Australian judge orders Google to reveal the identity of anonymous negative reviewer

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4 Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 4fbcb0c46312483⋯.jpg (164.69 KB, 1680x1120, 3:2, 2020-02-14-image-15.jpg)

Australian judge orders Google to reveal the identity of anonymous negative reviewer KentBrockman ## Reporter 02/15/20 (Sat) 00:15:46 No.252919

By Cohen Coberly

https://www.techspot.com/community/staff/polycount.403116/

Anyone who has been an active internet user for an extended period has likely dealt with criticism of some sort, but companies and business owners tend to get the worst of it. Whether openly hostile or merely critical, negative reviews for products and services are the norm, and tech companies have made it easier than ever for users to share their opinions.

However, opting to do so might just land you in hot water in some circumstances, as one anonymous Google user is about to learn. A dentist based out of Melbourne, Australia, has managed to convince a federal judge to order Google to "unmask" the individual behind a negative review left on his business' Google page.

The dentist, Matthew Kabbabe, claims the three-month-old review in question is the only negative one his business has received to date. "I believe it is extremely unfair that people are allowed to anonymously attack honest, hardworking small businesses," Kabbabe said in a statement to ABC.

The anonymous reviewer (who goes by the username "CBsm 23") could have information like his IP address, phone number, and full name divulged if Google complies with the judge's order.

https://www.techspot.com/news/84030-australian-judge-orders-google-reveal-identity-anonymous-negative.html

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 02/15/20 (Sat) 05:14:09 No.252923

>>252919

google will just bribe them

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 02/15/20 (Sat) 05:41:01 No.252926

Why cant they just delete the fucking review and not be an ass hat about it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 02/15/20 (Sat) 05:56:20 No.252928

>>252919

This sets a dangerous precedent. Google must refuse to comply with this judge's order. I can understand if a threat of violence or some other illegal action was done, but leaving a negative review or opinion is not a violation of law.

Imagine if the government or political parties were granted this sort of power.

>implying that CIAniggers don't already have this power and actively using it right now

If I say that the Fairmont Police Chief is a fucking retard and too fat to be a cop, does this mean the Chief can call google up and say "What's the name and address of this anonymous faggot that just talked shit about me?" See where this could get you? Imagine Pepsi trying to sue you in court because you don't like their new flavor of soda.

If anything, we anons know that anonymity allows for free and open discussion, debate, and opinions without fear of persecution. That's the spirit of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Allowing businesses to van and dox people cannot be allowed.

I don't like Hungry Jacks. Their food is garbage and it looks like slop. What are they going to do? Sue me? Well, if this practice becomes law and normalized, in the future, they could sue me because I said their burgers are shit. Fuck that.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 02/15/20 (Sat) 05:58:03 No.252929

>>252926

The review has been deleted. That in itself is bollocks unless it was deleted by the original poster.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 02/15/20 (Sat) 06:18:50 No.252931

>>252928

Unfortunately this is Australia's legal system that we're talking about, and Australia does not have full freedom freedom of speech covered in their constitution.

The only guaranteed freedom of speech is communications related to governance and that's not even actually written into it–it had to be confirmed by their supreme court as being conducive to the function of the government as laid out in the document.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia

Ergo, much like how you can be sued for hurting a billionaire conglomerate's feelings in the UK (unless it is spoken in parliament), you are subject to liability for your words in Australia.

Thank God I live in the USA, where it is my sacrosanct right to flip off the president without fear of repercussion.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 02/15/20 (Sat) 10:13:11 No.252937

File: 0d1930b945a81b6⋯.jpg (29.32 KB, 620x350, 62:35, blk barry 'n' billy.jpg)

>>252931

>Thank God I live in the USA, where it is my sacrosanct right to flip off the president without fear of repercussion.

Unless it's a liberal president. In which case, you'll be devoured alive.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 02/15/20 (Sat) 19:20:02 No.252958

>>252937

Not all free speech is protected speech, even if it should be. Also, don't forget you can apparently sign away rights somehow. Signing away privileges makes sense to me, sure, but rights? Rights are supposed to be rights whether you like it or not; they are inalienable and unassailable. Well, whatever - people have the power you give them. The law doesn't protect people, people uphold the law.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 02/16/20 (Sun) 02:31:59 No.252966

This is what happens when you let liberals take our guns

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.