• http://www.michael-martinez.com/ Michael Martinez

    The naivete behind this lawsuit is disappointing but not surprising. Our legal system seems to be decades behind our technological capabilities.

  • http://www.seolinkreports.com ogletree

    I wonder if this guy has any clue how Google works. The only way for your personal data to be sent to a website would be for you to type it in google and for somebodies site to rank for that data. It would be very rare that this would happen where a site would rank for your personal data and that data was not on that website.

    If your personal data is on a website you should contact that website and tell them to take it down so that it no longer ranks in Google. You can’t blame Google for that. If a website is displaying your personal data then they already have it and it would not matter if google sent it to their analytics.

    Also don’t type your personal information in Google. That is like suing a company for showing your image because you saw yourself in a mirror at their store.

  • http://mauricewalshe mauricewalshe

    @Michael Martinez

    yes http referers are how http works – you can’t really declare a defacto standard ileagal and do those bringing the case really want to go back to pre Internet days when it was the ITU and your countries PTT decided what you would get.

    Id probably still be working for BT in ISO based systems and have a cool x.400 mail address like C=uk/CN=maurice – the rest of you subs would be paying 50p and email and data charges on top and like it :-)

    Then again I reamber reading the judgement in the prince philip hacking case (iused to work for the service that got hacked) and thinking how did the judge come to that conclusion (that faking a physical key is a crime but faking an electronic key wasn’t – arguably this falls on the reasonablenes test for natural justice.