Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger

An anonymous reader alerts us to a story out of Israel in which Google (its Israeli subsidiary) gave up the IP address of a Blogger user without being compelled to do so by a court. A preliminary ruling was issued in which a court indicated that the slander the blogger was accused of probably rose to the level of a criminal violation. Google Israel then made a deal with the plaintiffs, local city councilmen whom the blogger had been attacking for a year. Google disclosed the IP address only to the court, which posted a message (Google says the anonymous blogger got it) inviting him/her to contest the ruling anonymously. When no response was received within 3 days, Google turned over the IP address to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Comments

double entendre

[User 956]

Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger

Sounds like that guy could use a good IP attorney.

Re:double entendre

[Klaus_1250]

Sounds like he was not anonymous in the first place. But doesn't this violate Google Privacy policy, giving up address/personal information without a court order? And what about not being evil? Giving up anyones address/identity if some authority asks for it, without going through appropriate legal channels, doesn't sound good to me.

Re:double entendre

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that this is just a case of responsibility, for the individual to be held accountable for what they say.

  Then you clearly don't know what anonymous means.

Re:double entendre

[beyondkaoru]

dunno. i am of the opinion that it should be pretty much impossible for an anonymous person to slander on the internet -- at least, it would sort of make sense that if you are being told something by someone you don't know you shouldn't consider it fact very easily.

i believe that slander, libel, defamation, etc are... perhaps outdated concepts. it is probably better for people to check their sources rather than pretend that it is safe to assume what you hear is true. i personally believe that the freedom to lie should not be restricted, even though lying is certainly a bad thing. this is partially because of how awkward cases for slander and libel and defamation can be.

many people, such as yourself, might define 'freedom of speech' differently from how i define it for myself -- and the law certainly has a different view of it than i do. but that's my opinion, and i think that absolute freedom of communication would work. (specifically, i mean allowing consenting parties to communicate whatever they want, not absolute freedom of speech which might be considered to include yelling into an unsuspecting person's ear)

or, to put it another way, if a mere pseudonym is slandering me, i might just ask, "why trust this person?". if people can learn how easy it is to be lied to, then they might learn to check their references, and slandering will become much more difficult. (of course, i do have significant doubts that people will learn to do this... but if people are sheltered from simple communication, then they might never learn.)

Re:double entendre

[Thrip]

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom of anonymous speech. I keep hearing this argument from the kind of people who you know would love to curtail speech in general. In a country where a large majority vigorously defends free speech, perhaps anonymity would not be necessary. But in a country like the one I live in, where the citizens are told that they have free speech, but where you can be jailed for years for speaking certain truths to your lawyer, spouse, or doctor, and where thugs can come to your home or workplace and intimidate you if you publicly question your rulers, anonymous speech is necessary. When the government tries to ban certain types of speech, having a way to speak anonymously nullifies the ban. Sometimes it is necessary for a thing to be said anonymously at first, so that it can be discussed openly afterward.

Re:double entendre

[FuzzyDaddy]

i believe that slander, libel, defamation, etc are... perhaps outdated concepts.

I would expect no less from a fascist wife beater like yourself.

Re:double entendre

[sumdumass]

Would you consider this to be true even when the speech isn't true? I mean I can understand getting the truth or an opinion out there. But outright slandering someone isn't really the same thing.

Something else I find disturbing is that a court did request the information. The fact that it was an informal hearing usually doesn't negate any actions or orders produced from it. You didn't bring it up, but the GP did so I wanted to kill two birds with one post.

Re:double entendre

[Thrip]

Would you consider this to be true even when the speech isn't true? Yes. One price of free speech is misinformation. This is true regardless of anonymity. Look at the Swift Vets, for instance. And my instinct is that anything said anonymously is automatically not slanderous, because it either contains evidence or it has no weight. That, of course, is my moral opinion, not a legal one.

Re:double entendre

[Reaperducer]

in a country like the one I live in, where the citizens are told that they have free speech, but where you can be jailed for years for speaking certain truths to your lawyer, spouse, or doctor, and where thugs can come to your home or workplace and intimidate you if you publicly question your rulers, anonymous speech is necessary.

That's why so many people are moving out of California.

Re:double entendre

[UbuntuDupe]

dunno. i am of the opinion that it should be pretty much impossible for an anonymous person to slander on the internet -- at least, it would sort of make sense that if you are being told something by someone you don't know you shouldn't consider it fact very easily.

Very good point, but there are two reasons I think the concept of slander would still be valid:

a) The cases where anonymous message reveals information that only a reliable source would have, such as a passcode.

b) Even if people *shouldn't* accept self-serving unverifiable statements at face value, they do, and thus slander can wrongfully harm someone.

Re:double entendre

[moderatorrater]

Judging from your user name, I'm prone to trust you. You sound like a parental figure to me.

Re:double entendre

[Jay L]

it is probably better for people to check their sources rather than pretend that it is safe to assume what you hear is true. i personally believe that the freedom to lie should not be restricted, even though lying is certainly a bad thing. this is partially because of how awkward cases for slander and libel and defamation can be.

So take the Internet out of the equation.

It's cool for me to post unsigned flyers around your neighborhood, with your photo, full name, and address, claiming that "This man raped my daughter", because people should assume that it's not safe to trust anonymous flyers?

Re:double entendre

[Internalist]

I would expect no less from a fascist wife beater like yourself. I dunno, if my wife was a fascist, I'd probably beat her.

Re:double entendre

[1u3hr]

What happens when the person being slandered is denied the ability to stop it using the courts because there isn't enough evidence to justify revealing the IP address but the slander continues. How would you feel if this was happening to you and google declined to hep without a court order? How long would this take and can the damage ever be repaired?

Saying "the person being slandered" begs the question of whether slander has been committed.

If a court determines slander has been committed, the court will order the owner of the IP to be revealed, and presumably punished. Any "damages" can then be pursued in a civil suit. You seem to be arguing that you should have the right to demand the identity of anyone who you claim to have slandered you without regard for any standards of proof.

Re:double entendre

[magixman]

In the U.S. the constitution protects the right to free speech and not the right to anonymity. Google did not turn over data such as emails or documents - they effectively just "fingered" an "anonymous coward". Your post made me realize that my knee-jerk reaction that everyone who posts anonymously is a coward is a luxury I can afford because I live in the U.S. and that "free speech", which we Americans cherish so deeply, is intrinsically connected with anonymity in many parts of the world.

Re:double entendre

[rtb61]

Well as long as you put it out as an opinion rather than a statement of fact, in most countries in would not be slander, how ever it would likely be considered as harassment. There is a real sense of physical threat in wondering around a persons neighbourhood when the olnly reason for doing so is a grudge against that person. There is only the time and effort it produce some blog rant versus printing photo copying and delivery, that level of commitment implies a real measure of potential threat.

In the context of you post of course your comparison is wildly wrong. As people have to choose to look at and read the anonymous blog, more accurately your comparison aligns with spam also a bit of privacy invasion as you would have to have obtained all the email addresses of the people in that neighbourhood.

Re:double entendre

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the notion that words and language have a use and a power beyond communication?

If all that language did was communicate fact or opinion, then it would be easy to say "Don't trust anonymous sources," "Verify your data," etc.

But language does more than communicate information -- every act of speech is also inherently creative. When I say "The Duke lacrosse team beat and raped me," I am doing more than communicating a fact (true or false). I am calling into existence an instance of "rape" in the minds of all those whom my language datum reaches. I am creating it there, bringing with it connotations and associations of powerlessness, abuse, degradation, patriarchy; I am calling up emotional responses of horror, righteous anger, shock, etc. Further, I am associating all of this with 'the Duke lacrosse team.'

Even if we eventually learn that the informational content of the message is false, the human mind is still subject to its associative effect -- particularly if we are exposed to the message many times over. Witness the pairing of the words "9/11" and "Iraq" in the run-up to the current war. Witness the pairing of sexuality and product in every other ad.

The associative effect of the creative power of language is inevitable -- it's this effect that allows us a learning process to take place in the human mind. It's an inherently human effect, one that makes the human mind qualitatively different from binary circuits. It cannot be avoided or brushed off to "stupid people." It affects "us," as in "all of us," not "them," as in "the others, the evil and/or dumb ones."

I think a recognition of this, the metacommunicative power of language, places a heavy responsibility on all of us who would use it. However, I agree that the twin problems of lying and bullshitting (slander surely falls into one or the other) are not easily solved by legal measures -- nor do they properly belong in the realm of law. They seem, rather, to be two issues of personal ethics -- ones that we should take seriously, and foremost within ourselves.

Re:double entendre

[E 99]

anybody that takes internet 'slander' serious should grow a thicker skin.

You can't sue for slander because someone says something that hurts your feelings. You sue for slander when someone spreads false information about you that causes you actual harm. If someone destroys my livelihood by spreading false information about me, thick skin isn't going to put food on the table.

Interesting...

[Lord Aurora]

...in contrast to Google's vow to protect its users' privacy early last year. Although this is a very different situation...criminal libel instead of general aggregate use data. Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

First the Israeli court came for the Israeli criminal blogger. But I was not an Israeli criminal blogger so I did nothing.

Next the Israeli court ... did some kind of Israeli law thing ... and then the story kind of went nowhere ... so again, I did nothing.

I really need something to do. But I lack motivation. I suppose I could blog ... nah.

Re:Interesting...

[westlake]

Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals.

tell me why Google should ignore criminal abuse of its networks and services.

tell me why someone shouldn't have the right to ask Google for help in the prosecution of a crime.

tell me when "the right to privacy" became a right to injure others anonymously - safe from any consequences.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

> First the Israeli court came for the Israeli criminal blogger. But I was not an Israeli criminal blogger so I did nothing.
> Next the Israeli court ... did some kind of Israeli law thing ... and then the story kind of went nowhere ... so again, I did nothing.
> I really need something to do. But I lack motivation. I suppose I could blog ... nah.

And when (in Soviet Russia!), the Jews came for YOU, Google had already given them your IP address!

Re:Interesting...

[e-scetic]

tell me when "the right to privacy" became a right to injure others anonymously - safe from any consequences.

This post offends my sensibilities. Can we have your real name, please.

Thank you.

Re:Interesting...

[HiThere]

It's a sticky problem.

This sounds, from a distance, like a case where Google made the correct decision, but...

Who gets to define "criminal"? How is this different from turning over the id of a Chinese journalist?

When powerful people get to define what is a crime, then I'm not easy about "criminal" being used as a justifier for the breaking of confidentiality.

Re:Interesting...

[GreyPoopon]

Google was not compelled by a court order to reveal the IP address. It is the judiciary's role to decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled to that information.

Before we go down this road, it would be helpful to know a little more about relevant laws in Israel. The article indicates that the judge made it clear to Google that it seemed to be a case of criminal activity. Google "took the hint" and provided the information. Without knowing what the law in Israel says about disclosing this type of information during this stage of a court case, it's difficult for us to comment on it.

So, can anybody in Israel with legal knowledge comment?

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to which final ruling? Innocent unless proven guilty.
I haven't heart the defense yet. Tell me why Google should be on the prosecutors side. This is Google taking a stand, instead of Google letting the judge make a stand first with a final ruling. It's good to see you've decided to place the cart in a convenient location, immediately before the horse. There is a certain process in all judicial matters, and part of that process is that the accused must be made aware of the charges they're being brought up on. If google were to protect their anonymity it would defeat this and then there would not in fact be a trial. Google's revealing of this information was not the same as making it public information, rather it was assisting in a specific criminal trial where the information is being used to identify the accused. They have not determined guilt, they have simply decided to be cooperative with the authorities.

Re:Interesting...

[rmerry72]

They notified the guy and told him he had three days to contest their actions.

They left a note on his blog and told him he had 72 hours to respond with his own comments. One of those actions was to respond to the court as an "anonymous".

The judge did not rule that Google should hand over the IP address. This was a preliminary ruling only. Google was not ordered by the court to do anything and indeed could have ignored the request without breaking any laws. They chose not too. They chose to take action to help identify own of their bloggers.

But then the action was nothing more than a shopkeeper telling a lawyer: "Yes, I've seen him, he buys bread here regularly." Now, is the shopkeeper violating his customers privacy? Should the shopkeeper asked for a warrant first?

Re:Interesting...

[rmerry72]

Who gets to define "criminal"?

The government. Any and all governments. Each individual government in each individual jurisdication where that government holds power. Even governments we view as being corrupt or morally reprehensible to the determent of their own people.

How is this different from turning over the id of a Chinese journalist?

Google was ordered to by the legal court in the country. Google was not ordered so in this case. There was no court order, merely a preliminary ruling. Different country, different law.

When powerful people get to define what is a crime, then I'm not easy about "criminal" being used as a justifier for the breaking of confidentiality.

Tough. Criminals have few rights, in some countries less than others. Rights to a "fair trial" or "innocent until proven guilty" are all at the discretion of the ruling power in the land - whichever land that may be - and often on a case by case basis. And yes, some governments define almost everybody as a criminal and then apply whatever punishment they want.

That's life. Reality bites. Has been for all civilisations for all time, including the one you live in and the one I live in now.

And no, you shouldn't feel comfortable about it, but then there is nothing you can do to change it. Just avoid getting caught in those countries by those governments.

Re:Interesting...

[SnowZero]

So, can anybody in Israel with legal knowledge comment? Apparently not.

However, it seems plenty of people can act as armchair lawyers, and assume that the Israeli laws are the same as the US. Most likely, their not. We need better information.

Re:Interesting...

[wikinerd]

Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals.

Which actually makes sense for them if we assume that they are in business for the money and that if users as a whole leave then they will lose ad revenue, but an individual alone has little effect on their balance sheet. Is Google in only for the money? I don't know... but most businesses are because they are composed of many different individuals each one having different ideas about ethics, thus causing the business as a whole to act on more-or-less universally accepted goals, and this is usually profit as most if not all people on the planet prefer having their pockets full of money rather than air. Is running a business solely on profit bad or good? Well, I think it's better to take other ethical issues into consideration when doing business and not just count your success by your balance sheet's totals.

Re:Interesting...

[powerlord]

What is interesting to me, that no one seems to have brought up, is that the Court itself seems to have offered the opportunity for the Defendant to respond anonymously.

I don't think there would even be the consideration of something like this in the U.S. (not sure about other countries).

Re:Interesting...

[akirapill]

IANAIL

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a lawyer, but I am an israeli ;)

You are mostly right about not defending yourself is a reason for losing a legal proceeding in israel. Since the blogger was invited to place an anonymous response to this challenge and decide not to do so, it was easier for the judge to demand the IP address from google. Another contributing factor, judging from the language of the ruling, was that the judge believed that there is an actual slander case.

But.... Only a week ago there was a ruling by a different judge related to slander, on one of the forums of a big portal, which was also related to local politicians. It seems that in that case the portal have made a bigger effort to avoid revealing the IP of the poster, and was successful (in its ruling the judge mentioned that she do not believe there was a slander severe enough to justify revealing of the IP).

Currently there is no law in israel which relates to issues of anonymous slander on the net, and each judge follows his own interpretation of what other judges had decided and the rulings of similar cases in the US and europe. Maybe in the context of the specific judge google's lawyers decision was the most logical course of action, but it seems like they could have fought harder then they did.

Re:Interesting...

[PHPfanboy]

Shalom/Salaam,

I'm not a lawyer, but some of my friends are.... anyway, here's a summary based on what was written in TheMarker.com (business press part of the largest newspaper) had to say:

This anonymous blogger has been writing 3 members of a small local town council (Shaarei Tikva, population 4,500) accusing them of bribery and municipal tax fraud (specifically: lying about their status to get tax breaks - probably saying they are retired, or have smaller properties than they have or haven't declared their swimming pools or something relatively minor). The plaintiffs say this is slander. The Plaintiffs and Google came to an agreement that Google would notify the blogger (they say he read the notification) that he could give up his identity and appear in court, or let them know that he was going send a lawyers letter contesting the claims and he would be represented in court as "John Doe"(or actually the Aramaic word "Ploni" equivalent) and Google would provide his IP address to the court. He did neither.

The judge said this was a suitable arrangement which on the one hand protects the freedom of speech of the Accused and the Plaintiffs right to defend their reputations. The judge emphasized that 2 weeks ago a judge had ruled in a case against one of the national newspaper sites (www.ynet.co.il) that details of a Poster (blogger or reponse to a news item) can be given over only if the content of the posting can lead to legal proceedings for Slander. Secondly, there was a ruling in April which stated that the Posters address can be revealed if Slander proceedings are waiting on it and it can be provided as "Further Deposition" (or some legal term which means some additional evidence that can influence the case).

In the judges opinion, there are considerations on both sides: on the one hand, since we're talking about competition over a public position, the public's right to know (the slander) in addition to the deterring surfers from expressing themselves on the internet lean towards protecting the anonymity of the surfer. On the other, you can argue that reputation is even more important to those running for public office. The judge ruled that as we we're talking about the defendents being public figures running for re-election, there is a need to define a new balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation.

I'm not sure people would have been going ape-shit about this if it was only a national paper's website being in the process (as had happened a few weeks ago). The fact that it's Google Israel means that we're all assuming that Larry and Sergey have been sharing all our information with any legal authority that requests it, which I'm not sure is the case. I'm not convinced it's evil either. Should offline national slander laws apply to online speech?

Do no evil? That's funny

[Infonaut]

"Do no evil"?

Do no evil + IPO = Public company

IPO = Public company

Google is just as good, bad, or ugly as the next public company. They're trying to balance the interests of their shareholders and their belief in doing no evil. In the end, the interests of shareholders will win every time. If they can keep clear of any illegal insider trading, mistreatment of employees, or other b.s. that affects so many public companies, that'll be a "good" outcome. Believing that somehow Google is different because it thinks it is different is pure fantasy.

It's 2007, folks. The Cult of the Shareholder rules.

Re:Do no evil? That's funny

[hax0r_this]

Don't be absurd, they're not trying to balance anything with the interests of their share holders.

Google is a company that relies heavily on its public image. Hurting that image is bad for it's share holders. Thats why any significant company has PR people. Just that with Google they take it a good deal further than most, and its obviously served their wallets well.

I don't mean to disparage Google, I tremendously enjoy a good number of their services, but lets be realistic.

Re:Do no evil? That's funny

[charlieman]

That's the thing with big companies, once they get big they forget how they did it.

What could be more fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:

Quote: "The notice would invite the blogger to disclose his identity, participate in the hearing, or oppose the disclosure of his identity by filing a motion as "anonymous"."
End Quote

Hey after all he was warned. "...the Israeli blogger who used "Google Blogger" for a blog in which he slandered Shaarei Tikva council members running for reelection. ..." In a free democracy, he should have know better than to slander someone in Israel, guess he should have used the Arab Media.

Not necessarily bad (read before flaming me)...

[hax0r_this]

I'm not sure that I fully understand the situation, but if Google had waited until the final ruling to release the IP would that have actually prevented the blogger in question from fighting the ruling? If that is the case then short of simply defying a court order (which is something that should be considered on a case by case basis) this would seem to have been the best thing Google could have done. Had they waited they would have been allowing the plaintiff to "pull an RIAA" on the guy (or girl). If, on the other hand, that is not the case then shame on Google (a bit anyway - I still think Yahoo's games with the guy in China were much worse, but that doesn't excuse this).

Re:Not necessarily bad (read before flaming me)...

[hax0r_this]

Yes. And when you ask me for a gun so you can murder your wife, if I give it to you then most people would consider that "evil". When my brother asks to borrow my gun to go hunting most people (non-animal-rights activists anyway) would consider it to be just fine for me to loan it to him.

Circumstances are important in judging the morality of an action by most standards (unless you've been reading Kant - in which case I'm sorry).

Re:I look forward to

[slyn]

reading the comments mindlessly defending how this is not "evil". Google is now beholden only to investors and the all-mighty dollar. Everything is fair game.

Actually, this would imply that Google is somewhat at the call of the government. Why they would give up the IP address when they didn't have to is beyond my knowledge, but unless the prosecutors in the case were investors or bribing Google, this only shows that business in a country is bound by the laws in that country.

How Can You

[Trailwalker]

Slander a politician? Did he accuse them of honesty?

What the hell...

[davidsyes]

Have any of you considered that the Mossad has plants working AT Google, and that (like other countries with plants working in key or security-critical employers-- civil or private) that plant's duty was to monitor, collect, report on, sanitize, and enable the use of it for government purposes, whether to bring charges against someone or to slander someone?

Most of the comments so far (among the 1st 15) make it seem like Google is slipping into the hells. It very well could be that MOD/Israel contacted Google USA out of cursory moves, but already planned to use the IP collected whether or NOT GUSA assented, and probably had plans to SAY GUSA cooperated.

Of course, the US State Department and other agencies might WELCOME this, as another ruse/means of getting 'merkuns to RELAX their expectations of privacy over security.

Any more informed or better opinions to follow those prior to my own (slanted) assumptions here?

Re:What the hell...

[c6gunner]

How the hell is this marked insightful? I've never seen anything so patently drooling-on-your-shirt crazy getting modded UP.

Have any of you considered that the PLO has plants working AT Slashdot, and that (like other countries with plants working in key or security-critical employers-- civil or private) that plant's duty is to mod up comments which blame the Mossad?

Ok, no, seriously, there's some really nutty people running around on slashdot :p

Keep in mind

[moogied]

This is Isreal, not America. Its laws and enviroment is Different. This also was not a google CEO choice, it was probably some middle manager in Isreal.

Re:I look forward to

[jgarra23]

mindlessly defending how this is not "evil".

Wow! So I'm to take it that from this one article you now have all the information you need to call anyone that disagrees with you "mindless"!

Seems somewhat "narrow minded" to me. You must be a Republican!

Well that is specious reasoning. I'm not grandparent, a Republican, or anything else for that matter but not only did you misrepresent grandparent's quote but then you attack him by calling him narrow-minded, then you accuse him of being a Republican with the implication that all Republicans are narrow-minded!

It does not bode well for your case when you treat your enemy worse than they treat you. Learn some respect for other people's opinions (even if they are criticizing mindless Google-lovers), for narrow-minded people, for Republicans, and for Evil-Baby-Crushing-Google.

What google is really about.

[catwh0re]

If what you mean is that Google is beholden to the law in the countries in which it operates. I agree fully.

Otherwise it's just sensationalist nonsense. Google is a company with an aim to generate income. However much of it's business deals are driven by the knowledge that google works in "good faith" with it's partners. (Many companies won't partner with Microsoft on new technologies because they don't want to be the next SGI/Fahrenheit sucker.)

Companies, universities and investors would not embrace google if it's practices were unfair on it's users. From reading the article we can see that Google actually made a decent decision and gave the anonymous user options before eventually releasing the details.

Google needs to appear as a reasonable entity to the courts. If google fights the courts to the last frontier in every case it is presented, it would not only be costly to the company, but give google a damaging litigious image. Instead google chooses it's battles wisely for the betterment of it's users allowing it to defend more important legal issues with success..

Three days isn't nearly long enough

[Jimmy_B]

According to the article, Google released the blogger's identity when he failed to respond within 72 hours. That is MUCH too fast. Even if he dropped what he was doing and acted immediately, it would still take longer than that to figure out what's going on, get a lawyer, and draft a response. That's ignoring the fact that he probably didn't receive the message immediately (subtract 24 hours), probably had other things on his plate (subtract another 24 hours) and may not have even realized that the notice was legit. (An e-mail is not a legitimate court summon. If you receive one which claims to be, it is probably a scam.)

Comcast vs Google vs Apple vs MS

[king-manic]

Google: would require a court order to give the IP. negotiated a weak compromise. handed over IP.

Comcast: Would give the IP without a court order, offer to enable electronic wiretaps, and give full logs of everything that IP did.

Apple: Would require a court order to give IP. Negotiate a weak compromise. Hand over the IP on a sleek and stylish apple brand flash drive.

Microsoft:

It appears you are trying to arrest an anonymous person. Would you like me to:

*Find their unique CPU ID?

*Transmit contents of their hard drive?

*Enable back door key logger?

*Contact Microsoft Sales representative for more options?

Re:hi, I'm non-white...

[qbzzt]

Would you also review your patronage of companies that do business with Saudi Arabia, which forbids any exercise of non-Muslim religion? Israel isn't perfect, but it does have non-Jewish citizens, and allows the exercise of other religions. It does discriminate, but it goes both ways. Non Jewish citizens aren't usually forced to serve in the military, although they can volunteer.

So what if I murder somebody?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Everyone eventually dies anyway.

Following due process is important and Google should have done so. Releasing info without court demand is as bad as searching without a warrant.

Re:So what if I murder somebody?

[scuba0]

First, the defendant is "probably" using their network to slander someone. The court haven't desided that yet, therefor no court-order. Google just assumed that they where correct and handed over the IP-adress even though the accusations where not defenitely a crime.

Re:I look forward to

[BlueMerle]

Well that is specious reasoning

And you are implying that the GP's reasoning is lucid? What he basically said was anyone that doesn't think what google did was evil is mindless!... There's some sound logic for you.

And I'm marked as a Troll? No wonder there are so many AC postings here.

As to the rest of my post, it's called sarcasm!

Thanks for taking the time to post a reply, instead of just marking it down. At least we can discuss it this way, weather or not we agree is another matter.

Re:Premature, But Ultimately Correct

[webmaster404]

Yes but only 3 days? There are some times that I dont get on the computer for 3 days although it is rarely, and other days that I just quickly check the news, /. or my e-mail. It should be at least 2 weeks to allow for vacation and other time when people would be away from the computer.

Easy solution

[matt me]

Google wouldn't be able to do such evil if it only stored the IP addresses of its users for immediate necessary use, and discarded them. Keeping data indefinitely, such that they can be reinterpreted and abused in ways unimaginable at the time , makes such problems as these likely.

Re:I look forward to

[OrangeTide]

Seems somewhat "narrow minded" to me. You must be a Republican!

Trust me, the Republicans don't have a monopoly on narrow-mindedness.

Ron Paul is a Republican and he doesn't seem narrow-minded at all.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to stand up for your views.. Very true. But if you stand up for your views and your views are libelous, you must be prepared to accept responsibility for that.

Freedom of speech is not always a licence to defame others.

Seems like the right thing

[Todd Knarr]

Fact: someone who's been wronged has a right to pursue the person responsible. No argument there. The fact that the person responsible is attempting to hide his identity doesn't change that. The problem with the RIAA's tactics is that they want the identity before proving they've been wronged. In this case the councilmen did the right thing: went into court, convinced a judge that the words as written did in fact qualify as something legally actionable, then asked for the identity of the responsible party. It might be technically more correct to wait until a final ruling, but I doubt the final ruling would be significantly different from the preliminary one. Judges don't just fire from the hip when making a preliminary ruling, it's more like "This will be how I rule, unless someone fairly quickly comes up with something that hasn't been even hinted at yet that's major enough to counter everything I've seen so far.".

Sorry, guys, but contrary to popular belief the right to remain anonymous is not a shield against being held responsible for your statements and actions. It just means that the other party should have to prove that your statements or actions were in fact legally actionable before stripping you of your anonymity.

Re:Seems like the right thing

[eh2o]

The plantiffs asked the court to mandate that Google hand over the IP. Then Google agreed to an out-of-court "settlement" where they provided the IP directly to the plantiff, based on a "hint" (TFA's words) from the judge that it was OK to do so.

Now it seems likely that this was going to happen eventually, but why the rush? This blogger had been at it for an entire *year* already, and suddenly it becomes a 72-hour emergency? That makes no sense. Why not wait for the mandate and do the thing that is *technically* correct -- morally and legally unquestionable? Were there terms to the settlement that are undisclosed? Was there money involved? We will probably never know. The whole thing just looks bad, bad bad... I hope some heads roll at Google, because they screwed this one up in a big way.

this isn't about privacy.

[timmarhy]

This is about some asshole thinking they can just slander anyone online and not have to own up to it.

privacy isn't a platform you can use to attack other people.

Re:Do No Evil

[Chapter80]

Not to be too pedantic, but the actual informal motto is "Don't be evil". It has more to do with how they are, not what they do.

Re:Conflicting thoughts

[4D6963]

And the CIA is evil because?..

Because they're a Corpor.. err.. crap! My communist hippie logic is failing me again..

Re:Tolerance can also mean second class treatment.

[rossz]

Stirring the hornets nest? Sure, by simply existing. Israel has tried everything they could to bring peace with their neighbors. Their last attempt was giving up huge amounts of land they had taken in a war, thus pissing off lots of their own citizens. The result? Terrorists used the new lands to launch rockets at civilians.

In the middle east, which countries can you openly practice your religion no matter what it is? Only one country, Israel. Which countries have full equal rights for women? Again, only Israel. Which countries have open and honest elections? Only Israel. Which countries are perfect? Ha, a trick question. Not a single one.

Re:Conflicting thoughts

[Crudely_Indecent]

The usual - hiding war criminals, assassination, overthrowing democratically elected governments and supporting bloody coups, misinformation...

You know, now that I step back and really take a look at it, CIA really reminds me of a fuzzy little bunny.

Re:Tolerance can also mean second class treatment.

[fohat]

In the middle east, which countries can you openly practice your religion no matter what it is? Only one country, Israel.
You can even be openly Christian and live in Isreal, as long as you don't mind a little spit on your face

I think the moral of this story is, if you don't have anything nice to say about someone on the internet, don't say anything at all.
Fuckers.

oops...

Re:Genocide.

[evil_aar0n]

Land "stolen"? Land taken in a defensive war does not qualify as "stolen" in my book. When you get your ass handed to you - especially by a smaller guy - in a fight you started, you don't have the right to ask for your dignity back. Oh, and you won't hear it in the popular press, but a lot of "stolen" land was actually sold freely by Arabs to Jewish folks.

And, ya know, the "refugee" problem could be solved right-quick if the other Arab countries gave a damn about the plight of said refugees. Israel is about the size of New Jersey, and shrinking, because of continued - wasted - concessions. Any one of those larger Arab countries in the region could spare enough land to give the refugees a place to live. But, according to Arab logic, it's better to keep these people as refugees, placing international pressure on Israel to keep bending over backward - maybe they'll eventually create a mobius strip? - creating generation after generation of Arabs hostile to the mere existence of Israel, than to actually fix the problem.

This is far from a wholesale endorsement of Israel; they're not perfect, either. But, a quick question - in which country would you rather live: Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria? You're less likely to have your lifeless body dragged through the streets, while your murderers dance around with your blood literally on their hands, in Israel than in any of the other countries.

And, no, I'm not Jewish.

Re:Ok, sure

[lelitsch]

Now, you see, who here believes me? No one, obviously, because I'm just another vulgar, anonymous, raving lunatic on the internet. With very few exceptions, anonymous slander doesn't cause significant damage in today's rumor-jaded world John McCain has a baby out of wedlock. WITH A BLACK WOMAN!

Now, you see, who here believes that? No one, obviously, because it's from just another vulgar, anonymous, raving lunatic on the internet. With very few exceptions, anonymous slander doesn't cause significant damage in today's rumor-jaded world.

Re: "Anonymous has no weight"?

[TaoPhoenix]

Modified weight, maybe.

But an entire class of people who fall prey to groupthink don't care that a gossip seed was originally "anonymous". It's tantalizing, and once they tell the story enough time themselves, they decide it's true by default.

When anonymous is combined with permitted lies, social structure breaks down because it opens the way for people to accuse each other of saying it. Trolling indeed.

Re:Google is owned by the Rothschild family

[Fantastic Lad]

Google is owned by the Rothschild family. You won't see it directly, but if you look at the list of proxy owners, it is clear. This family owns Israel as well (bought it from the British) and controls the Mossad. It is a condition of Google's success that all Google data -- and I do mean ALL -- is made available to agents of the Rothschild family, i.e. Mossad in Israel. A reasonably sized portion of illegal Rothschild money is laundered through Google via ad sales (which put the marble business to shame). This is similar to how drug money from the British royal family is laundered through Microsoft -- what do you think Billy G. got that knighthood for? It is quite simple for any company that is part of the stock index to launder money and there are even "national security" laws which specifically allow for "off the books" transactions that make the entire process work quite effectively.

Well, I did a couple of hours of searching around, and I was only able to pin down the following. . .

Two capital investment firms did most of the early funding for Google. Sequoia Capital Investments pitched in 12.5 million for a 10% share in Google's pre-IPO development, and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers bought another 10% at the same price at the same time. They each made about 4.5 billion when Google went public.

It is interesting to note that Eugene Kleiner himself was one of the founders of Fairchild Semiconducter, which was originally funded by the Sherman Fairchild, one of those ominously, creepily way-too-wealthy guys whose endless portfolio of companies has heavy ties to the Military Industrial Complex as well as banking. It is also noteworthy that Kleiner's board members include both Colin Powell and Al Gore. (Weird mix there.) --But for all of that, they only had a 10% share of Google, much of which was later divested for tidy profits. So that doesn't seem like much of a means to control Google's board unless there were some private agreements made in the beginning, but that's neither here nor there.

Sequoia, by contrast, as of 2005 had retained all 10% of their investment. They also hold about 30% of YouTube, so Google's purchase of that kept the money in-house, so to speak and benefited them. But even still, they have nowhere near any controlling interest in Google.

The other big investor in Google in the beginning was Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems. He put $100,000 into the startup, but I haven't been able to find out how much of Google he owns as a result of that, if any. Wikipedia called the cash a 'donation', but I wasn't able to confirm that. Also, I don't know if this is relevant, but Bill Joy, another of Sun's founders became a Kleiner partner in 2005, for whatever that's worth.

The rest of the controlling ownership appears to sit heavily with Google's original founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

I wasn't able to find the Rothschild connection you describe. Is there some part of this story that I'm missing?

-FL

Re:Do No Evil

[jelton]

Seriously, since when do people feel the need to stick up for a corporation? They don't care about you at all. Why should you defend them?

I defend corporations because I like plenty of food in my belly, my desk job that pays better than being a hunter-gatherer and the ability to engage in many leisure activities in the evening rather than cowering in a cave, stoking my fire and fearing wild animals.

Hooray progress!

Re:Conflicting thoughts

[c6gunner]

*shrug*

Sure, that's as convenient an excuse as any, although pretty irrelevant, really. A much more likely reason would be the constant propaganda being drummed up by middle-eastern regimes, as well as the unwaivering American support of Israel (and the rabbid-hatred of same by all muslim nations). In reality, it's certainly a mix of factors, and your simplistic analysis doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

But yes, if you just want easy answers that you can understand without having to really think, then sure, blame the American assistance of the Brits. And don't ask yourself why the Iranians seem to hate a minor player more than the main character. That'll just lead to more troublesome questions which you don't know how to answer.

Re:Genocide.

[Fantastic Lad]

Chances are you're simply a Jew-hating turd who won't be happy until Israel is wiped off the earth. If that's the case, then I'd refuse to talk to you based on principle alone.

Wrong. Half my friends are Jews. I think I stated already - no, I KNOW I stated it already, but just for you, I'll do it again; I have no problem at all with Jews in exactly the same way I don't have any problem with Americans. But their psychotic governments are a different matter altogether. There. Let that sink in. --Just because I am criticizing a government for killing civilians en masse, it does not make me anti-Semitic. Why is that so hard for people to grasp? The 'anti-Semite' card is getting very old and very tired.

The ONLY way to arrive at your conclusion is by ignoring all of the available data, and all common sense, so what point is there for me to attempt to engage you in rational discourse?

I've known IDF soldiers who came back to the West to laugh about getting high and killing people. Maybe they were an extreme example, but their accounts were certainly hair-raising in a, 'these guys are really scary' kind of way. --And if theirs was an accurate indication of some of the forces moving within the Israeli military and government, then it is very hard to take Israel's stated innocence in the media at face value.

As for my ignoring all available data? Hm. Even CNN covered the wall which Israel put up, so I didn't miss that fact. Then there's the armed check points; those are in the main-stream news (i.e., pro-Israeli-spun news, it should always be remembered), so I didn't miss those facts either. The confiscation of land is well known. The recent bull-dozing of civilian houses and orchards is less well known, but the footage is plentiful, so I'm not missing those points. The imprisonment and starvation of an entire population on the Gaza Strip. . , well nobody likes to talk about that much or use those terms, but those facts are also freely available, so they can't be the facts you're referring to. --And of course, the on-going bombing raids and the shootings and the general killing of civilians through the use of a highly advanced and extremely well-equipped military. What facts am I missing here?

Just because genocides in the past have been more sudden and abrupt does not mean that there is not a deliberate and systematic campaign to destroy an entire people going on; a campaign which has a measurable and regular body count; more facts. --And you suggest that I am the one with race hatred? Hm. It is an interesting fact, (and yes, this is another fact), that the abuser, particularly the sociopathic abuser will accuse the victim of the very abuses they themselves are guilty of.

But then, you are telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe that's true. However, maybe your facts are the ones which are not accurate. Maybe you're the one who is buying into propaganda. Have you considered that before? And assuming you have considered this, what did you base your (clearly) negative conclusion on?

-FL

Re:Premature, But Ultimately Correct

[sportiva79]

I don't understand, from the article's last couple of paragraphs it appears the court did eventually give an order to Google.

In line with Judge Schwartz's ruling, Google and the councilmen reached a settlement in their dispute. Following the 72 hour period, Google was ordered to hand over the IP address to the court. Google was represented by Adv. Keren Beer and Adv. Hagit Blaiberg of Goldfarb, Levy, Eran, Meiri & Co. and the councilmen were represented by Adv. Ben Zion Adoram and Tomer Altus of Adoram & Co.