Can someone explain this to me RE: Taxi fare dodge case

barbiegirl

When you go for a job you are Googled to see what information there is about you. At it stood before he took legal action the top result would probably have been that video and his name associated with it.
By taking the route he has, he has ensured maximum publicity, thereby ensuring that the same Google search should return the reports of his innocence.
He is working simple Search Engine Optimisation. The more popular a search is, and the more hits a page has the higher it will rank. He understands this and that the only way was to go big to counteract the original video and assocated articles.

AnonoBoy

barbiegirl wrote: »

He is working simple Search Engine Optimisation. The more popular a search is, and the more hits a page has the higher it will rank. He understands this and that the only way was to go big to counteract the original video and assocated articles.

Unfortunately for him "Oh it wasn't him after all" is far less popular and less likely to go viral than "Taxi fare dodger seeks injunction to hide his name."

I feel sorry for the guy.

barbiegirl

Yep but he did his best. Such a pity he had to at all but unfortunately he had to make the most noise he possibly could. The total cost when laid against the possible lost wages for the next 40 years aren't too bad.
Try Googling your own name. I know when I do mine, which is very individual, lots of things come up, right from 10 years ago when I was bridesmaid for my sister. You have no control over taking it down, but thankfully the first and second page are now work related. I know how to lock down my social media

AnonoBoy

barbiegirl wrote: »

Yep but he did his best. Such a pity he had to at all but unfortunately he had to make the most noise he possibly could. The total cost when laid against the possible lost wages for the next 40 years aren't too bad.
Try Googling your own name. I know when I do mine, which is very individual, lots of things come up, right from 10 years ago when I was bridesmaid for my sister. You have no control over taking it down, but thankfully the first and second page are now work related. I know how to lock down my social media

I googled my own name there. All I got were my posts on John Review sites - could this damage my career do you think?

barbiegirl

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I googled my own name there. All I got were my posts on John Review sites - could this damage my career do you think?

You tell me I don't know what you wrote. I bet you wouldn't want it to have brought up a picture of you dancing like a loon at the weekend or being accused falsely of a crime. Always be careful of what you post and where you post it.

Orando Broom

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Unfortunately for him "Oh it wasn't him after all" is far less popular and less likely to go viral than "Taxi fare dodger seeks injunction to hide his name."

I feel sorry for the guy.

I do to but I think some things are better left alone. The nature of the viral phenomenon on the internet is that the oxygen of publicity fuels it.

It is clear the solicitor had no insight into how the concept of viral works.

I'd wager she was never on a message board in her life.

There is a niche market appearing for solicitors here that are au fait with the idiosyncracies' of the internet.

That chap would have been better getting some creative friends to help him make a funny, clever video response and laugh it off; attempt to piggy back on the virulence of the accusation to make his innocence go viral.

barbiegirl

It doesn't matter what you remember it's what the internet remembers. Louis Walsh is in the papers every other day so there is lots of information on him, still that story is on the first page. Possible today cause the guy is due to sentencing. Eoin isn't, less data available for the search engine.
Why should he have to change his name, when he did nothing wrong.
Remember as a 21/22 year old he understands the power of the net. I can't comment on his legal advise as I wasn't in any of these meetings and don't know what instructions he gave his solicitor. It was expensive, but for someone starting out it may have been worth it.

Stiffler2

Can you hear that ??















It's the sound of no one caring !

connundrum

I, for one, feel better informed now.

lemme

Bumped, for the sake of Eoin McKeogh.

AnonoBoy

I like the way this guy wants legal advice before he 'tells the story'.

The story is you hopped out of the taxi without paying numbnuts. :rolleyes:

Lombardo86

So he only paid 50EUR fare? No penalty??

I doubt it is the first time he has done it either, first time he got caught im sure He should be made an example of.. throw a nice hefty fine his way. Mammy and Daddy will pay it anyway.

saa

Ha good luck with future employers googling you sonny boy.

jester77

All Eoin's look the same, it's hard to tell them apart!

LighterGuy

Its mental when you step back and look at the whole thing.

- That Eoin McKeogh is worse off than the actual guy who did it :pac:
- and how it all kicked off from just one video.

AnonoBoy

LighterGuy wrote: »

- and how it all kicked off from just one video.

One magical night.....

Kintarō Hattori

I should have known but I thought it was going to be about Eoin. :pac:

Ellis Dee

The moral of this whole sad saga is: with hidden video cameras in more and more taxis, think long and hard before giving or getting a blow job in the back seat of one. You don't want that kind of PhewTube or HeadBook fame.:):):)

Underdraft

I'm glad he finally Eoined up.

lemme

LighterGuy wrote: »

racist post is racist. :pac:

Dammit. Black Taxi for me

lemme

Underdraft wrote: »

I'm glad he finally Eoined up.

Too little too late. Looks like the other lad is Eoin a lot of money for expenses.

poisonated

What I don't understand is, people are saying that all the videos and things had to be removed yet the second post in this forum is a link to the video of the incident.

AnonoBoy

poisonated wrote: »

What I don't understand is, people are saying that all the videos and things had to be removed yet the second post in this forum is a link to the video of the incident.

They were all taken down but were put back up. I presume he no longer has any interest in asking Google to remove them because his name has been cleared now.

barbiegirl wrote: »

You tell me I don't know what you wrote. I bet you wouldn't want it to have brought up a picture of you dancing like a loon at the weekend or being accused falsely of a crime. Always be careful of what you post and where you post it.

A John Review site is where people post up reviews of prostitutes they've visited. I was joking.

I hate having to explain my jokes. :mad:

Birneybau

Underdraft wrote: »

I'm glad he finally Eoined up.

Eoin O you didn't!

pappyodaniel

Where can you buy one of these cameras? I might get one.

biko

Merged with a thread already discussing the case.

oppiuy

Here he is

http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/taxi-driver/

Duiske

You would think Mr McKeogh would be happy if this sorry episode just faded away, never to be heard of again. Hell No !! He's Back !!

Motorist

Duiske wrote: »

You would think Mr McKeogh would be happy if this sorry episode just faded away, never to be heard of again. Hell No !! He's Back !!

This is just getting embarrassing at this stage. What the hell is this lad at ?

And it's not even him in the damn video ffs.

Cianos

Their primary focus was to get the source material taken down, Ms Walley said.

Dunno if they know how the internet works. That or they're aiming for some kind of out of court settlement.

lemme

LOL his lawyers name is Ms Walley.

hes gotta be trollin at this stage

mikom

Duiske wrote: »

You would think Mr McKeogh would be happy if this sorry episode just faded away, never to be heard of again. Hell No !! He's Back !!

Irish student wants boss of YouTube jailed for contempt


An Irish student falsely accused of not paying a taxi fare in an internet video is trying to have the chief executive of YouTube jailed for contempt of court after the clip was put up again on the web.
Eoin McKeogh (22) is to seek High Court permission to bring a contempt of court action.
The Dublin City University student is also to seek leave of the court to have attachment and committal to prison proceedings brought against YouTube boss Salar Kamangar, over his company's alleged failure to obey an order not to republish the allegedly defamatory material.
Mr McKeogh obtained injunctions against YouTube, Google, Facebook and a number of other sites and usernames to prevent the republication of the video, which shows a number of young people leaving a taxi without paying the fare.
He also unsuccessfully brought an action to prevent six newspapers from naming him following reports of a court hearing in which the injunctions against the internet firms was extended.
However, since that ruling by Mr Justice Michael Peart last weekend in favour of the newspapers, online material about Mr McKeogh had only then started reporting his innocence, his counsel, Pauline Walley, said yesterday.
The judge said he was satisfied that Mr McKeogh was completely innocent.
Ms Walley said there had also been progress in other matters, including identifying one of the 'John Doe' usernames who had allegedly edited the video and posted defamatory comments about Mr McKeogh.
Ms Walley said Yahoo and another website called Crowd-Gather were to be lauded for removing links to the video and she was seeking to have the injunctions against them vacated, which the judge agreed to.
The judge also agreed to a request from Ms Walley for an order to allow Vodafone to release records in relation to information by Facebook on which a fake profile had been put up but later taken down.
However, Ms Walley said, as of last Saturday, the offending video had been put on YouTube again and she herself had accessed it yesterday morning by keying in "Eoin McKeogh".
This was clearly a breach of the court's earlier order and she would be applying for contempt orders against the company and committal orders against the chief executive.
Their primary focus was to get the source material taken down, Ms Walley said.
Mr Justice Peart said it was a matter of great concern that the video had been reposted.
He adjourned the case until February 9.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/irish-student-wants-boss-of-youtube-jailed-for-contempt-16110173.html#ixzz1ko5jKq4l

More money than sense that lad.

Yahew

Not really, this place takes down comments which finger people wrongly. So can Youtube. You know, you tube could lose the comments. They add little.

oppenheimer1

This is the case that keeps on giving.

The course this takes will be very interesting, in light of the rest of the internet censorship legislation that is being discussed at the moment. It could also set an interesting precedent.

I wonder how the judge will reconcile the different sites liability with the ability to publish information instantly on the internet.

kirving

What is he on?!

The person's face is clearly visible in the video. If it wasn't Eoin McKeogh, what's his problem?

If someone commented on the video saying it was me, I wouldn't care - since it clearly isn't me!

The passport thing is ridiculous too. That's akin to someone having a video of me doing something on a certain date, at a certain time. If I prove that I wasn't there on the alleged date, it doesn't mean I didn't do it at some time or other.

randylonghorn

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The person's face is clearly visible in the video. If it wasn't Eoin McKeogh, what's his problem?

If someone commented on the video saying it was me, I wouldn't care - since it clearly isn't me!

The problem is that the whole thing went pretty viral on the 'net, and mob justice took over. The fact that he looks vaguely like the guy in the vid and that he shares the same first name didn't help, and the mob were basically baying for McKeogh's blood.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The passport thing is ridiculous too. That's akin to someone having a video of me doing something on a certain date, at a certain time. If I prove that I wasn't there on the alleged date, it doesn't mean I didn't do it at some time or other.

I think the point is that he was in Japan at the time, and the ticket is when he flew back. In itself, the ticket doesn't really prove anything, it's just an illustration.


I think he's handled the whole thing very badly ... but I can understand why he was pissed off in the first place, especially when he started getting hate-comments left on his facebook from anonymous people.

Duiske

mikom wrote: »

More money than sense that lad.

Not for long if he keeps this s**t up.

LighterGuy

A large part of me doesnt want to be harsh towards Eoin McKeogh. After all, none of us would like to be accused of something we didnt do. Especially if we are getting random people giving us abuse (like his youtube response and facebook)

But at the same time, I feel he was totally stupid with one key act he did ... and thats the facebook and youtube injuction. If he didnt do that, no newspapers naming him >> no case against them >> no loosing against them >> no paying hefty legal fees >> none of us would be talking about him now.

kirving

Sorry, yeah, jsut saw a picture of his face on the RTE site.

It would have all blown over if he had just left it. He could have contacted the media saying that he was getting abuse, Adrian Kennedy, Joe Duffy, made his own Youtube video about it, set his Facebook profile photo to a comparison phone between him and the fare dodger. He could have handled it far better, and for free.

Where 99.99% of people first heard his name was when he took the case to court, to get the video deleted and gag the papers. What does that imply to you? Be honest. It implies that he he something to hide, and statements saying that the video will ruin his future career didnt help either. Actually, I doubt anyone would empoly him given his (legal teams) handling of the case. It's been a disaster.

He isn't going to win his court case. It really pisses people off when someone thinks they can silence the internet - which isn't going to happen either.

LighterGuy

Kevin Irving wrote: »

He isn't going to win his court case. It really pisses people off when someone thinks they can silence the internet - which isn't going to happen either.

Personally I think the chap is a fool.
That whole youtube and facebook injuction screams of the ryan giggs super injuction from last year.

I honestly think he thought he could do the same.
Difference of course being Giggs is a multi-millionaire famous footballer and McKeogh is just another random jow-blow like the rest of us.

matrim

The guy is just being stupid at this stage. The whole point of the injunction was that the accusation on the video would cost him money through lost earnings if a prospective employer found it and didn't hire him.

But if I was looking for info on him now I'd see injunctions and attempts to get the head of youtube jailed which would make me not want to hire him.

LighterGuy

matrim wrote: »

The guy is just being stupid at this stage. The whole point of the injunction was that the accusation on the video would cost him money through lost earnings if a prospective employer found it and didn't hire him.

But if I was looking for info on him now I'd see injunctions and attempts to get the head of youtube jailed which would make me not want to hire him.

Are you serious? :eek:
I assumed his official reason for the injuction was some 'wrongful defamation of character' ... but THAT was his official reason? ..... the utter fool :pac:

matrim

LighterGuy wrote: »

Are you serious? :eek:
I assumed his official reason for the injuction was some 'wrongful defamation of character' ... but THAT was his official reason? ..... the utter fool :pac:

I think it was a bit of both. I.e. defamation of character that could cause future lost earnings.

Or at least that's what I remember from reading about this initially

Sponge Bob

Probably the best place to post this seeing as most threads on the subject were locked.

There were a number of discussions on various bits of the Interwoogie about this case at the time and an EXTENSIVE trawl is underway at present to find out who said what around that time.

First of all I will quote the Judges words on the overall case.

Mr Justice Peart said it was “a profound regret to me” that “this entirely innocent man found himself in a predicament where his good name had been sullied in the manner which it was”. He was subjected to the “most appalling stream of vile abuse”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0607/1224317441720.html

TWITTER HAS warned some of its users that the company may be compelled to release subscriber and registration information in relation to a case concerning a DCU student who was falsely accused of dodging a taxi fare in a video and comments posted on internet sites, including Twitter.

In an email to some of its users, the site said: “The updated legal process may require Twitter to produce records related to your account. Should Twitter be compelled to disclose information regarding your account, we will also provide a copy of those records to you upon your request.”

In recent court proceedings brought by the student, Mr Justice Michael Peart ordered that Twitter identify and release to the plaintiff the relevant user subscriber ID and registration details for the Twitter users. It was also ordered at the same proceedings that professional networking website LinkedIn identify and release a user’s subscriber ID and registration details.

Jester252

He needs to drop this

mikemac1

In recent court proceedings brought by the student

This still going on?

The legal fees will be crazy!

kraggy

So basically anyone who said anything about him being the guilty party on twitter is potentially in trouble?

Sponge Bob

kraggy wrote: »

So basically anyone who said anything about him being the guilty party on twitter is potentially in trouble?

Yes. It is a very widespread trawl. A lawyer 'only need to be lucky once' to get the money coming in to keep the trawl going with this one.

The PROBLEM with twitter is that a retweet of something you didn't actually say becomes something you said in Irish Law once retweeted. Never forget that!

AEDIC

Jester252 wrote: »

He needs to drop this

Why should he?

deconduo

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes. It is a very widespread trawl. A lawyer 'only need to be lucky once' to get the money coming in to keep the trawl going with this one.

The PROBLEM with twitter is that a retweet of something you didn't actually say becomes something you said in Irish Law once retweeted. Never forget that!

It makes sense though. If someone tweets something libelous and you retweet it, you are essentially helping to spread it.