"search for and remove any negative information/mentions about you, and find out how you can control what people see when they search for you."
Sounds profoundly Orwellian. I doubt that anyone has the right to 'remove negative mentions' or 'control what people see when they search for you'.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
In my opinion the article is misleading. It recommends to cure the consequences instead of curing the cause. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The same statement one can find in signed by President Carter and ratified by US Senate ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights):
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Unfortunately during the ratification of ICCPR US Senate made "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant not self-executing", it means they simply have no power in the judicial system until the US Congress will issue the appropriate US Laws to support the above mentioned Articles, and particularly, Article 17 (1),(2).
During 30 years there is no such Law ... instead The Communication Decency Act has been issued - Article 230 (C) of it makes publishers and re-publishers of libelous content practically invulnerable. Such as US neither signed nor ratified the First Optional Protocol to ICCPR, there is nobody in the world who can change the situation, except the US Congress.
If any Federal Law will definitely protect people against unlawful attacks on their honor and reputation, the online reputation management and monitoring will practically make no sense.
Without such Law one can probably manage online anonymous attacks on his honor and reputation, made by random forum trolls and evil strangers, but there is no way to manage it against professional "reputation repair" extortionists or serious morality-free competitors.
One last thing - yasni.com is not a proper tool for the described task, it's "free people check" option will get up any libelous statement in search result! More someone tries to "manage" his reputation, higher will be the position of yasni's "free people check" result, which digs any libelous information out of the web.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The same statement one can find in signed by President Carter and ratified by US Senate ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights):
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Unfortunately during the ratification of ICCPR US Senate made "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant not self-executing", it means they simply have no power in the judicial system until the US Congress will issue the appropriate US Laws to support the above mentioned Articles, and particularly, Article 17 (1),(2).
During 30 years there is no such Law ... instead The Communication Decency Act has been issued - Article 230 (C) of it makes publishers and re-publishers of libelous content practically invulnerable. Such as US neither signed nor ratified the First Optional Protocol to ICCPR, there is nobody in the world who can change the situation, except the US Congress.
If any Federal Law will definitely protect people against unlawful attacks on their honor and reputation, the online reputation management and monitoring will practically make no sense.
Without such Law one can probably manage online anonymous attacks on his honor and reputation, made by random forum trolls and evil strangers, but there is no way to manage it against professional "reputation repair" extortionists or serious morality-free competitors.
One last thing - yasni.com is not a proper tool for the described task, it's "free people check" option will get up any libelous statement in search result! More someone tries to "manage" his reputation, higher will be the position of yasni's "free people check" result, which digs any libelous information out of the web.
Universal internet identity is the answer. This will track dhttp://www.techrepublic.com/blog/five-apps/five-tools-to-monitor-and-manage-your-online-reputation/1432own attempts to steal privacy protected information and reveal the culprit within the system. Outside of it, they will have no access. Law or no law, bad guys will be there. It is easier to stay out than get out. Makaseh security may be a good idea.
There is another simple solution, offered by the state of NY:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Text=Y
If the US Congress will issue something similar, the problem will be solved forever. The proposed bill doesn't breach the terms of the First Amendment simultaneously protecting victims of online defamation.
Bad guys will have no choice - either their lies will be removed or they will have to reveal their real identity and in the case of defamation, be responsible for their actions.
In my opinion your offered solution makes sense, but it creates a lot of additional questions. It can be easily misused - take for example Google Chrome with the implemented identity. How Google uses it - none knows, and such as Google considers itself as morality-free zone, we can expect anything. Such identification is a serious threat to the privacy . The NY State solution is significantly simpler.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Text=Y
If the US Congress will issue something similar, the problem will be solved forever. The proposed bill doesn't breach the terms of the First Amendment simultaneously protecting victims of online defamation.
Bad guys will have no choice - either their lies will be removed or they will have to reveal their real identity and in the case of defamation, be responsible for their actions.
In my opinion your offered solution makes sense, but it creates a lot of additional questions. It can be easily misused - take for example Google Chrome with the implemented identity. How Google uses it - none knows, and such as Google considers itself as morality-free zone, we can expect anything. Such identification is a serious threat to the privacy . The NY State solution is significantly simpler.
Google manages the passwords and user ids. With Makaseh, the user creates the user id and password, using a pass phrase of choice, of any length. Then it is used for all purposes, like log-in, sending mails, making contacts, sharing documents.
Other than googling ones name I hadn't given consideration for doing anything more. For job hunters these tools could be very helpful. Well, as I think about it, employers could use these to screen applicants too. Thanks for the article I'll be spending my morning researching on this subject.
A job hunter will certainly look at every result on the front page unless the first 5 results are extremely positive or lead to enough data.
I can see where all of this can lead to abuse, and it will too in enough time. Especially with large corporations that have deep pockets and can harass someone for a negative comment on their product(s) like they have tried in the past, even if they were honest about it.
As far as comments on a personal level, it would have to be something really outragious for you to take action(s), and would also cost you time & money to do it.
The biggest thing for people to remember is that you can't take just one persons remarks as the truth, take everything with a grain of salt. If there are many negative comments from different people or web sites about the same person or product, you can just about figure that somethings not quite right.....
It's a slippery slippery slope your on when you start talking about regulating free speech, and the big corporations will be the first ones in line to regulate it....
As far as comments on a personal level, it would have to be something really outragious for you to take action(s), and would also cost you time & money to do it.
The biggest thing for people to remember is that you can't take just one persons remarks as the truth, take everything with a grain of salt. If there are many negative comments from different people or web sites about the same person or product, you can just about figure that somethings not quite right.....
It's a slippery slippery slope your on when you start talking about regulating free speech, and the big corporations will be the first ones in line to regulate it....
"Different people"? How one can be sure that those are different people indeed, and not one person, who posts using different names or nicknames?
For the average Joe, you can tell if it's one person making the same comments just by the way the comments are written. As for the big corporations with money to burn, they can get that information through the website(s). That has happened quite a lot recently with the copyright trolls.
Thanks for sharing the information; you have illustrated good points to manage & scrutinize online reputation. I recently started learning about SEO and I have learned many things from your post. Also I learnt a few things from this blog http://www.youngupstarts.com/2012/06/12/five-sites-reputation-management-experts-fear/ . It is quite informative.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
