He wrote a negative review on the web, Google must provide his personal details

Share:

An outrageous court order.

Some Internet users write various false information, insults and other nonsense online, always obscuring the magical concept of "freedom of speech". Most of them have no idea that freedom of speech has its limits, which are determined by law (in Poland, even by the Penal Code), as well as by the principles of social coexistence. Soon a surfer will find out about it painfully, whose personal details must be issued by … Google.

You are only seemingly anonymous on the web

In Australia, there is a lot of controversy and emotions about the case of dentist Matthew Kabbabe, who claims that a surfer with the nickname CBsm 23 is completely wrong gave him a negative review in the Google reviews section. The Mountain View giant refused to remove the negative opinion, so the victim felt so hurt that he reported the defamation case to an Australian court. To the great astonishment of many observers, the court agreed with the doctor.

The Australian justice system reported to Google to obtain the personal data of an internet user who decided to criticize the dentist. The court demands the name, telephone number, IP number and even location data of the person who issued the review in dispute. Dr. Kabbabe's lawyer, Mark Stanarevic, says negative feedback has led his client to lose potential benefits of tens of thousands of dollars:

"Sometimes people just look at one or two negative reviews and decide on this basis to choose a different service point. We believe that Google has a responsibility to take care of Australian small businesses and companies around the world, before such reviews. Google must be responsible for these actions. We want to know who the anonymous reviewer is. He has defamed my client and lost thousands of dollars. ", explains the lawyer.

The lawyer also believes that VPNs do not prevent you from targeting anonymous Internet users. Stanarevic reports that law enforcement agencies have the tools necessary to track Internet users hiding behind this type of service.

Someone here seems to have lost his mind

While you can understand the frustration caused by company representatives by various types of unjustifiably negative reviews, it is difficult to understand why anyone would be legally responsible (!) For honest opinion. After all, there is no shortage of space on the network to both praise and chase various types of service outlets. Maybe instead of hiring lawyers some should just raise the standard of their business?

Australian court order can set a dangerous precedent. In Poland, after all, there were actions aimed at service outlets, which for various reasons fell into Internet users. As part of organized activities, they often lowered the average rating of hotels, restaurants and other shrines.

Source: ABC