free speech: November 2007 Archives
'ReputationDefender' offer a service to, amongst other things, 'find out everything that's being said about you online and get rid of the content you don't like.'
Pity that it's a scam.
'Powered by Search & Destroy', their service 'scour[s] the internet to dig up every possible piece of information about you, and then we present it to you in an interactive monthly report,' and '[n]ext we DESTROY. You can select the content from your report that you don't like. This is where we go to work for you. Our trained and expert online reputation specialists use an array of techniques developed in-house to correct and/or completely remove the selected unwanted content from the web.' (Emphasis added)
Their services are based on a false premise - that it's possible for them to 'destroy' content posted on third-party websites. Their website is deliberately vague on how they supposedly do this, but it's not at all clear to me how they can 'destroy' other people's content without criminal computer crime being involved.
It's possible that their 'destroy' service really just consists of sending out nastygrams threatening to sue the pants of everyone saying anything that their clients 'don't like.' In which case, their marketing-speak contains a stack of likely contraventions of s 52, 53, and 55A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
A novel interpretation of s 60 might mean that their nastygram campaigns, in and of themselves, contravene the TPA. If the service they supply their customers consists of using 'undue harassment or coercion' against third parties, I think this is quite arguably 'in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer', in contravention of s 60. The section doesn't say the 'undue harassment or coercion' has to be used against the customer. A bit of a stretch, granted, but hey, I said it was a novel interpretation.
Articles such as this one tend to suggest that rather than 'destroying' content that their clients want to disappear, they setup new sites containing more positive information, and use SEO techniques to ensure that the 'positive' material appears in search results before the 'negative' material. Still, this isn't 'destroying' the negative content in any way, shape or form.
The marketing for their services are based on another false premise - that you can or should be able to 'get rid of the content you don't like' on the Internet. I notice that on their FAQ they claim to respect the First Amendment, and so they don't go after the media or the government. They seem to have forgotten that the First Amendment applies to everybody in America - not just organizations with money and lawyers. Everybody else -- including but not limited to me -- is presumably fair game.
People have a right to engage in lawful speech on the Internet without organisations such as ReputationDefender threatening to sue them for saying things that their clients 'don't like'.
Their marketing to parents -- eg 'Don't let the internet ruin your child's reputation' -- seems to be little more than scaremongering. They're relying on parents' fear and ignorance about the Internet to promote an expensive (US $29.95 per "destroy") for-profit service that can't legally do what it claims to do.
Then again, I probably shouldn't criticise them. If they decide this posting harms their reputation, they'll probably just 'destroy' it.
Pity that it's a scam.
'Powered by Search & Destroy', their service 'scour[s] the internet to dig up every possible piece of information about you, and then we present it to you in an interactive monthly report,' and '[n]ext we DESTROY. You can select the content from your report that you don't like. This is where we go to work for you. Our trained and expert online reputation specialists use an array of techniques developed in-house to correct and/or completely remove the selected unwanted content from the web.' (Emphasis added)
Their services are based on a false premise - that it's possible for them to 'destroy' content posted on third-party websites. Their website is deliberately vague on how they supposedly do this, but it's not at all clear to me how they can 'destroy' other people's content without criminal computer crime being involved.
It's possible that their 'destroy' service really just consists of sending out nastygrams threatening to sue the pants of everyone saying anything that their clients 'don't like.' In which case, their marketing-speak contains a stack of likely contraventions of s 52, 53, and 55A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
A novel interpretation of s 60 might mean that their nastygram campaigns, in and of themselves, contravene the TPA. If the service they supply their customers consists of using 'undue harassment or coercion' against third parties, I think this is quite arguably 'in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer', in contravention of s 60. The section doesn't say the 'undue harassment or coercion' has to be used against the customer. A bit of a stretch, granted, but hey, I said it was a novel interpretation.
Articles such as this one tend to suggest that rather than 'destroying' content that their clients want to disappear, they setup new sites containing more positive information, and use SEO techniques to ensure that the 'positive' material appears in search results before the 'negative' material. Still, this isn't 'destroying' the negative content in any way, shape or form.
The marketing for their services are based on another false premise - that you can or should be able to 'get rid of the content you don't like' on the Internet. I notice that on their FAQ they claim to respect the First Amendment, and so they don't go after the media or the government. They seem to have forgotten that the First Amendment applies to everybody in America - not just organizations with money and lawyers. Everybody else -- including but not limited to me -- is presumably fair game.
People have a right to engage in lawful speech on the Internet without organisations such as ReputationDefender threatening to sue them for saying things that their clients 'don't like'.
Their marketing to parents -- eg 'Don't let the internet ruin your child's reputation' -- seems to be little more than scaremongering. They're relying on parents' fear and ignorance about the Internet to promote an expensive (US $29.95 per "destroy") for-profit service that can't legally do what it claims to do.
Then again, I probably shouldn't criticise them. If they decide this posting harms their reputation, they'll probably just 'destroy' it.
