Sue Scheff: Google Bomb Book Previewed in LA Times
by Sue Scheff on Sep 01, 2009
The LA Times started last Thursday with a 4 part series on the launching of Google Bomb Book. Today is the official release date! Part one was the dynamic foreward by Michael Fertik, CEO and founder of Reputation Defender. Part two is my turn, and here it is!
Sue Scheff didn’t expect she’d make enemies when she founded the child and parenting advocacy organization PURE. But someone began attacking her on the Internet, posting enough defamatory statements to compel her to bring a lawsuit. She won $11.3 million in 2006.
In this second installment of our exclusive preview of the book “Google Bomb,” (read part 1 here) Brand X brings you Scheff’s story.
Even years later, “Sue Scheff is destroying lives…I want others to know…” still has the impact of a sucker punch I didn’t see coming from the Internet. It was August, 2003 when the first attack on my integrity appeared on a website that focused on programs for at-risk teens, the industry in which I provide services to parents via an organization I founded called PURE. The individual posting was a parent I had actually tried to help after she contacted me for assistance. So, imagine my shock when that first unexpected accusation escalated into a full-blown character assassination.
Threats were made against me and a gang mentality took hold as numerous voices began to chime in. Who were these people? Other than the initiator of the attacks and the website owner, I had no idea. Why did they seem so driven to destroy me and my organization? Again, I was clueless. And I had absolutely no idea how to make this runaway train stop. I didn’t dare make my presence known on the forum for fear of the virtual lynch mob that went after a few well-meaning supporters who tried to intervene on my behalf only to end up like road kill on the Information Highway themselves.
As I continued to watch this whole crazy thing spin beyond damage control, something just as frightening would eventually snake its way into the search engines of Google: If you typed in Sue Scheff it wasn’t my website with educational articles and resources for parents that appeared at first glance. No, because over two pages of initial Google results led to links that took viewers to sites like Sue Scheff’s Red Panties where I was the star of a pornographic discussion. Not exactly what you want your kids or parents to see. As for professional colleagues, they were targets of proximity that risked losing their own credibility unless they kept their distance.
With no other way to defend myself and restore my damaged reputation, in December, 2003, I hired an attorney, David Pollack, who filed a lawsuit in Broward County, Florida against the originator of the attacks. In the next three years I racked up over $150,000 in legal fees and saw my organization nearly disintegrate. I developed classic symptoms of agoraphobia that transformed me from an extrovert who loved working with families, to a depressed recluse who wouldn’t answer the phone and rarely left the home I had mortgaged to the hilt in order to continue litigation.
Victims of Internet defamation and cyberstalking reside in a lonely place in our society. It’s like living in a Leper Colony: Population of One. Make no mistake. This monster is an equal opportunity offender that does not discriminate on the basis of your profession, gender, color, religion, or anything else that we think might set us apart from every other person in life. From lawyers to landscapers, teens to grandparents: No one is immune.
The malicious stroke of a key has become the equivalent of a cyberbullet. Only it’s not just getting fired off into cyberspace, it’s hitting intended targets in very real, physical places. The underbelly of Internet society that aggressively pursues unsuspecting victims, and the lack of legal protection against the invisible trolls who bully and stalk at will, has received a recent spike in public awareness. Good.
We need very real repercussions for violating a reporter’s privacy in a motel room with a peep camera for mass voyeuristic consumption. We need to insist upon a civilized Internet community where good, decent people can no longer be held hostage by a vindictive ex-spouse, a mentally unbalanced customer, or some acquaintance in class that goes by the name of “anonymous.”
After nearly losing my house to pay for my day in court, and nearly losing my sanity as well as my business during the three years it took me to get there, on September 19, 2006, a jury declared their outrage with a landmark $11.3M verdict, a forceful warning that ruining lives with online attacks is wrong and will not be tolerated.
And yet I continue to be stunned by the volume of emails I receive with heartbreaking stories that are as bad, or worse, than my own. The wheels of justice plod slowly in a www.world that moves at the speed of thought, the click of a mouse. So as we continue to wait for the courts to catch up with our virtual reality, do you know what Google is saying about you?
– Sue Scheff and Olivia Rupprecht
Tags: Cyber Safety, Cyber Slander, Cyberbullying, Google Bomb Book, Google Image, Internet Law, Internet Slander, John Dozier, Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender, Sue Scheff
Sue Scheff: Google Bomb Book Featured in Washington Post
by Sue Scheff on Aug 26, 2009
I was so flattered and honored to speak with Columnist and Journalist, Kathleen Parker. She interviewed me yesterday and wrote an amazing column which included my new book book, Google Bomb, that is now available on Amazon and will be officially released on September 1st. The endorsements and reviews have been fantastic! There is a ground swell, and I believe we have the making of a best seller. The topic is timely and sizzling with the recent news on Google being forced to expose an anonymous Blogger.
Follow Google Bomb Book on Twitter @GoogleBombBook and @SueScheff
Shock Waves From the Google Bombs
By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
When Oscar Wilde observed that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, he could not have imagined the Internet.
The wild frontier we now know and (mostly) love called the blogosphere is a not-always-okay corral where Free Speech is armed and often dangerous.
The latest showdown is between two women — a Vogue model and an anonymous blogger — at odds over what is permissible in the name of free expression. After the blogger called Liskula Cohen a “skank,” among other things, the model demanded her identity from the blog host, Google. A New York Supreme Court judge agreed that she was entitled to the information and ordered the company to reveal her name.
Outraged, the blogger, revealed as Rosemary Port, is launching a $15 million lawsuit against Google for disclosing her identity. Google’s Andrew Pederson said that while his company sympathizes with victims of cyber-bullying, “We also take great care to respect privacy concerns and will only provide information about a user in response to a subpoena or other court order.”
Voila.
This all may seem like an inside-the-runway spat between two women who don’t like each other. As pioneering blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds noted on Instapundit, “I never would have heard the words ‘Liskula Cohen’ and ‘skank’ together if it hadn’t been for her blogger-outing litigation efforts.”
The model case isn’t insignificant, however, and raises weighty questions about privacy, anonymity and the future of e-free speech.
The problem of online defamation is hardly new, but several recent lawsuits have begun challenging the anything-goes modus operandi of the Internet. One of the most famous dates to 2006, when Sue Scheff won a staggering $11.3 million verdict against a woman who had posted hundreds of defamatory comments about Scheff and her company, which counsels the parents of troubled teens.
After years of torment that included stalkers and death wishes, Scheff was able to prove that her reputation and business suffered as a result of the defendant’s comments. In her new book, “Google Bomb,” due for release Sept. 1 and co-authored with attorney John W. Dozier Jr., Scheff tells the story of her lawsuit and offers advice to others similarly defamed online.
“Google bomb” is Internet slang for attempting to raise the ranking of a given page during a Google search. The popularity of a page may not reflect the page’s relationship to truth, but it may be popular for other reasons. Let’s just say, nasty sells.
Defusing Google bombs isn’t much fun unless you’re a computer geek or have no preferable ways of spending your time. To keep your online profile positive and prominent, you have to blog, tweet and maintain Web sites — or hire someone to do it for you. Scheff says she resents having to do these things, but, “if you don’t own your own name, someone else will.”
Scheff considers herself lucky because she was able to hire an attorney as well as an Internet monitoring company, ReputationDefender, that manages her online persona. Others, hundreds of whom write her each week, aren’t so fortunate. In one example, a wedding photographer lost his business when a single unhappy bride went ‘zilla and trashed him online.
“No one is immune,” says Scheff. And, just because you’re not personally active on the Internet doesn’t mean that your persona isn’t online — not necessarily in a good way. The Internet has unleashed that part of ourselves that we used to keep under wraps. Dark thoughts, like the trolls of Mordor, can now surface and thrive by the light of day.
The freedom granted by anonymity and a virtual audience may have been a boon to democracy, affording everyone a voice, but it has been a plague on decency. Inhibition, we lament, is an undervalued virtue.
Scheff’s case and the Cohen incident suggest that a new level of accountability, largely missing from personal blogs, may be in the offing. “What you type today can haunt you tomorrow,” says Scheff. “People need to know that if you use your mouse and keypad to harm others, there is a price tag.”
Harm is the operative word. Although Scheff was able to prove material losses, Cohen likely gained from her brief tenure as a victim. In fact, she has dropped her lawsuit and forgiven the blogger.
No one likes being bashed online or elsewhere — and public people are familiar with the experience. But even Scheff thinks that in the absence of quantifiable defamation, anonymity deserves protection. As Google and the courts slug it out, Cohen did manage to render an oft-ignored lesson in bold italics: Think before you type.
Or else someone may want more than a penny for your thoughts.
Tags: Cyber Safety, Cyber Slander, Cyberbullying, Free Speech, Google Bomb Book, Google Image, Internet Defamation, Internet Gossip, Internet Law, Invasion of Privacy, Online Profile, Reputation Defender, Sue Scheff
Social Networking Sites – Careful What You Post – Today’s Facebook Could Be Tomorrow’s Casebook
by Sue Scheff on May 13, 2009
Source: Toronto Sun
More like Casebook
Social networking sites can sometimes make or break a case in court
Last year, for example, an Ottawa court heard that a civil servant had started a clandestine affair with an old friend she reconnected with through Facebook during a messy custody battle involving three kids.
In a Vancouver courtroom last month, defendants in a personal injury case produced photos from the plaintiff’s Facebook profile showing that while Myla Bagasbas was seeking $40,000 in damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment after a car accident, she was still able to kayak, hike and bike post-accident.
“Facebook will be seen as a gold mine for evidence in court cases,” said Ian Kerr, Canada Research Chair in ethics, law and technology at the University of Ottawa.
But it will also challenge the courts to further define the notion of personal privacy. In a precedent-setting case this year, a Toronto judge ordered that a man suing for physical injury in a car accident be cross-examined on the contents of his private Facebook profile. Justice David Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice overturned a previous court decision that called the defendant’s request to look for incriminating evidence a “fishing expedition.”
The very nature of Facebook is to share personal information with others, Brown wrote, and is likely to contain relevant information about how the plaintiff, John Leduc, had led his life since the accident. But if Leduc’s profile is private with restricted access, is that considered an invasion of privacy?
“The courts sometimes don’t get it,” Kerr said. “The tendency in judicial opinion and popular thinking is that once something is out in the public, there’s no such thing as privacy anymore. But that can’t be right because we all have curtains.”
For Facebook users, those curtains are our privacy settings. If our home is our castle, Facebook should also be considered a walled domain, Kerr said.
For example, while a member may post pictures from a beer bash the night before, that doesn’t mean they would take the same pictures to show off to their boss the next day, Kerr explained.
Likewise, in Murphy versus Perger, a judge ordered that the plaintiff, who was suing for claims of personal injury and loss of enjoyment of life after a car accident, produce copies of her Facebook pages showing photos of her engaging in social activities. In her judgment, Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady wrote “The plaintiff could not have a serious expectation of privacy given that 366 people have been granted access to the private site.”
But having 366 Facebook friends doesn’t entitle the rest of the world to view personal information meant only for certain eyes, said Avner Levin, director of the Privacy Institute at Toronto’s Ryerson University.
“It’s not how many people you share it with, it’s who you choose to share the information with,” Levin said. “The judge is missing the point. What’s important is not how many people are your friends, but who you choose to know you.”
While we’re able to compartmentalize and separate people in our lives offline by assigning titles to different spheres — co-workers, neighbours, family — the online world fails to recognize those distinctions, he added.
It’s a habit that spills over in the job hunt as well. Employers admit they rely heavily on information they glean about a candidate from Google searches and networking profile pages. But it’s an unfair screening process, Levin said, and attaches more value to people’s online identities — and sometimes third-party information — than the candidate they meet in real life.
“We need to suppress that tendency to go on Google and look people up. There’s already a process of hiring that works for them and has been working for years,” Levin said.
While we’re more likely to trust a direct source and treat gossip with skepticism in the offline world, the same can’t be said of online information.
Pruning online identities and putting a person’s best cyber-foot forward are services offered by companies such as DefendMyName, a personal PR service which posts positive information about a client and pushes down negative links in Google. ReputationDefender also destroys libelous, private or outdated content.
“A resume is no longer what you send to your employer,” said ReputationDefender CEO Michael Fertik. “More people look at Google as a resume.”
But instead of authenticating information found online, people are trusting secondary material and treating Google like God.
“What happens is in a court of law, you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. On the Internet though, many decisions are based on lower standards,” Fertik said.
But is sanitizing a person’s online reputation of unflattering content an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
“Only if you believe Google is the best and most accurate source of information,” Fertik said. “But I don’t think Google is God. I believe Google is a machine.”
Tags: Cyber Image, Cyber Law, Cyber Resume, Cyber Safety, Facebook, Google Image, Internet Gossip, Internet Law, Internet Safety, Michael Fertik, Online Image, Online Profile, Parenting Teens, Reputation Defender, ReputationDefender, Social Networking Sites, Sue Scheff, Virtual Resume
Sue Scheff: Google Grows Smarter (ReputationDefender Blog)
by Sue Scheff on Mar 29, 2009
March 25th, 2009
Aside from the new word-relationship component, Google has also increased the characters devoted to summary paragraphs that attempt to pin down what people are searching for. In a recent blog post Google search quality team technical lead Ori Allon and snippets team engineer Ken Wilder wrote that the company “[is] deploying a new technology that can better understand associations and concepts related to your search. We are now able to target more queries, more languages, and make our suggestions more relevant to what you actually need to know.”
Heretofore Internet search services have focused on matching key words typed into query boxes with words at websites or in other online data. The newest generation of Internet users has caused a rise in demand for semantic searches that go beyond matching words to actually understanding what sentences or combinations of words mean. The trick, from a company stand point, has been whether or not adequate technology can be developed to process the increasingly complex searches with the high speed that Internet users have come to expect.
Not content with their current position behind Google in terms of search, Microsoft has recently stated that it is testing a Kumo.com semantic search engine. The hope is that the new search technology will be more popular than Microsoft’s current Live Search service, catapulting it beyond Yahoo! and Google.
As of Tuesday Google has rolled out semantic search capabilities in 37 languages. Some examples given by Wilder and Allon included a search in Russian for “fortune-telling with cards” which brought up search results for “tarot” and “divination.” Conversely, a Google search in English for “principles of physics” generated suggestions about “big bang” and “quantum mechanics.”
Tags: Google, Google Image, Google Search, Internet Profile, Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender, ReputationDefender Blog, Sue Scheff
Sue Scheff: Don’t Let the Web Kill What you Love by Michael Fertik
by Sue Scheff on Feb 15, 2009
“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”
Warren Buffett said that, before the invention of the Internet. Now, in the information age, the statement has never been more truthful. That is why I started a business, ReputationDefender, that is all about protecting reputations.
Your good name, and the reputations of your family, business, and everything you love, is valuable. So, when your neighbor, a customer, or a love interest plugs your name into a search engine, what will they find?
Anyone can come along and slam you online and if that happens, search results for your name might be dominated by negative, incomplete, or even false information. A hostile online comment might represent the uncommon experience of a dissatisfied customer or disgruntled neighbor, but due to the structure of search engines, that single opinion can be greatly amplified and made to look like a universal point of view. You might fall victim to the sniping of an anonymous blogger or even a competitor posing as an angry customer.
It’s not only easy to publish half-truths, innuendo, and falsehoods on the Internet, it’s also easy to make them stick. Many people who publish negative web content know how to make it maximally destructive. Lies, rumors, or memes take flight easily, getting repeated, added to, and generally magnified. Even though some of these narratives are discovered to be false, very few of them get debunked as loudly as they are broadcasted in the first place. As a result, false content often becomes more visible on the web than, say, well-researched articles from reputable news sources. It might seem illogical that bogus speculation can end up dominating searches for you, but that’s how a rumor mill works.
A great strength of the Internet is that it gives everyone a voice. That’s also one of its dangers: it can endow fraudsters and idle speculators with the appearance of authority.
The danger is real. This does not mean you should stop using the Internet. It means that you must proactively establish your accurate and positive presence on the web before there is a problem. You need to maximize your control over what people find about you, before someone else does it for you.
There are options. Companies have developed software solutions for online reputation protection. ReputationDefender, which is now a partner with TheStreet.com network, is my company, and we do just that.
Michael Fertik is the Founder and CEO of ReputationDefender, the online reputation management and privacy company.
Tags: Cyber Image, Cyber Slander, David Pollack, Google Image, Internet Defamation, Internet Gossip, Internet Law, Internet Slander, Michael Fertik, Online Image, Reputation Defender, Reputation Defender/MyEdge, Sue Scheff
