damn that internet.
December 7, 2010 1:08 PM Subscribe
Blog post names a friend and exposes very private information. What can be done?
Hoping someone has faced this situation and can offer advice for some kind of effective action that we can take.
Our goal is to get the blog post down. Its posted on blogger with a random account, but shows up at #2 on google results on her name.
Names her by name (first and last), hence it shows up in google searches of her name.
Reveals very private and potentially embarrasing details about her private relationships, now made universally and "permanently" public because it mentions her by name. If it didnt mention her by name it wouldnt matter in the least.
What can be done? anything? Would a lawyer have a case? Could we contact blogger or google? Or do we just hope it eventually moves down in the google search results?
Hoping someone has faced this situation and can offer advice for some kind of effective action that we can take.
Our goal is to get the blog post down. Its posted on blogger with a random account, but shows up at #2 on google results on her name.
Names her by name (first and last), hence it shows up in google searches of her name.
Reveals very private and potentially embarrasing details about her private relationships, now made universally and "permanently" public because it mentions her by name. If it didnt mention her by name it wouldnt matter in the least.
What can be done? anything? Would a lawyer have a case? Could we contact blogger or google? Or do we just hope it eventually moves down in the google search results?
Best answer: Blogger's terms of use and reporting tool are here. Confidential information is included in their TOS.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 1:13 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by RJ Reynolds at 1:13 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
Practically speaking, you want to Google-bomb the offending post to page 2 of the Google results. To do that, you need highly rated pages about her. To get highly rated pages, you need pages that many people have linked to.
It's going to be easier or harder to do this depending on who she is and what she does. LinkedIn ought to be good for one page. Is she distinguished enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? Could she get her resume up on some job sites? Is she on Facebook?
The more "good" information there is on her on the Internet, the less likely anyone will get to the "bad" information. Someone might have awful things to say about me, but anyone looking up is going to find my blog, my books, my movie credits, etc., first, and it will be a while before searchers get to scurrilous gossip.
posted by musofire at 1:19 PM on December 7, 2010 [4 favorites]
It's going to be easier or harder to do this depending on who she is and what she does. LinkedIn ought to be good for one page. Is she distinguished enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? Could she get her resume up on some job sites? Is she on Facebook?
The more "good" information there is on her on the Internet, the less likely anyone will get to the "bad" information. Someone might have awful things to say about me, but anyone looking up is going to find my blog, my books, my movie credits, etc., first, and it will be a while before searchers get to scurrilous gossip.
posted by musofire at 1:19 PM on December 7, 2010 [4 favorites]
Its posted on blogger with a random account, but shows up at #2 on google results on her name.
I'm not sure what you mean with "a random account" - does the blog have other entries? Is this an attempt by someone who knows her to sabotage her in some way?
If you can't get it taken down for some reason, the other approach is to drown it out -- basically create a huge on-line presence for her (or someone with her name, it doesn't have to be stuff about HER in particular) so that at least it no longer appears on the front page. This could take a while though. (or not, depending: see also "Todd Lokken")
posted by anastasiav at 1:23 PM on December 7, 2010
I'm not sure what you mean with "a random account" - does the blog have other entries? Is this an attempt by someone who knows her to sabotage her in some way?
If you can't get it taken down for some reason, the other approach is to drown it out -- basically create a huge on-line presence for her (or someone with her name, it doesn't have to be stuff about HER in particular) so that at least it no longer appears on the front page. This could take a while though. (or not, depending: see also "Todd Lokken")
posted by anastasiav at 1:23 PM on December 7, 2010
This happened to a friend of mine, except instead of being hosted on Blogger it was hosted on a Dreamhost server. The friend knew who the person was who did this to them and contacted Dreamhost about it. Dreamhost told them to get a restraining order against that person and show it to them before they would take it down.
I would start by contacting Blogger and seeing if they require something that serious (if you even know who the person is) to get it taken down.
posted by joan_holloway at 1:33 PM on December 7, 2010
I would start by contacting Blogger and seeing if they require something that serious (if you even know who the person is) to get it taken down.
posted by joan_holloway at 1:33 PM on December 7, 2010
IANAL and I might very well be wrong, but my understanding is that legally you would only really have a case if what is being said on the blog is a lie. If its true but embarrassing I don't think a lawyer will help much.
posted by bitdamaged at 1:50 PM on December 7, 2010
posted by bitdamaged at 1:50 PM on December 7, 2010
Response by poster: thanks for the information so far.
It does seem really unfair that any one of our personal friends, for example, could, after a fight or breakup, freely and universally and permanently post embarrasing and personally-identifiable information about any of us -- and we dont have any standard recourse? Privacy laws just havent caught up?
posted by jak68 at 2:55 PM on December 7, 2010
It does seem really unfair that any one of our personal friends, for example, could, after a fight or breakup, freely and universally and permanently post embarrasing and personally-identifiable information about any of us -- and we dont have any standard recourse? Privacy laws just havent caught up?
posted by jak68 at 2:55 PM on December 7, 2010
Did you friend have a signed privacy agreement with the ex (or whatever the situation was)? If so, maybe you have a case. "I don't want that known" does not equal "legally private." If the info is true, and there wasn't any explicit agreement about privacy, I don't think there is any case to have Blogger pull it down. Fairness does not play into it. Get busy building a LinkedIn profile, Google Profile, and a blog for your friend.
posted by COD at 3:36 PM on December 7, 2010
posted by COD at 3:36 PM on December 7, 2010
It does seem really unfair that any one of our personal friends, for example, could, after a fight or breakup, freely and universally and permanently post embarrasing and personally-identifiable information about any of us -- and we dont have any standard recourse?
According to section 230 of the CDA, the content provider isn't liable. That doesn't necessarily mean no one is liable. If the information is libelous, your friend should engage a lawyer and maybe depending on the information there is some legal recourse even if the information itself is true if the intent is to interfere with her income or some such--maybe even without going to court and simply sending a Legal Scary Letter, depending on the sophistication of the offending party. A lawyer is really the way to go with this if the content is highly objectionable.
An alternative is to get good with it. Private and embarrassing are abstractions with lots of leeway and if the information is like that she's a tease or promiscuous or some such -- that really just makes it look like she's got a psycho ex-boyfriend with an ax to grind and to a casual observer his credibility is pretty much nil. As you said, anyone can say things. That means there's a good chance to the larger world it's meaningless.
A lot of this depends on the details though.
The first thing to do is calmly and dispassionately ask nicely, and assume any written request will be posted on this person's website if they so choose because they've already shown themselves to be an asshole. That's step one.
As an aside, while it might be tempting, I'd recommend against an online war of words or doing anything clever like getting Yahoo accounts and posting on this person's website under pseudonyms or having a public argument about it. That attracts attention and that's the last thing she wants.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:58 PM on December 7, 2010
According to section 230 of the CDA, the content provider isn't liable. That doesn't necessarily mean no one is liable. If the information is libelous, your friend should engage a lawyer and maybe depending on the information there is some legal recourse even if the information itself is true if the intent is to interfere with her income or some such--maybe even without going to court and simply sending a Legal Scary Letter, depending on the sophistication of the offending party. A lawyer is really the way to go with this if the content is highly objectionable.
An alternative is to get good with it. Private and embarrassing are abstractions with lots of leeway and if the information is like that she's a tease or promiscuous or some such -- that really just makes it look like she's got a psycho ex-boyfriend with an ax to grind and to a casual observer his credibility is pretty much nil. As you said, anyone can say things. That means there's a good chance to the larger world it's meaningless.
A lot of this depends on the details though.
The first thing to do is calmly and dispassionately ask nicely, and assume any written request will be posted on this person's website if they so choose because they've already shown themselves to be an asshole. That's step one.
As an aside, while it might be tempting, I'd recommend against an online war of words or doing anything clever like getting Yahoo accounts and posting on this person's website under pseudonyms or having a public argument about it. That attracts attention and that's the last thing she wants.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:58 PM on December 7, 2010
Best answer: and we dont have any standard recourse? Privacy laws just havent caught up?
IANYL, and actually would strongly recommend you consult one, but the general answer is, in many jurisdictions there is a tort cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and also for exposing someone to public view in an unflattering and misleading (though true) way. The problem is that a lawsuit drags the formerly private information even further into public view. This is also a problem with libel cases . . . suing for defamation gives even wider circulation to the false and defamatory statements.
posted by bearwife at 5:17 PM on December 7, 2010
IANYL, and actually would strongly recommend you consult one, but the general answer is, in many jurisdictions there is a tort cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and also for exposing someone to public view in an unflattering and misleading (though true) way. The problem is that a lawsuit drags the formerly private information even further into public view. This is also a problem with libel cases . . . suing for defamation gives even wider circulation to the false and defamatory statements.
posted by bearwife at 5:17 PM on December 7, 2010
"Three can keep a secret if two are dead." - Franklin
The internet just makes it, well, more public, but it's like you can't keep your ex from telling our Mum what Cindy said about our Shawn after Christmas last year, and therefore starting a family feud which will last for generations.
Why don't you post a bunch of "good" information about an (fictional) obviously different person, from a different city, etc., who happens to have the same name? Then if anyone asks you can just say, "Uh, no, must be someone with the same name."
posted by anaelith at 5:33 PM on December 7, 2010
The internet just makes it, well, more public, but it's like you can't keep your ex from telling our Mum what Cindy said about our Shawn after Christmas last year, and therefore starting a family feud which will last for generations.
Why don't you post a bunch of "good" information about an (fictional) obviously different person, from a different city, etc., who happens to have the same name? Then if anyone asks you can just say, "Uh, no, must be someone with the same name."
posted by anaelith at 5:33 PM on December 7, 2010
Response by poster: thanks again for the info.
again in this case if the last name of my friend were removed, the blog post wouldnt matter in the least. So yea, I guess we're going to follow multiple suggestions above, from Legal Scary Letter, to asking nicely, to trying to reach blogger's TOS folks, etc.
posted by jak68 at 10:36 PM on December 7, 2010
again in this case if the last name of my friend were removed, the blog post wouldnt matter in the least. So yea, I guess we're going to follow multiple suggestions above, from Legal Scary Letter, to asking nicely, to trying to reach blogger's TOS folks, etc.
posted by jak68 at 10:36 PM on December 7, 2010
« Older Where can I compare apartment prices worldwide? | ISO delicious, indulgent, single-serving dessert... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by orange swan at 1:13 PM on December 7, 2010