Google Italy, Executives Convicted Over Content

[alexander]

I dont agree with the court ruling but Italy does not have the same freedom of expression that the US does.

that is true and fine, i know that first hand from Russia, for example, but google was not expressing their view, or agree with any opinion of every video they host... let me reiterate, they are not a content a content provider, they dont provide or generate content (well they do some), they allow content makers, people, to use the google shell to provide and share their content with other people... Also US freedoms have clauses, like you have free speech, unless the government doesn't agree with what you have to say... etc. Google worked with the chinese government, yes, but so did Cisco, so did a lot of companies, google cares for your rights as their customer, they have countlessly told various government agencies to go pound sand, when requests for information were made and they are good with doing that. But you have to cater to larger markets, and if that means collaborating with a government to restrict certain searches, to reach out to over a billion more people, well, sacrifices have to be made. People that want to browse freely will and have found ways around the blocking, and google fought long and hard as to what they actually restrict. Google still works with chinese government, they still have multiple law suits going both ways, don't think they roll over and say yes sir to everything...

 

My recent ponderance has been about google's recent and very secretive relationship with NSA...

[Cedars]

that is true and fine, i know that first hand from Russia, for example, but google was not expressing their view, or agree with any opinion of every video they host... let me reiterate, they are not a content a content provider, they dont provide or generate content (well they do some), they allow content makers, people, to use the google shell to provide and share their content with other people...

And the moment they began placing goodleAds, they generated content, piggybacked on the user videos. They profited from the exploitation of this attack on the autistic teen. As I understand it, google.it also ignored consumer complaints and 'national outrage' and only responded to police inquiry into the matter. Once the cops get involved its all over but the crying, so to speak.

 

Also US freedoms have clauses, like you have free speech, unless the government doesn't agree with what you have to say... etc.

I believe this was google.it that was responsible for content. Multinational corps have a whole bigger can-o-worms.

 

Google worked with the chinese government, yes, but so did Cisco, so did a lot of companies, google cares for your rights as their customer, they have countlessly told various government agencies to go pound sand, when requests for information were made and they are good with doing that. But you have to cater to larger markets, and if that means collaborating with a government to restrict certain searches, to reach out to over a billion more people, well, sacrifices have to be made.

Sure, go pound sand is what they told the italians (ie not guilty). Italian courts (at this point) have found them responsible. As I said, I dont agree with the courts decision, but that is my bias towards what free speech etc is. I also know as a traveler, when I cross a border, I am obligated to follow the laws of the place I am visiting (state laws can be different as well as country laws).

 

Sacrifices? Such as monitoring content on google.it to ensure it complies with italian laws, so you can continue to do google business in Italy (or China)?

 

People that want to browse freely will and have found ways around the blocking, and google fought long and hard as to what they actually restrict. Google still works with chinese government, they still have multiple law suits going both ways, don't think they roll over and say yes sir to everything.

While true that people find ways around some instances, it is an irrelevant point (as I understand it) google.it put no measures (filters) in place to ensure Italian laws were respected, when it is obvious (via their complacency with china) they have methods to do such things.

My recent ponderance has been about google's recent and very secretive relationship with NSA...

Whole new can-o-worms.

[freeztar]

Does anyone know if something happened to the user who actually posted the video in the first place, if anything?

[DougF]

Well I was always told when in Rome speak Roman, You should always follow the laws (and customs) of land your in, ........ Now that said, I can understand Google and China,

Google wants to bring the INTERNET and all of the knowledge that comes with it to the Chines people, but in order to do it they will (and have) made compromises as to the continent that is available to them, (is this right?) or is this just a mens to a end? if we can get the whole world looking at all the data (no holds bard) then the barriers between us don't seem so tall. (you have to start out small then grow bigger) one step at a time, (as it were) look at it like this you have been in the dark all of your life, can we just through you into the light (no) you have to take small steps to get to the light. ........

we cannot however start putting people in jail for trying to give you a flashlight!

 

whats next? putting our news commentators in jail for showing a live carjacking, hit and run or may we will just put them in jail for showing us a surveillance video of a bank robbery gone bad where somebody got shot (even if they just wanted to put his [or hers] picture out their to catch the guy) ......................................................................

 

Monday my wifes sister was run over and KILLED while she was trying to cross the road in her electric wheelchair (now this has been on the news for three days now) I find it very hard to see this day after day, but it is news and if this is shown they might make the crossing lights longer, (i can only hope some Good will come of this) but will I try to put the news people in jail?

 

 

I think not.

 

(PS. if you haven't seen this yet just wait it most likely will be on you tube soon)

[Cedars]

Doug,

 

First let me say I am sorry your family is enduring this loss. My thoughts are with you.

 

Well I was always told when in Rome speak Roman, You should always follow the laws (and customs) of land your in, ........ Now that said, I can understand Google and China, Google wants to bring the INTERNET and all of the knowledge that comes with it to the Chines people, but in order to do it they will (and have) made compromises as to the continent that is available to them, (is this right?) or is this just a mens to a end?

It is just a means to an end. Words like Tienemen Square are censored willingly by Google (and other .coms). It (for google) is not about bringing knowledge, it is getting into a market. It is about profits for google.

 

Quote from a news outlet

"The company vowed to appeal against the ruling, which it described as "an attack on the fundamental principles of freedom on which the internet was built". "

 

Google executives convicted in Italy over abuse video | Technology | guardian.co.uk

 

This episode of corporate woe (google.it) is not about news. This same corporation cooperated fully with actual suppression of news and history. For years and years.

 

This is an issue about privacy rights and protecting the vulnerable from exploitation. An Downs syndrome person was attacked, this was video uploaded to google videos (apparently by the attackers), not as a google news piece and (as I understand it) was covered in many actual news accountings in Italy.

 

From same link above:

"The prosecutors maintained that "this was not a trial about freedom of the internet as some have said. Instead, and for the first time in Italy, a serious issue has been raised about the rights of the individual in today's society.""

 

Googles position is spin spin spin. They have no quarrel with censorship. They have no quarrel with "attacks on the "fundamental principles of freedom on which the internet was built", and will continue to censor sites in China for the corporations bottom dollar.

 

I like that a serious issue about the rights of the individual has been raised.

[alexander]

As I understand it, google.it also ignored consumer complaints and 'national outrage' and only responded to police inquiry into the matter.

That's how it should be, so they did act on an official police inquiry. Look i understand that what was on the video was wrong, i understand that and i was outraged by the act as much as the next person, but as far as google held criminally responsible for a video they hosted, criminally responsible for "keeping it too long" after some customer complaints, and the video sparking a national outrage, that is ridiculous at best, they did take it down and complied with an official request.

 

Differences in the principal of the content of the video aside, think of it this way, giant concert event, there is a wardrobe malfunction that is taped by someone in the crowd. The video is posted on youtube for 18+ viewing only, the next day there is a national outrage and thousands of people are calling out to have the video removed, not people involved, not people depicted, just people who feel offended by the video. There is a national outrage for what happened during the concert. The thing goes to court and the video is seized as evidence by the the government officials 2 months later via a court order. Content differences aside, does it still make sense to charge the google officials with what is it, criminal neglegence? they didnt tape the content, they didnt post the content, they didn't agree with the content, simply provided the hosting for it. Those people could have just as easily gotten a webpage and posted the video there, they just chose a different sharing media... Should the google officials go to jail for negating to care about non-official requests from people that felt offended by the wardrobe malfunction? Note, those people didn't have to watch the videos, and wouldnt watch it unless they searched for it specifically. Google didnt beam it to their tvs, it was their choice to watch it. What did google do wrong?

While true that people find ways around some instances, it is an irrelevant point (as I understand it) google.it put no measures (filters) in place to ensure Italian laws were respected

But they clearly complied with the italian laws, because they clearly complied with a formal court-ordered request to take down the video, they didn't comply with what some people in italy thought, national outrage was not due to google, national outrage was because of what was depicted in the video, which google had nothing to do with, so content of the video aside, you can't be everything to everyone, if google acted on every request they get, you'd have no videos... Google assumes no responsibility for their content, the user who posted it, does, its in their TOS.

 

Whole new can-o-worms.

yep... fire a new thread in CS if you want, i'd be glad to jump in :)

 

Doug, i am sincerely sorry to hear that!

Also, you are not talking about the news people, they are the content provider, they are the user who posted the video, in this case, you are talking about suing the executives of the broadcasting station, and even there you have more leverage, because the content is shown regardless of whether you choose to see it, take that a step further, would you be as pissed off, if you had to actually find that news story and select to see it, as opposed to seeing it on every tv tuned into your local channel as "today's top story is" or "controversy continues"?

[Cedars]

That's how it should be, so they did act on an official police inquiry. Look i understand that what was on the video was wrong, i understand that and i was outraged by the act as much as the next person, but as far as google held criminally responsible for a video they hosted, criminally responsible for "keeping it too long" after some customer complaints, and the video sparking a national outrage, that is ridiculous at best, they did take it down and complied with an official request.

Again, we are back to what is described in the article as a "formal police request". We do not know if/how many informal police requests were made. Once the police are involved, its all over but the crying.

 

I have a responsibility to know the laws. The USA has laws about the privacy of a minor and victims of crime, hence the blue dots covering the faces of minor victims, even on news reports.

 

Google should have known, via the extensive public documentation of the videos existence on its network, for 2 months prior to the "formal police request" to remove the video. If they did not know, ignorance of the law (privacy) is no excuse to continue to violate the privacy rights of this handicapped minor (there are conflicting reports as to whether its Downs Syndrome or Autism) victim of a crime. Especially when these same laws exist in the USA.

 

Differences in the principal of the content of the video aside, think of it this way, giant concert event, there is a wardrobe malfunction that is taped by someone in the crowd. The video is posted on youtube for 18+ viewing only, the next day there is a national outrage and thousands of people are calling out to have the video removed, not people involved, not people depicted, just people who feel offended by the video.

Now your comparing an accident (wardrobe malfunction) of a legal adult (not child porn) to a physical attack on a disabled minor, and comparing being offended with what the actual issue was (privacy violation/law)? A law that apparently is both Italian and European Law (must be a EU thing)

 

..."I knew nothing about the video until after it was removed by Google in compliance with European and Italian law."

 

Cited here:

Court convicts Google trio for violating Down's syndrome boy's privacy - Times Online

 

But they clearly complied with the italian laws, because they clearly complied with a formal court-ordered request to take down the video, they didn't comply with what some people in italy thought, national outrage was not due to google, national outrage was because of what was depicted in the video, which google had nothing to do with, so content of the video aside, you can't be everything to everyone, if google acted on every request they get, you'd have no videos... Google assumes no responsibility for their content, the user who posted it, does, its in their TOS.

Again, the police had to go through the measures of getting a court order to get google to comply with the existing law?

 

You think maybe the corporate lawyers for google should have taken a look at what was being broadcast around the nation regarding this?

 

My neighbors have brought to my attention some things I have done that might not be legal (burning barrel). I have checked into it because, well, if they report me to the police and are correct, I can be charged with a crime. Yes, I have the option of playing dumb and wait for the police to get here. Sure, the cops might just give me a warning. Then again, they might give me a ticket.

 

Google, based in the USA where protection of minors identities is a well known, is now screaming "internet freedoms" after spending years placating china (and others) to suppress internet freedom, gets what they give.

 

I'm sorry but I cant help but spend time spinning it for the real victim here, the downs/autistic minor who was targeted by violent youth, violent youth who used the internet to brag about their injustice towards another human being, while google piggybacks its ads and makes money while playing dumb.

 

Google did know better and left the video up there until police had to get involved in removing its content.

[DougF]

alexander

Also' date=' you are not talking about the news people, they are the content provider, they are the user who posted the video, in this case, you are talking about suing the executives of the broadcasting station, and even there you have more leverage, because the content is shown regardless of whether you choose to see it, take that a step further, would you be as pissed off, if you had to actually find that news story and select to see it, as opposed to seeing it on every tv tuned into your local channel as "today's top story is" or "controversy continues"? [/quote']

of course you are right, i was just trying to make a point (not a good one) I just hate to see any kind of suppression.

[freeztar]

of course you are right, i was just trying to make a point (not a good one) I just hate to see any kind of suppression.

 

Cease that desist! :)

 

Nevermind...carry on

 

Il cometi? No?

[alexander]

Again, the police had to go through the measures of getting a court order to get google to comply with the existing law?

Yep, unless you have a court order, it's only your word that its the law, and i can agree or disagree with that. There is a reason why evidence seized as a part of an unauthorized (being something without a court order) search is not admissible in court.

[CraigD]

Yep, unless you have a court order, it's only your word that its the law, and i can agree or disagree with that. There is a reason why evidence seized as a part of an unauthorized (being something without a court order) search is not admissible in court.

It’s a nearly universal legal principle, however, that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, whether your enterprise is as a private citizen, a website operator, a restaurateur, a zookeeper, etc. Your enterprise may involve some obscure laws, but in undertaking it, you’re implicitly agreeing to abide by them.

 

Comedian Richard Prior had a hilarious routine on the subject, with lines like (spoken in a court) “I’m sorry, your honor – I didn’t know that armed robbery was against the law!” What this first Italian court appears to have decided concerning Google.it’s executives is that this defense is no more valid for a more subtle law that the silly case in Prior’s joke.

 

A question I’ve had, and not been able to answer reading the news, is whether the convicted Google executives are physically within the grasp of Italian court officers. If they’re not, and take care never to be, then the legal arguments for and against jailing them for the 6-12 months prosecutors have asked, is purely a legal and philosophical one, and suggests that all Google need do to circumvent any nation’s court is keep their executives in different countries than the servers for which they're responsible.

[alexander]

craig, agreed, and enterprise has to abide by the laws of its business, but what law was broken when google refused to remove user's content? google caters to their end users, if someone tries to compromise user's rights, google fights pretty feverishly on the user's side, that is why chinese gov-t had to bring google to international court to force google to set up search filters... I dont want to use a service that during some uproar will delete my content, and google sides with me, they want me as a customer, so they want me to post content that brings them revenue. They broke no laws for not removing user content, its not a law, it is not a law that governs their business, the contrary is the law that governs their business, and they stuck with it until the courts decided otherwise.