The legalis.net report says the managing editor of Google.fr and Google Inc. has been sentenced for defamation of a person. Google is required to remove all “related searches” or face a 500 euro/day fine.

Interesting to note that the Court of Paris said Google did not show good faith. The search engine company had argued that because their search is “automated” and determined by “objective factors” they could not be held liable for results. This was not accepted as a defense.

Le TGI de Paris a refusé d’admettre l’absence d’implication de Google du fait du caractère automatique de son système. Entre autres arguments, il a noté, comme dans le jugement du 4 décembre 2009, que Google ne prend pas en compte certains libellés de recherche lancés par les internautes qui pourraient offenser un grand nombre d’entre eux, ce qui suppose nécessairement qu’un tri préalable est fait entre les requêtes enregistrées dans la base de données. De même, Google permet au public de signaler des requêtes qui ne devraient pas être suggérées, laissant supposer qu’une intervention humaine est possible. Sur l’atteinte à la liberté d’expression qu’il y aurait à supprimer telles associations de mots, la 17ème du TGI a adopté une position différente de celle exprimée par le juge des référés dans son ordonnance du 22 juillet 2010. Cette fonctionnalité a-t-elle remarqué a pour seule utilité d’éviter à l’utilisateur de saisir la totalité d’une requête et « qu’en état de cause la suppression éventuelle de tel ou tel des thèmes de recherche proposés ne priverait aucun d’entre eux de la faculté de disposer, mais à leur seule initiative et sans y être incité par quiconque, de toutes les références indexées par le moteur de recherches correspondant à telle association de mots avec tel patronyme ou telle raison sociale de leur choix ».

The first thing that comes to mind is that Google has historically argued the opposite of their defense in this case. They have said they have a uniquely designed engine that has been tuned for better results.

It is from their particular algorithm based on their superior engineering that you get results you would want more than from other search engines. They are in the drivers’ seat when they say they can tune their engine to present results that are good instead of bad, or popular instead of unpopular, or objective instead of biased.

No matter what you call it, they have been taking credit for results with the tool that they programmed. Now that results were found to be objectionable by a person I find it odd to see them argue in court that they just passively ride in the back seat. This is like a newspaper saying they have no control over the content they publish after marketing themselves as an accurate source of news.

More to the point, the tool did not malfunction. Google did not claim someone broke in or modified the results without authorization. Instead they said the results were the natural byproduct of public opinion that they just pass along, as if their search engine adds no value at all. Easy to see how the court reacted — protecting individuals from defamation should be within the capabilities of a search engine, just like protection from other forms of harm have been developed.

Google’s SafeSearch Filtering says it “blocks web pages containing explicit sexual content from appearing in search results”. They should have presented a defense along these lines rather than try to cook up some weird concept of universal machine-based objectivity.

The Telegraph says the Segway company owner died riding his two-wheeled machine off a cliff

The multi-millionaire businessman, 62, fell into the River Wharfe while inspecting the grounds of his North Yorkshire estate on a rugged country version of the Segway.

Inspecting the grounds of an estate sounds a lot like the modern equivalent of a horse-riding accident. The sad irony is that the man who died made his fortune by selling security perimeter equipment to protect soldiers from harm.

I posted a response to a Securosis blog post where they say this:

There’s a lot of hype in the press (and vendor pitches) about APT — the Advanced Persistent Threat. Very little of it is informed, and many parties within the security industry are quickly trying to co-opt the term in order to advance various personal and corporate agendas. In the process they’ve bent, manipulated and largely tarnished what had been a specific description of a class of attacker.

My response may show up sometime soon; in the meantime, here is what I said:

Excellent comments above. I agree with most here and just wanted to relate an interesting experience and three points about APT.

Some government officials met with me after my talk on security breaches at RSA 2010 in San Francisco. They laughed at me and said the word/acronym APT is hyped too much and misunderstood. They also gave me the “we know far more than anyone else about what is really going” story. I held back from being a smart-ass about all this posturing nonsense and instead asked for details.

First, I say worry less about use of language and words like APT. Clarity and understanding has a place/time — like a meeting where action is required. Public discussion is not that time. Absolute accuracy in language/definition during general conversation is really a straw-man argument — attack of a phrase or word instead of substance being put forward. We also could get upset about misuse of the word too versus to, the word hacker, the phrase critical infrastructure, etc. but open communication is never really clean. If you say car, you could mean just about anything, yet no one gets upset about car. Words get “bent, manipulated and largely tarnished” yet language works amazingly well. Cool, no? Or should I say that it’s hot? Move along please. If you struggle with APT you will really have a hard time with cloud.

Second, I agree completely that sharing APT info is better but I have seen two reasons used for controlled disclosure instead of openness.

A) Power and politics unfortunately sneak into this. The relatively immature and open field of play in Washington gives an incentive for sparse and sometimes unverifiable disclosures. Releasing information in a limited fashion can create a dramatic influence over the hill. Was it coincidence for example that during the debate regarding control and leadership for cybercommand the WSJ released a story that spies have infiltrated the US energy sector? A totally open discussion would not have had the same effect — reporters might have come to a different conclusion. Civilian leadership will lose control if the military and intelligence communities do not have more open discussion with them. Classic political science.

B) There is some chance that disclosure during an ongoing investigation could compromise its success. Only after the investigation is over should be made open to study. The questions are who gets to decide when a case is closed and how much should they share to whom? The guys I spoke with said they’ve been watching APT for over ten years. We talked about a few case examples and I realized they are stringing everything together — they would say the case is always open. I disagree with them in principle but more importantly I do not have any authority to make them close a case, disclose, and start new ones. I also can not easily parse who they trust and who they fear.

Third, check out the HTCIA. The audience for my presentations at the International Conference were almost all Peace Officers, Investigators and Prosecuting Attorneys. Discussions were less theoretical and more case/fact-based than your usual group. It’s a great place to share information on real attacks with fellow security professionals.