Google Removing Search Results to Jennifer Lawrence's Nude Photos

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Google Removing Search Results to Jennifer Lawrence's Nude Photos

Jennifer Lawrence

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 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.

The photos spread over Labor Day weekend on Reddit and 4chan after someone stole them in what was believed to be a security breach of Apple's iCloud. Reddit later banned the subreddit that was actively sharing the photos. 4chan changed its policy 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. 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 and condemned the "scandal" as a sex crime and a sexual violation.

Source: The Guardian

Permalink

Storing the private pictures or documents in the iCloud?

Seems legit.

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.

Pirate Of PC Master race:
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.

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.

Pirate Of PC Master race:
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.

oggebogge91:
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.

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.

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

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.

oggebogge91:
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.)

roseofbattle:
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.

Pirate Of PC Master race:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Doom972:
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.

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

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.

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.

Abomination:
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).

You can't remove things from the internet. Even if google did end up going all the way with this takedown policy, you know what would happen? Yahoo or ask wouldn't, and people would start using them instead, because those results would actually be accurate.

The fact is, for most users, a censored search engine is an inferior search engine, inferior search engines get replaced by ones that can actually help you find what you're looking for, a search engine that doesn't censor like this is a better search engine. Google probably knows this I think, they show enough faux concern and the problem eventually goes away, which in this case is probably true.

The only way to actually prevent this in any meaningful sense is to police the internet, which is basically impossible. Once it's out there, it's out there. No amount of takedowns will change that. Somebody has saved it onto their harddrive, some backwater site you've never heard about has an upload of it. It's like that old proverb about the kid who told a lie and then the guy ripped up a pillow and told the kid to go get all the feathers, only in this case the feathers can make more feathers.

It's on the internet, it's there forever LEARN THE LESSON! So many people fail to get such an easy lesson.

CENSORSHIP!

In all reality though, probably a wise idea. Everyone and their grandmother who wanted to see them probably has by now. I still feel like I'm the minority for not having looked at them yet.

Depulcator:
It's on the internet, it's there forever LEARN THE LESSON! So many people fail to get such an easy lesson.

To be fair, a lot of these images were apparently uploaded by Apple to iCloud without the user's consent.

1st - these pics were on the net for a while. The people who wanted them most already have them.
2nd - At this point, wouldn't you want to move on from this incident instead of reminding people you have nude photos that leaked online?
3rd - You're still the idiot who put faith in iCloud to store private documents when you should know full well that ANYTHING stored on any digital component or storage space requiring internet connection to access can EASILY be hacked. If you didn't want your nude photos to ever get out, then you keep hard copies at home locked away and don't store them on iCloud or even on your harddrive.
4th - I'm surprised how much sway Lawrence has over google to push them into doing this. That or she has more free time than other famous people to waste in dealing with this... which leads me back to my third point.

About damn time. It's irrelevant that Google would probably be unable to remove the photos from public access entirely but they should have taken steps to reduce anyway it from the beginning - not this far after.

This whole j-law fiasco was just horrible. The only honorable thing left to do is to send all the pictures back to her to get them off the internet. If any of you downloaded the pictures, please email them to her directly so that she will be able to delete that file. If we all chip in, we'll be able to return every copy of her stolen images.

How the hell is this google's problem?

Don't post anything on the internet you wouldn't want others to see. That is the number one rule to file-sharing and file-hosting. She broke that rule. I feel no pity for her or any of the other women whose pictures were leaked. There is no reason to take photos of yourself anyway - the only reason to do that would to be for pornography. If you actually cared about your loved one you would do it in person (they would enjoy it much more).

Sorry, Jennifer. Attempting to sue Google for your mistake does not earn you any brownie points with me.

No, Google, why do you take away mah freedumbs!!1! This is tyrannee!

Honestly glad to not see any of those types in this thread so far. Anyways, bit late for that Google, and a bit impossible too, but its not like this is something you can condemn them for.

Interesting. So if an angry ex-girlfriend steals and posts embarrassing photos of me on the internet, do I get to sue for $100 million and demand that one of the largest companies on the planet do whatever it can to get rid of the pictures, even though they aren't actually hosting the photos?

Wait... but if Google removes search results to the photos, then how will people find them? Will they have to use Bing?

Cuz, you know, its not like other search engines exist, right?

Ihateregistering1:
Interesting. So if an angry ex-girlfriend steals and posts embarrassing photos of me on the internet, do I get to sue for $100 million and demand that one of the largest companies on the planet do whatever it can to get rid of the pictures, even though they aren't actually hosting the photos?

I don't know, are you a famous pro-feminism starlet?

thaluikhain:
How would that work?

the way it works is that some corporate layer company registered god knows where with untracable adress sends google an email with DMCA takedown, which includes thousands (literally) adresses in a single notice, claiming to represent interests of ALL of that content owners. according to current laws, google MUST take those links down regardless of whether the DMCA was filled legally or not and it is almost impossible to counter. You litterally have to sue that nontracable company to get your site off the blacklist because somone in hollywood didnt like your review and decided to play the DMCA game. The system is beyond broken.

Schadrach:

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.

It takes weeks back and forth with google legal rep to even get to see your own takedown notice. forget about publicising it (even though they are legally to be public).

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

Thats not how it works. remmeber when Paypal got hacked due to flaw in their security? They sued the hackers for amount that cost them to upgrade their security and won the court case. if anything apple will sue others for having to spend money on increasing their security. because laws are logical right?

Ihateregistering1:
Interesting. So if an angry ex-girlfriend steals and posts embarrassing photos of me on the internet, do I get to sue for $100 million and demand that one of the largest companies on the planet do whatever it can to get rid of the pictures, even though they aren't actually hosting the photos?

can you hire layers that can afford to make false sue claims and crush anyone that points out its illegal? if so, yes, you can.

144:
Wait... but if Google removes search results to the photos, then how will people find them? Will they have to use Bing?

Thats it guys, 2012 may be late but apocalypse is starting!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.