonishes Uber for its screening practices.

    “Uber failed to properly screen and check the background of Morin before hiring him, and this negligence resulted in the hiring of an individual who exhibited overly aggressive sexual tendencies,” says the complaint. “Uber failed to adequately train Morin. Upon information and belief, Defendant became aware of Morin’s ongoing sexually aggressive tendencies and nonetheless retained him as an employee. Uber either knew or should have known of Morin’s propensity to make unwelcome sexual advances, requests and demands for sexual favors, and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature aimed at minor children by various words and acts.”

    “Uber failed to exercise reasonable care and was negligent in hiring and retaining Morin, a dangerous employee who Uber knew or should have known was a dangerous sexual predator, and who was to harm passengers of the carrier, including Child Doe.”

    Uber’s terms of service state that “UBER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE QUALITY, SUITABILITY, SAFETY OR ABILITY OF THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS. YOU AGREE THAT THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES, AND ANY SERVICE OR GOOD REQUESTED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, REMAINS SOLELY WITH YOU, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.”

    But does this absolve Uber of responsibility for its drivers? The girl’s attorney thinks not.

    “Under Virginia law, employers are liable for their employees,” the mother’s attorney, Jake Denton, told The Daily Beast.

    But are Uber driver employees? Or are they just contractors. Uber says that it’s merely a logistics company – a tech startup that allows ride-wanters to connect with ride-providers. But just this week, a California labor board ruled that an Uber driver was in fact an employee, stating that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.”

    In the case of the 13-year-old Virginia girl, Uber says it is “extremely troubled by these allegations” and it has “cooperated fully with law enforcement.”

    Image via Uber, Facebook

  • NSA’s Bulk Phone Data Collection Illegal, Court Rules

    A federal appeals court has ruled that the bulk collections of your phone records is illegal.

    In a nearly 100-page ruling, the court vacated a lower court’s decision and stated that the bulk collection of metadata is not authorized by section 215 of The Patriot Act – the section upon which the surveillance programs have been operating for years.

    “The district court held that § 215 of the PATRIOT Act impliedly precludes judicial review; that plaintiffs‐appellants’ statutory claims regarding the scope of § 215 would in any event fail on the merits; and that § 215 does not violate the Fourth or First Amendments to the United States Constitution.  We disagree in part, and hold that § 215 and the statutory scheme to which it relates do not preclude judicial review, and that the bulk telephone metadata program is not authorized by § 215,” said the federal appeals court.

    The case was originally filed in 2013 by the ACLU, and subsequently thrown out. This ruling amends that error.

    “This appeal concerns the legality of the bulk telephone metadata collection program (the “telephone metadata program”), under which the National Security Agency (“NSA”) collects in bulk “on an ongoing daily basis” the metadata associated with telephone calls made by and to Americans, and aggregates those metadata into a repository or data bank that can later be queried.  Appellants challenge the program on statutory and constitutional grounds. Because we find that the program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized, we vacate the decision below dismissing the complaint without reaching appellants’ constitutional arguments,” said Circuit judge Gerard E. Lynch.

    Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who has shepherded NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations to the public, was pleased with the ruling and suggested that it should make many rethink their views on Snowden.

    Rand Paul is already using the ruling in a campaign tweet:

    As Wired points out, this decision could pave the way for a full legal challenge of the NSA and its surveillance initiatives.

    You can read the entire ruling below:

    Clapper Ca2 Opinion

    Image via Trevor Paglen, Wikimedia Commons

  • Yelp Wants Users To Speak Up About Nevada Bill

    Yelp is encouraging its users around the country, but particularly in Nevada, to let members of the Nevada State Assembly and Governor Brian Sandoval’s office know that they oppose a bill sponsored by casino Mogul Steve Wynn, which the company says would roll back the state’s anti-SLAPP law.

    If you’re unfamiliar with the term SLAPP, it stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and refers to sits that are intended to censor or intimidate critics with legal fees. These are suits that plaintiffs don’t typically expect to win, but are intended to favor them by wearing down the defendant. Read this for a more in-depth explanation.

    Such lawsuits are bad for Yelp because they silence users and make them afraid to leave honest reviews. Yelp has spoken out about SLAPP suits many times in the past, and lobbies for legislation to prevent them.

    “On March 3, 2015, Steve Wynn lost a defamation lawsuit in California based off of an anti-SLAPP motion. Who is Steve Wynn and why the heck should I care, you ask? Well, he’s got money and isn’t afraid to sue his critics,” explains Yelp’s Laurent Crenshaw. “Less than three weeks after Wynn lost the defamation lawsuit, the State Senate, with Wynn’s support, introduced bill SB 444 gutting the new and robust anti-SLAPP law in Nevada, Wynn’s home state.”

    You can get a closer look at the bill here. Courthouse News Service recently summarized it:

    Nevada’s current law, NRS 41.660, states a defendant must file a motion to dismiss the case within 60 days after service; the plaintiff must provide complete evidence the state they made was true; the court must rule within seven judicial days; and “the court shall award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to the person against whom the action was brought.”

    Senate Bill 444, sponsored by the Senate Committee on Judiciary and casino mogul Steve Wynn, changes those rules in significant ways. First, it changes the filing day of motions to dismiss from 60 to 20 days; plaintiffs must “establish prima facie evident of each and every element of the claim, except such elements that require proof of the subjective intent or knowledge of the defendant” ; and repeals the current law’s guidelines regarding who should bear the financial burden of the trial.

    “It’s understandable that Wynn may not like Nevada’s robust anti-SLAPP laws since he recently lost under a similar statute in California, but it would be a tragedy if the state of Nevada allowed the interests of one man to gut a law that is meant to protect the freedom of speech for all Nevadans,” says Crenshaw. “Nevadans deserve to be able to share their experiences and opinions, positive or negative, without having to worry about people like Steve Wynn intimidating or censoring their speech.”

    Here’s a look at the defamation suit Wynn lost in California.

    Image via Yelp (Flickr)

  • Google Sued over Alleged Age Discrimination

    Google, once again, finds itself the target of an age discrimination lawsuit.

    This time the claim comes from a 64-year-old engineer, who says Google never even considered hiring him due to his age.

    From the Wall Street Journal:

    Robert Heath says in his complaint filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., that Google unfairly dismissed his application for a software engineering job in 2011 when he was 60 years old, despite his work experience at IBM, Compaq, and General Dynamics. The lawsuit says Google based its decision not to hire Heath on a brief phone interview, despite telling him in an email that the company was “embarking on its largest recruiting / hiring campaign in its history,” and “you would be a great candidate to come work at Google.”

    “Google intentionally did not allow Mr. Heath to communicate or demonstrate his full technical abilities, and did not have a sincere interest in hiring Mr. Heath,” says the lawsuit. “Google failed to hire Mr. Heath and other members of the putative class in favor of younger applicants under the age of 40.”

    The lawsuit cites a study that says the median age of computer engineers at Google is 29, compared to 43 for the population at large.

    If this sounds familiar, that’s because Google’s been sued over this very issue before. In 2004, a computer scientist named Brian Reid sued his former employer, Google, after he was fired and replaced by someone 15 years is junior. According to Reid, Larry Page fired him (Reid held a lofty title – director of operations) after he was told he wasn’t a “cultural fit” and was “too old to matter”. After years of legal battles, the case was settled out of court.

    Google’s not the only tech company facing recent lawsuits over this issue.

    “We believe that the facts will show that this case is without merit and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously,” said Google in a statement.

    You hear a lot about discrimination in the tech world – from gender to racial. Ageism doesn’t get as much play, but it certainly exists.

  • HBO Is Going After Bars Hosting Game of Thrones Parties

    If you live in a town with a good bar or brewery, it’s likely that come 9pm on Sunday, it’s packed with people gearing up for the new episode of Game of Thrones.

    Public viewing parties of popular shows have taken off in recent years – people sharing beers and tears over shows like Games of Thrones, Breaking Bad, and more. It’s the communal viewing experience that leads to incredible moments like this, an entire bar watching the Mountain v. The Viper scene from Game of Thrones:

    Gee, looks fun. HBO wants to murder than fun.

    It looks like HBO is now going after bars that hold these live screening parties. The NY Daily News reports that one Williamsburg bar, Videology, was recently sent a cease and desist letter – which the owner described as “a very polite but official letter asking us to stop showing it.”

    They plan to comply with HBO’s polite request, because yeah it’s their content but come on, man.

    “As a pay subscription service, HBO should not be made available in public establishments,” said HBO in a statement. “When it does happen, it is of particular concern when there is an attempt to profit off the programming. We have taken such actions for well over a decade.”

    It appears HBO is frustrated over the fact that someone leaked a screener of the first four episodes of the new season of Game of Thrones, and it’s taking it out on some truly puzzling targets. This cease and desist order to a New York bar was preceded by legal action against Periscope, Twitter’s live broadcasting app. The company sent takedown notices, following reports that users were live-streaming the season five premiere of Game of Thrones for their followers to see.

    Of course, there are a couple of things peculiar about this. For one, Periscope streams vanish after 24 hours – they aren’t permanent videos like, let’s say, YouTube videos. So essentially, HBO is fighting ghosts.

    Also, you can’t believe that HBO really considers Periscope a piracy threat. How many Game of Thrones fans do you know who would suffer through watching the show via a low-quality live-stream on Twitter? As in someone recording their TV screen? It makes no sense.

    HBO has always had a complicated relationship with piracy. Until the release of HBO NOW, the company’s new standalone streaming app (no cable subscription required), the only way to get HBO content outside of a cable subscription was to steal someone’s HBO GO password or simply download it. Game of Thrones has sat atop the Iron Throne of piracy for years.

    But HBO execs have said some interesting things about piracy and password sharing over the years.

    In 2013, a GoT director said that piracy doesn’t matter to the overall success of the show and that shows like Game of Thrones survive on cultural buzz. He later backtracked.

    A few months later, HBO programming head Michael Lombardo referred to the rampant Game of Thrones piracy as a “compliment of sorts.”

    “I probably shouldn’t be saying this, but it is a compliment of sorts,” Lombardo said. “The demand is there. And it certainly didn’t negatively impact the DVD sales. [Piracy is] something that comes along with having a wildly successful show on a subscription network.”

    Last year, HBO CEO Richard Pleper said sharing HBO GO passwords helps them “build addicts.”

    “To us, in many ways, it’s a terrific marketing vehicle for the next generation of viewers and it is actually not material at all to our business,” said Plepler.

    “It’s not that we’re ignoring it, and we’re looking at different ways to affect password sharing, I’m simply telling you that it’s not a fundamental problem, and the externality of it – it presents the brand to more and more people and gives them the opportunity to hopefully become addicted to it. What we’re in the business of doing it building addicts – building video addicts. And the way we do that is by exposing our product, and our shows, and our brand to more and more people.”

    Facing stiff competition from streaming-only services like Netflix, HBO courted cordcutters with the new, cable-free HBO NOW option. But its coming out party was marred by the massive episode leak, and it looks like HBO is pissed.

    Even though the leak did nothing to stop the season premiere of Game of Thrones from setting an all-time viewing record.

    Image via GameofThrones, YouTube