Image via Wikipedia
An anonymous poster has targeted Google’s ((Redacted)) ((Redacted)) in an extreme smear campaign, using the consumer complaints website Ripoff Report.
Highwick Associates monitors Ripoff Report on behalf of multiple clients, and to observe trends in the visibility and legal aspects of online reputation and online defamation.
On Sunday September 5 we noticed a new posting headlined “((Redacted)) is a pedophile and con artist.”
The poster penned a dramatic and detailed accusation, targeted directly at ((Redacted)) and only ((Redacted)) and went on to write “((Redacted)) during the day acts like he is a respectable business man but the fact is that he is a pedophile.”
The poster seems well aware of who ((Redacted)) is: “((Redacted)) always talks about how important privacy is to him”, leading us to believe that this is retribution for a Google privacy issue and not an issue with the man himself.
He/she concludes by writing: “He is a sick, horrible person who should be killed.”
The full posting is here.
In our experience postings such as this are often false and are intended to cause the maximum amount of damage to a individual’s reputation. In some cases the subject could be questioned or even arrested based on an anonymous claim, though it is unlikely that police would take action based solely on an unverifiable post that lacks any specific evidence.
Of course if these claims are untrue (which we very strongly believe to be the case) ((Redacted)) has been libeled and defamed. And is legally entitled to identify the defamer and to claim damages. However, the website, RipoffReport.com, has an absolute policy of never taking anything down, unless ordered to by a court in their home state of Arizona. And then only under certain conditions. The website is protected by US law that indemnifies the publisher from any liability for what is posted, even if it is untrue or libelous. Ripoff Report does require that all posters agree to terms and conditions and certify that what they post is true. Also all posts are moderated before appearing on the website and occasionally edited to remove certain personal information. Otherwise it goes online within hours.
Instead of being able to request or demand removal or deletion, the subject or target of a posting can post a rebuttal, which appears under the original accusation. The contents of the original post, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals are submitted to search engines. This report appears here in Google search.
A ((Redacted)) such as ((Redacted)), backed by the resources of Google, is in far better position to take legal action, should he choose to. However, until a judge rules otherwise the posting will almost certainly stay up.
We shall continue to monitor this case and others like it on the Wild West that is Web 2.0.
[Update 1: Ripoff Report has redacted part of the posting, pending the production of a police report or other evidence. See their comment below. We have done the same.]
[Update 2: Day and date corrected from Friday, September 5, which was incorrect, to Sunday September 5.]
[Update 3: Additional clarification of Update 1: "We have done the same" meant that we have also redacted data from our post, unconditionally.]
