Google Removing Search Results to Jennifer Lawrence's Nude Photos

[roseofbattle]

Google Removing Search Results to Jennifer Lawrence's Nude Photos

One a half months ago, nude photos of actress Jennifer Lawrence spread online, and only just now Google has started removing search results to sites hosting the stolen photographs.

Google has begun removing search results that link to sites hosting stolen nude photos of actress Jennifer Lawrence, The Guardian reports. Google has removed two links so far but not until Lawrence's lawyers issued takedown requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Entertainment lawyer Martin Singer wrote to Google earlier this month, threatening a $100 million lawsuit [http://pagesix.com/2014/10/01/lawyers-for-hacked-celebs-sue-google-for-failing-to-removing-nude-pics/] for failing "to act expeditiously and responsibly to remove the images" and accusing Google of "knowingly accommodating, facilitating, and perpetuating the unlawful conduct." Singer represents the many women whose photos were stolen and spread online.

4chan changed its policy [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/technology/trove-of-nude-photos-sparks-debate-over-online-behavior.html] and stated it would remove content after receiving a "bona fide infringement" notice.

Google has echoed its statement to Singer: "We've removed tens of thousands of pictures - within hours of the requests being made - and we have closed hundreds of accounts. The internet is used for many good things. Stealing people's private photos is not one of them."

However, according to Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Google is not required to locate and take down all examples of a piece of copyrighted content. [http://www.dailydot.com/politics/celebgate-google-lawsuit-threat-letter/] Also, the copyright holder of the photos must be the one to file takedown notices. So far, it appears that has worked in Lawrence's case as she owned the photos.

Earlier this month, Lawrence spoke out personally on the stolen photos [http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/2014/10/jennifer-lawrence-cover?mbid=social_twitter] and condemned the "scandal" as a sex crime and a sexual violation.

Source: The Guardian [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/20/google-search-results-linking-stolen-nude-photos-jennifer-lawrence]


Permalink

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Storing the private pictures or documents in the iCloud?

Seems legit.

 

[Velociferocks]

Searched it right now... 10th result is a direct link to a torrent with the pics (presumably, I didn't test it).
You can't hide things from the internet.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Storing the private pictures or documents in the iCloud?

Seems legit.

People put a lot of trust in the assurances of corporate blurbs.

Unfortunately, that's a lesson that's normally learned the hard way. At least Lawrence has the advantage of already being a millionaire and having access to kind of legal backing that can threaten Google and be taken seriously.

 

[Thaluikhain]

How would that work? Does someone have to go look at every link to see if you can download from there? I mean, this article would be found by people searching for that.

In any case, Google has resources to spend, worth a try, even if it's not going to do much.

 

[Schadrach]

Storing the private pictures or documents in the iCloud?

Seems legit.

There was actually another huge leak a few weeks later, of images and vids from people who used snapchat through third party clients. It got nicknamed "The Snappening" in reference to the iCloud leak being dubbed "The Fappening."

Of course, since it just involves regular people and not famous people, no one seems to really care. The subreddit about it is even still open (because Reddit generally doesn't end subreddits unless they are doing something really extremely illegal or the subreddit causes bad press [which is why /r/creepshots and /r/jailbait were closed]).

I do wonder if the DMCA notices will be posted publicly on the search results, and if they will include the links being blocked in them as they often do.

 

[Fulbert]

Searched it right now... 10th result is a direct link to a torrent with the pics (presumably, I didn't test it).
You can't hide things from the internet.

Yep, same here. Found the torrent after two minutes of googling. Gotta say, I would never even search for those if it weren't for this piece of news, so... Looks almost like they're teasing us.

 

[omega 616]

Little late guys, anybody who wanted to see those pictures has done a million times already.

It seems women like Jennifer, Kaley Couco (to an extent), Emma Watson etc are "loved" by the internet, but as soon as "leaked nudes of ..." hit, people ate them up. Now my meaning of "loved" doesn't include looking at them naked when they don't want you to.

They go on about these women (christ, I am on 9gag a lot and all they ever do is post pictures of Emma) but as soon as nudes leaked, it was like flies on shit. That's lust, not love.

I briefly saw one 'cos it was posted on 9gag but I scrolled right on past, like I do with all pictures of women like that. They have boobs and a vagina, looking at ones belonging to a celeb doesn't change them and I have seen my fair share.

People should be able to have any pictures they like, where they like without worrying people are going to see them.

All these women can look forward to now is in that in a year or so they will be largely forgotten, like all those people who say the same thing when a person commits suicide.

 

[Glaice]

Don't store your private crap in a public, potentially exploitable or hackable service next time.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

So a lawyer representing several people who make millions a year can get nude photos (brilliant idea using a internet connected device to take the pics and trusting they were "deleted" of the cloud, BTW) of them taken off Google (with the article said wasn't their responsibility if they weren't hosting them), yet teachers and other hard working people can't get their names or defamatory articles removed from searches or other online blacklists so they can get a job again. Seem legit in this world.

Searched it right now... 10th result is a direct link to a torrent with the pics (presumably, I didn't test it).
You can't hide things from the internet.

Isn't that rule number 1 of teh internets? Also, this might cause a Streisand effect on all the sites that host that kind of crud and the kind of guys that want to see overpaid pop culture icons nakey. I had already forgot this whole mess happened, and I'm the guy that has no issue (beside being distracted for a couple minutes) when my coworkers show the latest bikini girl pics on their phones. (I'm too paranoid to put risque pics and browser history on my phone.)

 

[kailus13]

One a half months ago,

Is that meant to be "One and a half months ago"? Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely confused.

Anyone who cared in the slightest has already seen them. This news will only cause more people to remember they exist.

Storing the private pictures or documents in the iCloud?

Seems legit.

Apparently the iPhone stores photos in the cloud by default, without telling the user.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Disgusting behaviour by Lawrence and her lawyers. Go after the people who leaked them/host them, not a fucking search website. This sets a bad precedence and I think less of the people threatening with this lawsuit for doing so.

 

[Doom972]

I really don't see how a search engine is responsible for the content of other websites. I guess Google would rather comply rather than get flooded with lawsuits.

It seems like some people think Google owns the Internet.

 

[Lightknight]

Wait, how in the world does anyone know which ones are real? It's not like you wouldn't have turned up plenty of results the day before her photos got released of hundreds of doctored photos of her head slapped on some other chic's body just like every other famous person, ever, and I do mean every other famous person no matter how gross. Someone in the know would have to specifically point them out to you.

FYI, I'm not cool with censoring search engines. They need to remain neutral. I am cool with pursuing host sites and such. Either way, once a thing is on the internet, it is on the internet. Sorry, but done is done. I'm perfectly fine with them bopping every gopher that pops its head up with her photos for the next 70 years but pandora's box does not simply close.

 

[Dark Knifer]

This is like trying to destroy the moon with a fly swatter. Everyone who wants to see them has them already or can easily access them again and there were a fuck-ton of convincing Photoshops anyway.

She shouldn't have her stuff leaked but I'm sure she can console herself with a huge pile of money.

 

[somonels]

But does not remove other leaked/stolen/illegal content images. Besides, I still haven't found the rest of them.

It seems like some people think Google owns the Internet.

Which is preposterous and would never be uttered by them, because the US Department of Commerce controls both the base DNS root servers, and the ICANN, among many others.

 

[weirdee]

The barn is so empty and cold at this point that the doors simply fall off their hinges at the lone attempt to close them.

as for em arguments about blah blah they were asking to be violated by bad people that hold zero responsibilities for their own uncontrollable actions that they didn't make a conscious decision about so them women got what they deserved because one group of people have more agency than the other and it's the group being preyed upon by socially protected assholes, man let's just keep kicking that can down the road with the conga line of can kickers, am i right

 

[Abomination]

I'm still not sure why Apple wasn't sued for negligence in relation to this whole fiasco.

At the same time, I hope this doesn't encourage the courts to consider precedent as to who is responsible for preventing illegal images from being located.

It's like arresting the person who built the road the bandit is robbing people on.

 

[Nurb]

But you can still find all of those previous leaked sex tapes, photos of other celebs taken over the recent few years, and still watch the gossip corners of the web, TV, and magazines where they show photos their own photographers snapped of celebs in private...

The arbitrary use of stuff like this and display of outrage is just baffling. Gawker media paid for some NBA player's dick pics, posted them and made jokes about them, those are still searchable too I'm sure.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I'm still not sure why Apple wasn't sued for negligence in relation to this whole fiasco.

Because Apple is so ingrained in Hollywood's affairs and the people who can afford to and do buy their products whenever a new one is released are so loyal to them that Apple probably settled under the counter with most of the iCloudgate victims. Now their lawyers are free to lash out at anyone who might have seen the pics with no repercussions about not knowing how the internet works (and how nothing can be hidden once it is on the net).