Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanrasmussen | Hacker News Reader

the pastor who did not write the book has access to the courts, it's obviously a tort case and probably has affected her ability to work as well so I suppose that means Google should end up paying a lot.

The next person Google does that too gets even more money!

Obviously this thread is evidence in the pastor's favor.

on edit: obviously the OP has been harmed by Google's actions, but I think the pastor can show they have been harmed more. Also being a pastor and stuff, it's a good thing Google is made of money.

View on HN

According to a lawyer, I could sue for “false light invasion of privacy.” Unfortunately, the pastor doesn’t live in a state where that tort is recognized. In any case, Google just fixed the knowledge panel-so thank you guys so very much for commenting and discussing my post! I exchanged dozens of emails with Google in April, then they just started ignoring me after that, all the while rotating images in the knowledge panel. A few days ago they had the audacity to send me a survey about my experience with the knowledge panel support team.

one good thing about doing an "Ask HN" is that it can get so much attention that someone high up at google sees it and fixes it. I'm glad to hear that Google fixed it. Nevertheless, I still wish for legal action just to get a court precedent saying that these things aren't OK. I can dream, I guess.

I would love to take legal action if I could find a brave attorney. During my consultations with attorneys, they began speaking in half-words and unfinished sentences as soon as I said my dispute was with Google. I was willing to file the suit without a lawyer to at least force them to fix it. At the very least, I will be reaching out to law professors who are interested in this topic in hopes that they will start a conversation. Although I’m glad it’s fixed, I’m still really ticked off they took me and others through this for months. We all felt very powerless.

Yes, by "Access to the legal system" I really meant "money and introductions to a law firm that could credibly and argue a complaint against google". I've asked the lawyers I know on twitter if they know anyone (https://twitter.com/mebassett/status/1428032516292759560) but I don't know what else one can do.https://twitter.com/mebassett/status/1428032516292759560

it's easy to say "you should sue" but that's a lot more difficult in practice.

I would try contacting the EFF, they might be interested in taking up the case or might be able to find you a lawyer who is willing to.

This is the second time in a few months that I have seen this issue crop up:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100

>I could sue for “false light invasion of privacy.

Yes you could sue for that but I doubt that is what the pastor should sue for, as you said she was threatened after being mis-identfied as you, they were told of their error, they recognized it and removed her picture, then they put another one in of her again.

I think the pastor should talk to a lawyer from her state as to what she can sue for.

> In any case, Google just fixed the knowledge panel-so thank you guys so very much for commenting and discussing my post!

I fear that this situation will not last. I just googled the name, and curiously, the knowledge panel has a little link that says "claim this knowledge panel." Do you see that option; have you tried exercising it?

I'm thinking it could be almost anyone, at this point.

In my case, I'm sure I've been rejected from job applications because anyone inexpertly Googling will find there are many people that have the same name as I do, but have been arrested for misdemeanors or even a murder.

Just last week, a guy from a BnB told me he was nervous because he thought I was a dangerous man because of the Google results he got.

So, it would seem that you are involuntarily being dragged to try to compete on Google's search results, even if you're a privacy-minded person.

Knowledge panels arguably add a layer of authoritativeness. But your beef is really with individual names being used as a web search key generally (whether on Google or something else). And the reality is if you have a less common but not unique name, you may end up confused with other people in situations where the searcher isn't really interested in putting in much effort to disambiguate the results.

The only real (imperfect) thing you can if it becomes a problem is to adopt some working name variant that is unique. But that only really helps if you do it up-front.

ADDED: You're probably reasonably safe with a common name. No one expects Joe Smith to be unique. The real problem is when you share a name with only one or two people and they have a big and negative Internet presence.

Ever tried to sue a large company? Know anyone who was successful?

"Having access to the courts" is in practice _just not a remedy_ for an individual fighting a $100 billion company.

> it's obviously a tort case

Yes.

> and probably has affected her ability to work as well

That is NOT how the law works, or every writer who got a bad review would sue the reviewer saying it "affected their ability to work".

> so I suppose that means Google should end up paying a lot.

Unless the woman was already making good money as a writer before the picture, and suddenly wasn't, Google will pay _nothing_.

My guess would be that Google would stall the lawsuit for a year or two, then turn off that picture and pay the woman a few grand, but not legal fees.

Then in the next software rev, some picture returns, and she's back where she started.

In the US bad reviews, unless they are lying, are protected by the First Amendment. (provable lies can be defamation)

This does not seem to fall under First Amendment protection.

> Unless the woman was already making good money as a writer before the picture, and suddenly wasn't, Google will pay _nothing_.

The suggested plantiff is the misassociated pastor. Google is effectively saying that the pastor wrote the book, which is untrue and Google was notified of this and acknowledged it, and then they started claiming the association again.

This claim is damaging to the pastor in a clear way, and could probably get damages.

I would agree that the author would seem to have a harder case though as damages would be harder to show.

>> and probably has affected her ability to work as well

>That is NOT how the law works, or every writer who got a bad review would sue the reviewer saying it "affected their ability to work".

I thought it was quite clear that I was suggesting that the pastor should sue, and that it was a tort case for her. I was expecting that being a pastor - which is a semi-public role that it might have affected her work.

At any rate a tort is in no way like a book review and if you have a case where your work has been affected that may very well figure into the damages you will be awarded - if it didn't every medical malpractice suit wouldn't mention how their client was unable to work for months after the surgery.

The OP might also want to avoid a curt case to protect their privacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com