Celeb lawsuit meaningful?

http://www.cnet.com/au/news/celebs-threaten-to-sue-google-over-response-to-nude-image-hack/

Hmm, weighing in on this particular.  Not because it seems there is always risk that someone should release information of a private nature to another individual, but is it a search engine providers job to immediate to discern and discriminate expeditiously all information.  

   I propose the problem here is that modification to information makes this particular problem more difficult.  For instance, take a well enough designed modification to content that generalizes a change but preserves enough structural integrity so as to make data discernible, rendered, and understood.  Thus a private stolen image that is modified in a clever way enough to pass through filters.  In the approximate sense the image neither qualifies as the marked original, but to human interpretation it seems one and the same in this solution work around.  In this sense,  the job of image removal is more difficult.  Where, for instance, images are posted and then removed, and then it seems a more burdensome task of discerning what is good versus bad information.  Already Google has faced the task, through court rulings, removing links to media from any given media publication group, and that any length legal battle would ensue merely for the removal of particular references is a longer road.  At least history seems to indicate that Google is not fully burdened with the handy task of deciding what for us is 'good' versus 'bad' information.  Although Google I imagine goes out of its way to position information in ways that makes prominence of data based upon relevance.   

Then as much as I dislike using the argument often that I've heard...Guns don't kill people directly (as in firing on their own), or Cars alone kill people (without an operator), which is to search engine giants don't firstly screw up the notions of personal privacy in a world where personal privacy is becoming less regardless.  Obviously, a risk always exists so long as a general population of people have a publication medium to use for better or worse, that media publication  controlled by predominant forces, namely, industry, money, power, fame, notoriety, and so forth.  At least if you wanted to be able to disseminate any communication and truly be heard, and going further back in time (truly ancient history for the rest of us), dissemination of information could be controlled more likely on added principles of outright literacy, and being able to write where language at times were complex enough to require significant devotion.  Educated elite and scribes might have been more likely to be able to read and write, and generally the masses could be left clueless often times to present happenings on say the equivalence of national, regional, or even local matters, or in another words, the peons have little say and know on the matter and generally expected to their station in life.  

As to a present day lawsuit, civil litigation, yes, it may be great for the potential claimants but for anyone else that neither have the legal means, power, or money to raise in bringing a case to court period, it seems nominal to the potential advancement of privacy for the rest of us, and maybe it only adds to the potential of an imbalance in information discrimination.  Thus potentially returning to some old day where literally the more powerless have even less of a say on much of anything.  Could we have waiting periods, or at worst having discriminant filters which prevent us from being able to say much of anything online all for baseless charges/accusations, or even worse, that all of this were solely on the reconciliation of who has the power, money, and influence to what can or can't be said on a given network?  Then one likely imagined scenario is that power, money, and fame, can buy one into a position of influencing the control of online information content in so far as reputation, but as to the housewife/ex-girlfriend scandalized by a malicious ex, good luck with removal requests there.

Presently while the blame could be laid on Google's doorstep as an indirect recipient in facilitating the exchange of maliciously used data, it seems focus is potentially lost on cloud computing.  Cloud computing a presently heavily invested upon model way of doing information exchange business seems also the wave of the future relative to traditional computing networks, but likely the larger cloud culprit, hints as much to the problem of large scale network computing systems in general.  Doesn't it share in the appearance of  large scale social institution where we eat and sleep under a potential watchful eye, something that we might have imagined of famous novels like 1984?  At least in title, outside of dynamic computational scaling and memory management, perhaps, if there were something of concern were the desired outsourcing of data management handling where greater implicit trust were given to another in handling one's data security .  At least it seems inevitable despite all the tangible efforts made to securely compartmentalize our station in the world, that someone somewhere exploits securities loopholes and manages to leak any piece of data out into the world.  Not only because as if in the personal sense we were self promoting the notions of erosion in personal privacy by engaging under the mega social network church, but that they might make use of allowing others to handle your personal data because data use weren't maintained through statically housed network servers, only adding the risks on a given user base.  Privacy advocacy sites or reputation managing sites have begun to make headway in this age because of the increasing centrality of personal data and given ease in accessing personal data, private or otherwise.  Social management industries (e.g publicity agents, personal advisors) have been used long ago, for elite, aristocracy,  or any with enough money, power , and influence with enough to lose.  These days the standards of social rank have dropped.  Supposedly upper level schools and universities scan Facebook discriminating any potential or existing student for online social behaviors, and likely I can't imagine that we'd see high schools doing the same thing if they aren't already doing it.  It could be your employer, or recalling as in years past a meeting in a larger scale corporation.   You could be held accountable for anything publicly or thought privately shared in so far as your employment.    Just because you weren't in the workplace hadn't meant that your personal conduct shouldn't somehow be one and the same.  Ironically in so many decades past when it were for a job that were so entry level, and generally small in terms of its reflection upon a given corporation, private opinions shouldn't be so private here.  

I had heard recently, for instance, an advert for a site called Reputation.com.  This supposedly for the  more lowly of us, or a site purporting to offer us reputation protections management.  Likely I am not certain, if and how, they manage anything like content removal, or exactly what their role in advancing another's reputation might be.  If one were to potentially outline the general social problems of the sorts, whether one potentially were arrested in their past, for instance, prostitution case, affairs, divorce scandals, drug addiction, petty theft, or anything more likely run of the mill for families behind closed doors,  not withstanding, one time child hood rebellion that leads into a whole other world web of another's personal excitement.  Of course, these days, I suppose it could be more challenging for any one individual, obviously, there should be more to gain potentially engaged working another's reputation.  Unfortunately I say this, because someone standing to gain in occupational advance, could stand to gain with another's personal publicity scandal, and this need not require the logic that influential position exist, that somewhere someone need be, for instance, a politician.  At least one is to wonder in this day and age, that anyone should be raised irrespective of social position to the notion that they reflected as any chief executive officer.

A recent celebrity lawsuit, on the other hand, reflects in mind something traditional that hadn't bore much relevance for the rest of us.  At least if you were hoping that these could lead to positive changes in so far as how data were handled for the rest of us, I imagine, not likely.  At least push come to shove, if it takes money to build a class action lawsuit, it would require of a lot more inter cooperation and a fairly large scale legal firm to launch the equivalent by the rest of us outside of the 1% segment of society.