Paper 2: Defamation Policy / Street View Privacy
Choose one of the following. Due: Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Defamation Policy
You and two friends, Alice and Bob, are starting a new website in which
user comments figure prominently. Users comment on various products and
also on the reviews and comments provided by other users. You
anticipate that the majority of users will use their real names on the
site, though pseudonyms are available.
Right now you've agreed to a policy allowing the deletion of profanity
and obvious insults. However, you're having more trouble agreeing to a
policy for dealing with defamatory comments that don't fit into the
obvious profanity/insult categories. Alice has argued
We don't need to do anything; section
230 of the CDA clearly means we have no liability for what our users
post, and thus no obligation to remove libelous content. Many other
sites, such as youtube.com and aol.com, don't seem to remove such
content. How would we determine if an allegedly defamatory post
is in fact true? Would we have to post the other side's position? The
bottom line is that we'd be censoring someone's post based on a
complaint that may or may not be well founded.
Bob is not so sure; his position is that
We simply should not let defamatory
content remain. At the very
least, the possibility that they could be the victim of such an attack
will discourage other users. We need to have a clear standard
of behavior; this is about "takedown" and not about arguing the points
of libel.The bottom line is that we cannot side with injustice, any more than we can side with harassment.
Your job is to propose a policy and then argue in support of it. If you
leave something out of the policy, such as a way for users to complain
that they have been unfairly depicted, be sure you explain why
you don't think the feature is necessary. You should also make clear
whether features of your policy are their to address legal risk to the
site or are there to make users feel more comfortable.
You can take a legalistic approach, an ethical approach, or a
combination. When making ethical arguments in
a business context it is sometimes
helpful to recognize that ethical behavior can be closely tied to a
business's own long-term self-interest.
Privacy and Google Street View
Is there a privacy issue with Google Street View? Google argues
that they are simply taking pictures in public places. But they have
suddenly, in effect, photographed all public places.
Google does blur license plates and faces, although my impression is
that facial blurring is fairly modest. Is this enough? Cars are usually
identifiable, within the context of a small community or neighborhood,
and often people are too.
Here are a few US objections to Street View:
- People may be photographed in too-candid scenarios (stumbling, scratching, sunbathing, etc).
- People may be seen entering sensitive locations (hospitals, courts, domestic-violence shelters).
- People may be seen entering or leaving embarrassing locations (bars, adult stores, motels).
- People may be seen engaging in sensitive transactions (eg involving prostitution or narcotics).
- How your yard looks is none of your coworkers' business.
- Children may be photographed playing in front of their home.
- Secluded homes may be exposed to public view.
- Some homes have a recognizable sign identifying who lives there.
- Current Street View cameras have sufficient height to readily see over hedges, fences and other privacy screens.
- Advances in Street View may soon lead to seeing into windows.
- Eventually, Google may use low-flying drone aircraft to see into backyards, porches and skylights. FAA approval is pending.
Internationally, there are more issues. For example, in Denmark it is
illegal to photograph people who are on private property, even if the
photography is from the
street. In some countries (Germany and Switzerland, perhaps more)
Google has provided a manual "opt-out" feature, where you can request
that your face or house be blurred.
Is there a serious privacy issue? If there is an issue, can it be
successfully managed by some kind of opt-out policy? Is it time to
reconsider the traditional legal idea that people can be photographed
in public places without their consent? (What would be some drawbacks to such a changed legal climate?) Would it be practical to allow photography, but not publication?
If there is not an issue now, what would it take for one to emerge? How
about if Street View pictures were updated weekly? If backyards were
included? Do people just need to be more aware of the distinctive Street View photography vehicles?
Your paper (either topic) will be graded primarily on organization
(that is, how you lay out your sequence of paragraphs), focus (that is,
whether you stick to the topic), and the nature and completeness of
your arguments.
It is essential
that all material from other sources be enclosed in quotation marks (or
set off as a block quote), and preferably with a citation to the
original source as well.
Expected length: 3-5 pages (600+ words)