Question

When you click on Amazon, Google +, iTunes, Tumbler, or virtually any other website - they will insist that you click an agreement which contains an indemnification clause before you can use their service.

Kirah clicks on the Google + agreement (terms of service) and begins a google hang-out chat room. One of her new cyberfriends begins to real-life stalk her and eventually kills her as she walks to her car from work. Can Kirah's family sue Google +, or are they barred because Kirah clicked the indemnification clause?

- What business, legal, and ethical issues are involved in these cases?

- What do you predict the outcome of future cyberlaw cases to be? In other words, how do you think courts will interpret individual and corporate rights?

Answer 1

Answer 1) Health and safety is the ethical issues which is being talked about in this case, due to location sharing feature of Google+ Kirah has been made a victim and is being killed. There is a breach of health and safety issue where Google needs to give complete support to victims family in all possible way but as told in the case the family of Kirah is looking forward sue Google+ which is not possible because there are terms and conditions of every application which Kirah would have agreed upon and keeping this in case the company cannot be sued.

Answer 2) Well in cyber crime there are 2 parties one is the victim and other was is the one who suffers. So in such case what cyberlaw should decide is who is the real victim, the person who did the crime or the medium which he/she used as in the above case the victim is the criminal and familu of Kirah are trying to sue Google+ which is just a channel. So cyberlaw should clearly take decision and create a law for criminals that are the real victim and all future cases should be solved considering these principles only.