Slashdot Mirror
Google Assists In Arrest Of Indian Man
An anonymous reader writes "After a Google user posted a profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji, Indian authorities contacted Google to ask for his IP address. Google complied. He was arrested and is reported to have been beaten by a lathi and asked to use the same bowl to eat and to use in the toilet.
Not surprisingly, Google is a keen to play this down as Yahoo is being hauled over the coals by US Congress for handing over IP addresses and emails to the Chinese Government which resulted in a Chinese democracy activist being jailed." Readers are noting that these are 2 unrelated cases — the latter is several months old.
I don't usually complain about badly written summaries, but this one made my head explode.
Hindu saints have IP addresses?
Well, I'm glad that google abides by the law here in canada. Clearly their motto of 'do no evil' is region specific; on one hand, I applaud their help in stopping crime, on the other hand, I detest the violation of privacy.
I guess I'm safe so long as my government respects my rights (because google will only go as far as the government seems deem 'right')
What happened to this man is despicable. However, we need to remember that Google is a company, not a judge in a court of law. It is not their place to decide if a court-issued subpoena is "worth" complying with or not, especially not in a democratic country (eat trolls, eat!). The big question is if they were responding to a court order in the first place, or the lean of some jackass in the government.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
The summary mixes up two different stories. The first (techcrunch.com) link points to a story involving a guy posting "obscene" comments about Sonia Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi, while the later link (techgoss.com) points to the story that appears in the summary (involving Shivaji). Sonia Gandhi is an Italian born Indian politician and the leader of the ruling Congress Party. Shivaji was a ruler of Maratha Empire.
Also, the Shivaji story involves a goof up by the telecom provider Airtel that provided the details of the wrong person (not using the IP in question) whereas in the other story the ISP provided the details of the actual person involved. In both stories Google revealed the IP used by the "culprit".
US Telecoms are demanding immunity for assisting unlawful federal wiretaps.
More music, fewer hits
India is a Democracy. China is not.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
So when the FBI can demand personal information from places like libraries, and arrest anybody who even discloses that such a disclosure has taken place; and when the NSA can perform warrantless wiretaps on the USAmerican public; and when telecom corporations get retroactive immunity for aiding in those wiretaps... I don't think the USA is in any position to call Google evil for this. Get your own house in order first.
Shivaji was a Hindu king of Maharashtra who fought the (last powerful) Mogul emperor Aurangzeb and gave him run for his money. He is greatly revered by most desi patriots. But no desi calls him a saint!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This story is worthless without said profane pictures. Otherwise how can I acurately judge whether or not this person deserves to eat his own excrement. I need pictures dammit!! (Preferrably linked through Google images for the sake of almighty Irony.)
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
a few more similar occurrences such as this, and google, you'll be outta favor.
Read radical news here
On topic now, I think Google did a terrible thing. But I don't think they had much choice, since "Sonia Gandhi" is currently the de-facto leader of India.
Fuck, here it says:
Correction, they didn't just comply - they complied all the way through.
What I did not know, is such a stupid law exists that makes childish acts like this "illegal".
Google better not do this at the Olympic Games to people from the usa and people from the us should set up a script to endlessly Google stuff about Tibet.
For having an outrageous law like the one this man was arrested for. Google owned or ran the site in question so they had to comply with the local law. I'm not saying I like it, but the blame should be shifted to India for having a law on the books that allows them to toss anyone in jail for posting in "vulgar language" about some politician. Democracy my ass.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
CmdrTaco, what's up with the crappy article? Are readers of /. the unsuspecting subjects of your evil experiment?
Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness?
The motto is not "do no evil," it is "don't be evil."
Not that it really matters, "evil" is a sloppy, ill-defined, and personally relativistic concept to begin with.
And of course, having an intent doesn't guarantee the ability to realize that intent, let alone to perpetually avoid any deviation.
And of course, loudly publishing such a motto doesn't actually mean that those at the top have any intention of living up to it. The perception of benevolence is what is really useful.
Get behind 'em.
Captcha: sneaking
He was asked? Does that mean it was optional? I don't know about this guy, but I'd lean towards "No."
Having just read two books taking place in India by Indian authors, I am extremely tired of the mixing of Indian words with English. Please, call it a cane, most people know what that is... a lathi, not so many.
Particles, stuff that matters.
>> Well, I'm glad that google abides by the law here in canada.
Well they abide by the law in India and China too which is why they put people in prison.
As much as Google may toot the phrase "Do no harm" every business seems to have a sales pitch, then break it when convenient. Whether India is a "Democracy" (and this terms gets used misued) or not, the idea of contributing to someone's arrest and torture for doing nothing more than saying something the government doesn't like is against our definition of democracy is supposed to protect different opinions. (Although under Bush its questionable that it exists in the US anymore). Who would have thought MS would be the only major search engine to hold up a Google slogan. Yahoo, now Google. Regardless of the country you expand into, if you believe in something you defend it. Google, clearly doesn't. At least Yahoo and MS never made the claim.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Crime? You sure you want to word it that way?
What this man was convicted of may have been a crime in his country, but in the United States, Europe, Canada and most other places in the free world what he did would be protected under freedom of speech.
He was arrested for nothing more than saying something like "Fuck George Bush" or "Hillary Clinton is a stupid cunt licker" or "Barack Obama can go fuck himself" or "John McCain is an asshole." (There, equal opportunity.
Tastelss? Perhaps. Illegal? Not where I live.
My blog
Really. Nothing to see here... move along.
/. should have absolutely no complaints about this case.
All the moral relativists here on
Just because being beaten with a long cane and being forced to eat from your toilet bucket (or wear it on your head, a common practice in parts of India, yeah really) seems cruel and unusual doesn't mean that it is. Viewing it as such is cultural imperialism as we attempt to judge another culture using our own value system. And that would be wrong.
In addition, viewing Google's actions against our own cultural mores would likewise be incorrect. Instead we must attempt to see their actions from the point of view of the offended parties. From that vantage point it is clear that Google has rightfully done its civic duty by helping see to it that a miscreant who insulted a saint was brought to justice and properly punished for his blasphemous ways.
First, do no evil.
But, I would have to say, when you actions lead to someone being beaten, jailed, and forced to use the same dish to eat and shit, then you can be sure your action was evil.
What the hell is wrong with the world?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
. . . If he's convicted, he can be imprisoned for up to five years and may have to pay a fine up to Rs one lakh. Still applaud that? This isn't Google catching a thief or embezzler or rapist. This is Google turning in someone who said something that someone else who is powerful doesn't like.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Here's the Google cache
Muhahahahahahhaha!!@1!!
They got the wrong party and roughly treated the arrested man. The idea is to send the message loud and clear, "we will get the IP address and catch you and mess you up. May this time we messed up the wrong guy, but next time, watch out." That is the logic of the Indian police who think this will reduce such incidents in the future. But what trips them up is that a savvy criminal will know how to hide his tracks, and it will always be the wrong guy who gets nabbed. But it allows the police to pretend they did something. (You might argue defacing Shivaji's picture is not criminal. But given the reaction you typically get from Muslims for defacing images of Mohammad, this reaction by the desis is quite tame. And this is a different argument anyway, nothing concerning Google)
If google had not promised anonymity to Orkut users, then it can't be held accountable. There are bigger villains in the story, the desi police, incompetent desi ISP, desi politics and the desi population in general that accepts this all.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Their only other choice is to essentially stop doing business in India.
Are you India free? I sure as hell am not, of the last 5 times I have called in to companies that I do business with, at least 3 of the operators were in India.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Corporations are profit-seeking animals. If you expect any level of morality from them, you will find it near the stockholders' buy/sell margin or on accountants' govt tax deduction page.
"And then, boom-boom-boom came the disappointments of their refusal to join us in Iraq [globalsecurity.org], to support Tibetans [meyul.com], to censure Iran [bbc.co.uk]"
I'm sorry, were you trying to talk us into dis-liking India, here? Because you're putting up very poor examples if that's the case.
They refuse to join the US in Iraq. You really think that's a bad idea? Pretty much every country involved in that "peacekeeping" operation now wishes they'd never got involved. Including the UK, and even the US. They hold a rally supporting the oppressed people who've been subjected to an invasion, abduction of their spiritual leder, systematic destruction of their culture and history. This is a BAD thing? And in your third link, to quote "...Delhi's insistence on using diplomacy to resolve the Iranian nuclear controversy". Heaven forbid we do something other than run in, kill a million of them and destroy their country. Topping it off with "everything's a commie plot". Nice one. You're either a very good tongue in cheek troll, or the type of american I'm most scared of.
I don't really see the relationship between a "rising Democracy" and "join us in Iraq."
Can you please explain how invading a sovereign country without international agreement is democratic?
Cheers,
Regardless of any "don't be evil" statements in your prospectus, once any corporation goes public, their only interest is making money, no matter who they screw over. They will make the most money by complying with any government who rules its customers, so its no surprise to me. Accept the nature of corporations as greedy citizens without a conscience and nothing surprises you.
How about, "Do no evil, unless we think we can get away with it."
I hadn't heard Shivaji referred to as a saint before, somewhat interesting usage of the term.
Shivaji is an interesting character. Perhaps best known for killing one of his Mughal enemies with a concealed weapon called a tiger's claw. Also well known as a defender of Hinduism who fought long and hard against the Muslim-ruled Mughal empire.
Nice going Google.
Free trade is against my religion. I demand that anybody who acts like or mentions H1B's be arrested immediately!
Table-ized A.I.
Ah, you must be a Bush supporter. Democracy is great! As long as you vote my way.
"Indian Man"
Something awkward and comic about this description. Curiously vague, while simultaneously exhibiting a misplaced precision.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Why should India waste their time, money and resources, and degrade themselves in the eyes of their people and other countries by supporting US/Western (I'm assuming that's what us refers to) foreign policy on Iraq, Iran and China?
The USA started the Iraq war, they can finish it themselves, it was a fucking disaster from day 1, and should never have been allowed to happen, India would be be imbeciles to join the US's failure.
Tibet is (currently) past of China, not part of India, not India's problem. The linked article is frankly irrelevant, few genuinely care if a handful of folks get in trouble over a minor march before the Olympic one, and the march or lack of it makes 0 impact overall.
Iran has nothing to do with India whatsoever, and saying that the fact that they are not especially bothered about a military solution to Iran is indicative of undemocratic tendencies is laughable. The story linked states that they prefer diplomacy to useless handwaving in the UN security council/US military interference, which is eminently sensible. Pacifism and discussion is better than killing of innocents, even if you don't personally approve of their government or society, etc.
Furthermore if you really think that Iran is going to make nuclear bombs and start trying to toss them at the US, then you need to turn the TV off. The leaders of Iran are *not* idiots.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
This is why I refuse to be an exit node.
Wow, I had no idea. These examples demonstrate an Indian foreign policy that favors peace, human rights and diplomacy -- values clearly in conflict with current U.S. foreign policy.
The guy in the Sonia Gandhi case was booked under Section 67 of the The Information Technology Act, 2000. (Check the section titled "Information Technology Act, 2000".
Apparently "being obscene" is a crime in India and the IT act takes it to the internet. So posting "obscene" stuff is punishable by an imprisonment of upto 5 years. So the crucial part was "obscene comment" not "targeted to Sonia Gandhi". Of course the person filing the complaint with the police was a member of the Congress Party (whose leader is Mrs. Gandhi).
India has many laws that are rooted in the prude thinking that is pretty much common there. This law is just an example that aims to turn "a behavior that maybe not be noble" into "a criminal act". The same law makes pornography illegal even though you can find pornography pretty easily.
I think this is irrelevant post, and there is no analogy between China & India. As a Indian this is my opinion. India is a fully democratic, secular and sovereign state, and people should not mix democracy supporters in China & Myanmar with anti social elements profaning about religious goods and creating communal tensions. People should understand that India have a large number of Muslims and christens and such incidents can create communal tensions, and is a danger for the whole country peace and harmony. We are already suffering from heavy terrorism from neighboring countries.
He was reportedly beaten by a latte. As long as it wasn't too hot, I can't get worked up about this.
Oohhhhh, a lathi. Nevermind.
Did anybody notice he circulated the message
under an email address that contains his name
("It was known that the vulgar message about Sonia Gandhi was circulated through an email address â" Rahulvaidindia@gmail.com").
Does someone want to stay anonymous if he
uses such an email address?
Homeboy ought to move to where you live. However, as he lives where he lives, the laws of where he lives were enforced, not the laws where you live. That, unfortunately, is the Way Things Are.
Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo
I'm voting for Ron Paul you insensitive clod!
The orders of a court that would do such a thing are clearly not worth respecting.
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
Give me the pic and I'll spread it like wildfire.
UL it to bayimg.com or something..
8/10: Good troll, but you need more froth around the mouth area.
Here in the UK, we still have blasphemy laws, but the state has given up enforcing them - the last occasion of note was some play about Jesus being gay that upset Mary Whitehouse (not the porn star, the other one) back in the 70s.
Some Hindus take their religion just as seriously as fundies of all sorts, and the BJP and their ilk are pretty influential in India - given the religious tensions still active there following the great British botch that was Partition, it's unsurprising to me that sensitivities are easily pricked.
Having said that, you're right - it's no place of Google's to assist in the application of unjust law.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
If you're going to malign a Hindu saint then at least have to sense to a) not use your real name and b) not post from an easily identifiable IP address. Like, wait untill your PHB is out of the room and send from his DeskTop .. :)
Why is everyone I see support google for whatever they do?
When Yahoo did the same thing in China, everyone was ripping Yahoo apart for doing that, in china and in US. Now for this, no one knows what the profane images are... and everyone is praising Google for obeying local laws. Good to go.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231537&cid=18807651
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231537&cid=18805049
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231537&cid=18805011
The USA isn't calling anyone anything. The fact that people living within territory claimed by the US government have to put up with shit doesn't mean they shouldn't be critical of what happens outside said territory.
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
Of course, I have such low expectations for liberals anyway, so I have no one but myself to blame for being so disappointed in them.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
some people can only afford a single eat/waste bucket, you insensitive clod!
That's it from now on I only use Live Search!
The longer they're around, the more indications we see that Google's left coast, we're-all-in-this-together, good guy image is nothing more than just another example of corporate PR spin.
Can anybody still believe Google has no plans to surrender all those search records they've been hoarding to the first fascist prick who waves a writ in their face? The people who allowed this to happen should be made to walk the plank.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
In the US, free speech isn't as free as you'd think. Back in the 90s someone posted to USENET "F* Clinton! F* Clinton! F* Clinton!"
A student at North Carolina State University posted the followup "Kill Clinton! Kill Clinton! Kill Clinton!"
The chancellor was none too happy to find a US Marshall waiting outside his office the next morning.
As long as a society has sacred cows there will be events that lead to a lack of freedom after speech. In this case the bar for sacred cows is lower than expected.
Google is not some god or anything like that, they are a business and must obey the laws of the lands they have business in. Sure some countries laws suck as far as human rights go but is it Googles responsibility to do anything but obey those laws when they operate in that country?
This is a story about India and not Google. Did a Microsoft employee post this story?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
If you could have the guy who first brought you Goatse or Tubgirl locked up like this, you would.
the last occasion of note was some play about Jesus being gay that upset Mary Whitehouse (not the porn star, the other one) back in the 70s.
I am fairly certain that there were people trying to invoke these laws when they showed 'Jerry Spring - The opera' on BBC, which had similar content.
it's no place of Google's to assist in the application of unjust law.
It is no place for Google to make judgements on which laws are unjust and which aren't, it is not their responsibility. The only option open to them is not to do business in countries where *they* (asterisked because, 'who are *they* exactly?') believe the laws to be unjust. If they choose to operate in India they must follow the local laws and regulations. If they operate in a country, and then refuse to obey the laws in that country then their directors risk punishment under the local laws.
The real culprit in this case is the Indian government themselves, who consider it acceptable to treat their citizens this way.
Google cache of the "offending" image
The pictures are sort of an anti-climax. The caption on Shivaji's picture (LODU) would translate to "dickhead" or "dick" probably. Amazing that this thing even caused rioting in Pune but then I suppose people from Maharashtra (ok maybe not all) seem to be as crazy about Shivaji as muslims are about their prophet!
Come on! Don't be a tease, where's the "profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji?"
I could Google it, but, well, I'm afeared.
Sadly, that's the truth. Yay for getting cheap products and crappy service at a lower cost because companies rely on bargain-basement labor in oppressive countries.
"in the United States, ... what he did would be protected under freedom of speech"
Unless he burned the US flag, or said he is ashamed the President is from his home state, or perhaps while trying to thank the President for his rescue he did several things that are eccentric but perfectly legal? http://kirkflyingvet.com/
Like it or not, this is a story about the laws of India and not about Google going anything "evil". See how long the thread lasts if it were about Google not pulling out of India because of this incident. What makes me sick is how many think this is a Google issue and not an Indian human rights issue.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Approximately 99.99% of Slashdotters can describe the Prime Directive, and how it works in a land of make believe.
A significantly lower percentage sees how it would apply in current-era Earth.
It's a human right, you fucking dickhead. Just because some governments choose not to honor it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Eventually, we will export democracy to those countries and hang their oppressive leaders, just like in Iraq.
This is the problem with doing business in other countries, you'll have to respect their government's wishes. Or, don't do business there. American rights don't come along for the ride.
Racialists
Whether or not that was the law where this person lives, that doesn't make it right for Google to have cooperated in this case.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I don't applaud stopping this crime; but this man did not live in the United States, Europe, Canada, or most other places in the free world. What he did was not a protected free speech. That makes a huge difference.
Of course, I'd argue that Google should develop a new policy for doing business in these countries -- perhaps not tracking IP numbers -- but Google cannot create new laws.
It's easy to condemn Google (and indeed, I think they've taken a wrong position), but the U.S. is currently occupying a foreign, sovereign nation without a declaration of war. I don't know that we have much moral authority to speak from.
Crime? You sure you want to word it that way?
What this man was convicted of may have been a crime in his country, but in the United States, Europe, Canada and most other places in the free world what he did would be protected under freedom of speech.
What I really dislike about the liberal slashdot is that they think Google and all other US companies should some how abide by some vague US moral law while operating in foreign countries. While here is a clue, "freedom of speech" isn't universal and doesn't mean the same all over the world. If Google or other US companies wish to do business in a country where it is understood "freedom of speech" doesn't include bad mouthing and of that country's leaders, their government in general, or various religious leaders where there doesn't exist a operation of church and state, then Google and other US companies have to conform to said countries ethics/laws or be liable to be jailed/fined/blocked by that country.
I still applaud that Google is not arbitrarily deciding which particular laws they abide by and what crimes should be prosecuted.
...?
I also think they should seriously consider not being an accomplice to oppression, by not dealing with regimes that maintain such laws and accepting the loss of that market.
The question is if Google is to behave ethically, how ethical is enough? 10,000$?, 10,000,000$
There seem to be three separate and distinct issues being conflated here:
1. India has laws that make it a crime to post "vulgar content"
2. Google provided information to Indian police in conformance with the law
3. Indian police are alleged to have badly mistreated a suspect
Be outraged about #1 and #3 if you wish, but I see no malfeasance inherent in Google's actions #2.
Even if you can't quit cold turkey, you can at least work to minimize the number of companies in repressive countries with which you do business.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Sure, but if I am doing any such business, I probably shouldn't scream bloody murder about other people doing it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I disagree.
A moral person (and at it's core, Google is simply a group of individual people working for a common cause) must refuse to cooperate with authorities when asked to do something unjust. "I was just following orders," is not and should not be justification for doing something immoral. Ever.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
"The difference here is that a man was put in that situation - by Google...."
Oh, I must have misread. I thought it was Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid, not Google, who put himself in the position to be punished when he committed an act considered unlawful by his countrymen.
It sounds like freedom of expression is NOT his inalienable right. I do not ask Google or any other business abroad to spread and uphold MY belief in freedom of expression.
"I understand my tests are popular reading in the teacher's lounge." -Calvin to Hobbes
Information brokers - what Google is, essentially - are going to need to figure out what they're trying to do.
If they continually ACT as if they are responsible for the content that's connected by them, then they are going to be continually TREATED that way.
Nobody would even consider suing a phone book for the number they listed for a mass murderer.
Politicians (apparently across the world) don't understand that Google is little more than a well-linked phone book, and that despite all the cool stuff you can get, ISP's are not much more than a phone company.
This will continue to bite them in the ass until they say "Look, we're data-neutral. We don't give a crap what we index, if it's out there, we index it. You don't like it? You're going to punish us for what we link to? Fine, we'll just stop serving IP's from your country."
-Styopa
Not exactly, it is like bad mouthing your religion or god. I am not sure how many conservative Christians in US would take it lightly if one bad mouths Jesus.
"I dunno, I could think of a few people who I wouldn't have issue hearing were being beaten, jailed, etc."
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld?
. . . when this "profane" picture of their "saint" is mirrored everywhere and becomes an Internet meme.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
It's the reality of depending on other countries for your labor. Their laws are your laws.
(I am an Indian, so there is a possibility that I know a bit more about Indian democracy.)
As the meme goes, this word ('democracy') does not mean what you think it means - in India especially.
Indian democracy means whatever is fine with people 'elected' by the public. They do not really represent the majority for two reasons - First, in India, hardly 50% participate in elections. Second, from the pool of candidates, the best you can do is to choose the one who has committed least murders and rapes. I do not know the exact numbers, but safe guess would be 25% - thats the % of elected members of parliament (senators in the US) who have criminal history - and here, we are just talking about official history - for majority of the crimes from these politician assholes go unpunished and without any history in the police files.
Add that to the religious angle and all you get is mocker of democracy. India is a country living in two era at the same time - one is where IT and space technology keep on producing economical and/or scientific miracles (miracle, because they achieve all this in spite of the government), the other is where majority of people give more attention to gods rather than their neighbors starving to death.
The country is plagued by politicians - the dream of a democratic nation has died since the 60s. Congress started the rot and BJP and others are doing the same with their own agenda.
What is funny is when somebody from from the west cites Indian democracy better than the chinese rules - I appreciate it, but its not true. I am not saying Chinese (or any other govt) is better, but just because India is so called democracy does not make it any better than any other country with autocracy or any other form of government. At least in China, they can create laws and actually implement it - in India, they can hardly create laws, and when they do it, the laws will be used in torturing more and more innocent citizens who do not have any leverage in the system because they do not know anybody influential in the local political clout.
And the police can enforce those laws. Doesn't mean Google, a company with a fine rhetoric about not being evil (not not-following-the-laws-of-every-country-they-operate-in), has to .
A++ troll, would bite again!
So where is this profane picture at? Searching bayimg for Shivaji shows nothing.
Google is to blame for complying with an oppressive, anti-human-rights law, just like Yahoo is. They've stood up to the American government, I'm baffled why they wouldn't stand up to the Indian government, but it makes them no less in the wrong. There are standards for human rights, no company should obey laws that violate human rights just to operate in the country where they are violated. India SHOULD be punished for having this law on the books, and the punishment should take the form of Google's refusal to obey its laws. If the Indian government tries a reprisal against Google, then the punishment should take the form of Google ceasing to do business there.
The only argument you can make against this is that it would hurt Google's bottom line, and that's no argument at all.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
I suppose it's not great, but it beats prison time in the USA.
Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia section on his religious views. Remember he is (portentially) a Hindu saint, but seems to be more of a Hindu king.
Chhatrapati Shivaji was a devout Hindu and he respected all religions within the region. Shivaji had great respect for Warkari saints like Tukaram and Sufi Muslim pir Shaikh Yacub Baba Avaliya of Konkan
Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
It's both.
That India is horrible at human rights isn't really news, though. The country has a long history of violations.
That doesn't mean that Google has to actively support them in their human rights violations, however. Especially since they make a bigger claim than most companies about not being evil.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
It's "Do no evil" BETA
My blog
He had a choice, the other one was using Vista. Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
... if it was a crime where he did it but not here, it's still a crime. there's plenty of places where things that are illegal here are legal, I still can't do those things. though I find it amusing that the US government expects google to comply with them, but not with Indian or Chinese governments. That's hilarious.
Not everyone lives where you live. You need to follow the laws of the locality you are doing business in, when inside of those localities. It is not google's place to determine what laws are "just" and "unjust".
By your logic, someone from Amsterdam should be allowed to setup a shop next door to you selling illegal drugs (in the US) and it should be OK... because after all, where they live it's legal.
We finally know who the turd-eating frist p0ster is!
You're given the choice: "Shoot this dog, or we kill your entire family".
What do you do?
Stop pretending that right and wrong are so easily definable. In order to make the right decision, it's important to weight the positive and negative effects of your actions. EVERYTHING you do leads to some negative results. Driving your car to work increases violence in the middle east. Eating meat results in the killing of animals and the inefficient use of arable land. Eating soya and tofu leads to rain forests being burned to create plantations. BREATHING releases greenhouse gases!
Life is a series of trade-offs - the best we can do is to try and minimize our negative impact, while maximizing the positive.
He was a 17th century ruler of the Maratha empire.
That guy Shivaji is not a saint. He was a popular king who ruled a few centuries ago.
So what is the percentage of Slashdotters that think it's a stupid idea in the land of make-believe, but downright dangerous nonsense on Earth?
It is not google's place to determine what laws are "just" and "unjust".
Your moral relativism must make your head explode at night. Sure, there are grey areas where that statement is true, but surely you don't think laws about murder and child abuse are simply culture-specific.
"You said you was just gonna talk to him, String." --D'Angelo Barksdale
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
His actions might not be so protected in Canada as you may think. Mark Steyn is up for a hate crime for denigrating Muslims.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
By that logic, if Google had been around in the 1930's it would have been fine for them to share information on the location of Jews in Germany.
*awaits cries of Godwin*
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Not illegal where you live. Illegal where HE lives. Therefore, a crime. Not here.. but he doesn't live here.
Burning the flag and saying you are ashamed the President is from your home state are some very unpopular things to do (especially if you're a country music group), but neither are illegal.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
Just avoid doing bad things on google property. They will tell on you.
I prefer to base my actions on the way the world really works, as opposed to the way I'd like it to work.
Wrong analogy. It's more like, "If you want to do business with us, shoot that dog". We know what Google will do in that situation.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
why is freedom of speech so important? it is far from being a god given right (if there is one jury still out on that)these inalienable rights talked about by OUR founders are what THEY believed were inalienable rights void in the majority of the world that disagrees with them. likewise the right to bear arms could have just as easily been the right of the government to have monopoly of force to safeguard each of us from taking up in arms against the country in defiance of the greater good for personal. but then we are allowed to posses weapons and use them for personal good for or against greater good and now how do you determine greater good? people not in the streets shooting each other is rather good, right? but so is people in the streets shooting other people who support a corrupt government infringing on their rights, in some cases. in the end sovereignty is an important foundation of being a state, their laws are their laws and they can prohibit google or who ever from partaking in their economy if they like, like wise shareholders can say no to board members who would support stuff like this or we as Americans can tell our government we don't want companies who do this kind of thing operating in our economy. either way what gives us the right to export these inalienable?
INDIA: We want that IP address.
GOOGLE: OK, it's... um... hmmm...
INDIA: What?
GOOGLE: Seems we had a glitch. A lightning bolt hit a tree that fell on a remote data center and knocked out power to a critical storage device, and also crushed it and set it on fire. And the original lightning totally erased it. And then a dog ate it. Sorry. *Total* act of God, there.
INDIA: This is unacceptable!
GOOGLE: OK. Let me forward you to our offshore troubleshooting expert.
OFFSHORE EXPERT: (In thick, Indian accent) Hello! My name is Bill Johnson! How may I help you today?
The EU has very specific laws on limits of speech and most of the countries follow that standard. As slashdot covered about a month ago, even Canada has non-appealable anti-hate tribunals. The US is about the only place left for free speech, and even that should be with a * since we self-censor and hide from most real religious discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorius_Nekschot
What happens if US citizen googles for "medical marijuana?" Do they contact the DEA?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
But the Prime Directive is perfectly bloody stupid idea in the land of make-believe which is used as a universal excuse to stand aside and help alien states do horrible things to their slaves^Hcitizens. I would expect it to be even worse applied in real life.
What crime, the crime of exercising freedom of speech?
While we don't have to agree with what is posted, by allowing free speech you in fact guarantee your own freedoms. We can express opinion, joke or criticize Jews, Catholics, Christians, of various sorts, politicians even but the Hindu and Muslims are off limits? Not a very level playing field.
I can understand giving out the IP in certain circumstances where threats and violations to humanity are concerned, but options, jokes, differing viewpoints are different. It then becomes a tool to coerce and intimidate.
I guess Google has no moral code. And we also learn about the intolerance to other view points that some specific religions have. And I would not put too much credence to being in Canada, I am quite sure CSIS can get IP addresses for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. A Macleans article like this one made the commission, which is turning out to be the minority ( 2%) using them to hunt down differing opinions.
The poor/common man in India fears the police more than the local thug. The torture methods they use are can maim people and in some cases, kill people. What google did is a crime. I bet the market share in India and China are more important than the life of an "Indian". I am sure they had "min of silence" when they heard the news.
In fact, IBM was involved in a fairly similar manner with the Nazis, and at the time they considered it perfectly acceptable to do so.
It was just... carrying on business.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Boo, shit-eating Indians!
Sure, give the Indians a hard time... but when it's two white girls with a cup, it's an internet sensation. Typical xenophobia.
Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.
The percentage that would try to apply it in current-era Earth scare me. We don't have fictitious directive that even in the TV show was seldom applied. Most of the episodes seemed to present moral justification on ignoring it.
I once thought that yeah gee what a great idea, we just sit here and let everyone else do as they wish. This would work great if all the other cultures out there we're as tolerant as I am. Then I learned about all the crimes against humanity that occur. Whether on large scales or on small scales. I don't think all things have a supreme right to exist. A culture that practices FGM in my opinion should be changed forced if necessary. A culture that attempts genocide on one of it's ethnic groups should be stopped by force if necessary. Sure it would be easy to sit back in a little bubble and let everything else go to crap becuase it's easy to say well it's their culture they can do what they like. Tell that to the girl who is mutilated just becuase she's female or to the Tutsi who was killed for no other reason than becuase of his ethnicity. I weep for any person who can say that directly to their face.
So we don't have a Prime Directive and for good reason, what we do have is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sadly it isn't adhered to as much as itshould be.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Yes, but what he was saying was the equivalent of "Fuck Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin" ("Fuck Sonia Gandhi"), not "Fuck Muslims". The later might get him cited for a hate crime even here, in the right context, while the former is not likely to get anyone arrested in any context (in and of itself).
My blog
The summaries inability to do what it's supposed to do, that is Summarize, this is a whole lot of posturing about nothing.
Do No Evil.
Great stupid internet-y slogan from the 90s when people were throwing more money than sense at sock puppets and the like.
Sure, it sounds cool and all, but then what is evil?
In China, Evil is questioning the state in anyway, or practicing Falon Gong (sorry if I spelled that wrong). If you're living in China, that's the law.
So just because you started your little company in a country which considers that 'weird' does it make you evil to comply with the law of the land? or do you force your law of the land on the other land? Which is more evil? OK, so because we view their law as Evil it's Evil? Why aren't our laws evil ? Just because groupthink says 'they're good'?
This case in India smacks of the same thing. The summary missed the boat about it being some indian god, instead, it was railing against some politician he hated.
While in the United States it's OK to call your sitting president 'Slick Willy' or 'Chimpy McFlightsuit' but in India apparently it's not so hot. A legal enforcement agency of that country requested/demanded/court ordered their way into finding out information and used to it to apply their laws towards that person.
That's evil?
Evil to me is a little different.
Crazy Boyfriend knocks on door, asks buddy that works at google to give him detailed information on where his ex-girlfriend is at, he finds her, and kills her.
Crazy Stalker Guy knocks on door, gets buddy to give up where britney spears is at based on her technology usage, he finds her, and strangles & kills her.
Those are the kind of Evil I think we're talking about, not the 'apply what I think are better laws towards other countries because I don't agree with them'.
It's called 'business'. If you want to operate in a given country, your home countries rules don't apply.
yeah sure google makes a great target now for putting that in their corporate details but also, Evil in one location isn't equal to evil in another location.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
IANAL, especially not on Indic law. But couldn't it be if they didn't comply that the police would just get a search warrant and search through the servers themselves? At least if some of them are located in India.
Erik Dalén
Uh huh...
And these are the barbarians we're outsourcing half of our software industry to.
Good to know
Do no evil, unless of course doing evil lets us make scads of money somewhere with evil laws. In that case, it's ok.
Yes, I'm sure they had no ethical qualms. Does that make it right?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I have no problem with how Google reacted.
If you know the law of that country, are a citizen of that country, live in that country, and violate that law, you should expect to be prosecuted by that country.
If you operate in that country, know their laws, and expect to make money in that country, you should obey their laws.
If Google disrespected a country's laws and morals in that country, they might as well disrespect every countries laws and morals. Just think, in the US, they can advertise for drug dealers (its legal in amsterdam), sell your children into prostitution(a common occurrence in thailand), or blackout news that doesn't help a certain party(china).
IMHO, to do no evil means you act according to what you promised to do and live with your consequences.
He didn't do it. Read the article.
He didn't do it. Read the article. Someone mis-reported the ip to identity mapping. It stood for 50 days.
I'll second this. It was actually one of the things I liked better about Enterprise, especially the earlier episodes, because they didn't have the Prime Directive, and were perfectly happy to go mucking around in other cultures.
(Of course, then Enterprise had to become largely about time travel, which was just annoying. But my point stands.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Sure, why not. In that case you can consider:
1) Your responsibility to your shareholders.
2) The jobs which will be created by access to new markets.
3) The extra wealth which will be generated, both for yourself and for your nation.
4) The extra wealth and prosperity which will occur as a byproduct in your new market.
How do you think all those things stack up against the life of a dog? Or, in this case, the maltreatment of a man?
No matter what the circumstances, it's never a simple decision. How many lives are improved by Google continuing to operate in India? If they refused to cooperate, would the net result be more good, or more evil?
No, but Google can disobey existing laws when they are unjust. Sometimes obeying your lawful superior is not a reasonable defense.
The description of the story is really messed up.
The one case where someone insulted Sivaji has nothing to do with Google. It has to do with Airtel, a phone company in India.
The other case is one where someone slandered a politician - The story does not say what the actual insult/slander was, but the cops did not prosecute just for criticizing -- the owner of the discussion group was left alone. There was a much better written story , but the editors picked the wrong one.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
Tastelss? Perhaps. Illegal? Not where I live. More importantly: Wrong? No.
Thomas Galvin
Neither George Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain has done anything for the U.S.
And though I am not justifying what was done to the man, I am trying to highlight the fact that there is a reason as to why his act caused tension.
Try saying 'You know, maybe Osama bin Laden has a point....' where you live.
See where that will get you!
That, of course, depends what you mean by 'right'.
Yes, it was 'right' for the corporation to do that because it was the course of action that best suited the corporation's reason for existing.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
According to my completely untrained sense of law, the Internet is tricky place. When a transaction takes place, both parties are responsible for both the local laws and the remote laws.
This would mean google violated the law, wouldn't it?
I think right and wrong is a little easier to define then you make out. I would be interested to see how you would define right and wrong it after you had to eat in the same bowl you crapped in...the arm chair feels nice doesn't it?
If google really wants to "Do good, don't be evil", I would accept that they needed to comply with the request of the Indian legal authorities in handing over this man's IP... However, having seen the Indian government's use of that information, they should redirect any searches coming from an Indian IP for the next three days to a message raking the Indian government over the coals for their behavior. If they did THAT, then I might still buy their slogan. You can be forgiven for incidentally doing a little evil if you then make up for it in the larger scheme of things.
Consider that Google is a willing participant in situations like this around the world. They have chosen to be a big part of the problem and of all parties involved they have the least justification. Discussing it and feeling bad about it doesn't not change anything if they made the wrong decision in the end. And like you said, they want to make money so they are capitalizing on the situation. Money isn't an exception for doing good. I'm sorry but sitting around hugging each other then cashing in on the very thing you claim to be against does not mean they care it means they are fake.
Asian culture is the antithesis of democracy. Just like the Russians are basically bred to need a dictator style government, the Chinese need a government that takes care of them without their question. Harmony means more to them than individual freedom, ask most people in China if that is true and most will say yes.
Also, why is everyone so keen on spreading democracy, one of the WORST forms of government, around the world? And no, the United States is not a democracy, we are a republic, and a very poor one at that as of late.
I applaud your equal-opportunity stance and the fact that you apply your insults to most demographics in the USA. Well done ;o)
Democracy is required for respectability. It is not, however, sufficient... Try to understand the difference, and you'll make some real progress.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Which part of my current sig do you disagree with?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Sure it would be easy to sit back in a little bubble and let everything else go to crap becuase it's easy to say well it's their culture they can do what they like. Tell that to the girl who is mutilated just becuase she's female or to the Tutsi who was killed for no other reason than becuase of his ethnicity. I weep for any person who can say that directly to their face.
Unless you've given your house to a native American, save your crocodile tears.
No people = no suffering.
Or did anyone else read the comments to that article with an indian accent?
FRA: STFU GTFO
It's "more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules." :)
Wait what? Bad things happened in the past that I had no control over, wow I had no idea....
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Tastelss? Perhaps. Illegal? Not where I live.
But isn't that the point? It's evil in that Country, but not ours. Who is right and where should Google stand? Will the US military/police stand beside Google and protect its employees that are in that country? Should we have military escorts for all people that work for Google outside the US that do not have the same belief system that we have to protect against retaliation on the employees when those beliefs are in conflict? Google tries not to do evil, with evil being defined by the country that it is operating in. We might not agree with it but that is how that nation operates, and companies need to operate with in the laws of the nation not independent of it.
Homeboy ought to move to where you live. However, as he lives where he lives, the laws of where he lives were enforced, not the laws where you live. That, unfortunately, is the Way Things Are.
According to where *I* live, the right to free speech is *inalienable*. Regardless of nationality, my country believes that this right cannot be taken away. And my country is the 800 lb gorilla...
It is no place for Google to make judgements on which laws are unjust and which aren't, it is not their responsibility.
Actually, it IS.
It is the duty of every decent human being to evaluate their actions both inside and outside the context of law.
If you find that you actions would very immoral, yet legal, and you carry through anyways, you're a scumbag.
Say a law was passed tomorrow that reinstated forced sterilization in the US. Would you assist in rounding up unwed mothers or homosexuals?
Forced sterilization was the law in the US. It even withstood a challenge in the supreme court.
How do you think these laws get changed, because people just blindly comply and say "the law's the law"?
Life is too short to proofread.
Wrong analogy. It's more like, "If you want to do business with us, shoot that dog". We know what Google will do in that situation. Wrong analogy. It's more like, "If you want to do business with us, beat that man and make him eat his own shit." We know what Google will do in that situation.
It might be the responsibility of the Indian people to stand up against unjust laws, it is not the responsibility of a corporation like google. They are not even an Indian corporation.
Perhaps the employees of Google India don't even consider this law unjust. I would personally consider the punishment to be extremely excessive, and the crime itself to be questionable (the article and the summary seem to differ, one talks about a 'saint' the other a policitian, rarely the same thing), but it seemd to basically amount to libel on some form, which is punished in many other places too, criminally or civally.
At the risk of someone invoking a 21st century 'godwin's law', it is this same kind of interventionist attitude that is causing all kinds of misadventures in the middle-east at the moment. Countries with 'freedom and democracy' of the brand that is being exported out there have such a thing because their citizens made sacrifices to obtain it. You can attempt to export these concepts, but you cannot export the pride that makes us value them. Nobody wants to say, 'we have freedom because some foreign entity came in and gave it to us', you do not value something until you earn it yourself.
Same thing here, even if Google did make an attempt to change the law, they would mostly be seen by the population in India as a foriegn power meddling in their affairs, regardless of how well meaning they are. If the Indian people want and end to this stuff, they will have to fight for it themselves, that way it will be valued and retained. Google provide a web indexing, email and context based ads, not revolution!
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Funny how Google has no problem with hosting videos produced by terrorists. http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=8093d5b2-c882-4d12-883d-5c670d43d269&Month=5&Year=2008&Affiliation=C
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Not to completely take Google's side here since I don't know much about the what happened beyond what I've read, but surely the action would be "evil" only if you had reason to believe that your actions would lead to that kind of thing happening, and only if you were actually within control of your actions and there was no reasonable alternative. Google might have had no reason whatsoever to believe that this person would be treated badly, or they might have had the law-books thrown at them to the extent that they couldn't refuse the authority.
I'm not sure if this actually happened, but if you judge someone as "evil" simply because something they do leads to someone else being "evil", then you're setting a very disturbing precedent. Google probably could have handled this a lot better, but keep in mind that this guy wouldn't have been treated as he had if India had a working system for properly enforcing human rights.
...and just who defines what is right? you?
The point is that there is still one nation, under a real God, not some Hindustani fantasy, with the backbone to come in and hang oppressors (e.g. Nuremburg, Tokyo, Rome, Baghdad). And the oppressors in India are working their way onto the short list after Iran and North Korea. Iraq's have been hanged, and there's more hanging to go--it's a work in progress.
Not me...I can just answer what I believe is right. Wiser men than I have struggled -- and failed -- to find a universal answer to that question since the dawn of recorded history.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
"BREATHING releases greenhouse gases!
Life is a series of trade-offs - the best we can do is to try and minimize our negative impact, while maximizing the positive."
The world would be a better place if you stopped breathing.
Cool story bro
Since that was a completely foreseeable circumstance, and Google intentionally put themselves in that position.
(When asked why they would help support censorship in authoritarian nations, Google's reply was, "If we don't, someone else will."
What do you think of THAT for ethics? Sounds like what IBM said during World War II, doing business with the Nazis.
I don't give a damn if it is debated all day every day. If the ultimate decision is still the wrong one (and it has been), then they are STILL responsible for their actions!
Corporate ACTIONS are not the result of a committee or a debate. They are the result of somebody DECIDING which way to go. That is all that matters. That is how individuals are judged, that is how corporations should be judged.
Bad google bad!
I have a feeling that
- they didnt need to fork this information over (no mention of a warrant even), and
- they dont give a shit.
Which is why whatever happened happened.For a bunch of people that keep demanding the US let more and more of you guys in, you sure like to complain about how bad the US is. If it's so bad then stop coming here.
but Google is an AMERICAN company. So of course this conversation is about the values of American companies. If you want to talk about something else, then go the hell elsewhere please! That subject matter is entirely on-topic!
The real story is here
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Gurgaon-techie-held-for-posting-derogatory-messages-against-Sonia-Gandhi-on-Orkut/311070/
It's been pretty well defined, actually. Human Rights Declaration. See articles 5, 18, and 19.
This isn't rocket science. The civilized people of the world know what human rights are. Don't cloud the issue by pretending there's no way to tell who's right and who's wrong here.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Posted AC for really, really obvious reasons.
...
I work in security for a competing service. It's my job to respond to requests from local law enforcement in whatever jurisdiction. I've had maybe 20 such requests (the serious ones, that is, all others get circular filed).
The founders of my company are hardcore believers in free speech and although it's never put down in writing, the unwritten word here is to subvert any such request. Personally I agree 100% with this (maybe one reason I was hired - question from my 3rd interview, "what does free speech mean to you?" - a good sign!)
If we get a request which we consider unreasonable or immoral - and both these cases fit that description to a T - I will retrieve the correct IP and determine its loose location. If it's an area known to me, or we have someone nearby, I'll get the address of an internet cafe in that general area and overwrite the logs to reflect that address. If, more likely, it's in some foreign locality, I'll run a script which attempts to find a large number of different account logins from one IP in that general area, assume that's either an internet cafe or a large company using NAT, then rewrite with that.
I will then make sure the changes is propogated (we do not backup this kind of thing, relying on distributed DBs) and return the new IP as our response to the demand. I can even set the system to record all new accesses to a certain account or from a certain IP as the "new" IP in the logs - and to never store that instruction to disk (on boot our servers load certain "special instructions" from a remote known-secure machine - did I mention we were paranoid?).
I can do all of this in about 20 minutes and access to such facilities in our system is severely restricted. I am aware that I'm technically breaking the law - but I'm intimately familiar with the workings of the system and am quite confident that interference would be completely impossible to prove.
I'm posting this not to brag but to hopefully give other admins here "subversive ideas" : ) and also to let you know that "good" companies are out there.
OK, now I've double checked that it's anonymous about 10 times, time to hit "submit"
Its not illegal here in India either. Its just that most of the state governments are so fucking crazy about protecting their leaders, their ideals that they can fuck up anyone for harming dear false gods.
And before a common man can call law for help, you are already fucked. You can sue state government and other concerned authorities if you want, but that will be a long drawn battle. Trouble is, we have a totally fucked up judiciary system.
Various interpretations by Google lawyers and fooligans:
A) "Don't *Be* Evil, but it's okay to be Evil's friend"
B) "Don't Be Evil, during daylight hours."
C) "Don't Be Evil, at least not until everyone else has their turn."
In this case, I think they took option A.
Shivaji is not a Hindu saint. He is an ancient(?) king of one small part of India. In thise parts of India ( Maharashtra and Mumbai) abusing him can get you in trouble. People try to put him forward to create problems as he was famous because he fought wars with Muslim kings for power (not for love of Hindu religion, although people want to believe otherwise). I consider no King to be good for people and definitely Shivaji was not; there can never be a good king. Insulting him is not exactly like insulting a politician.
My personal opinion is that India do lack freedom of speech. Not restricted by law, but by crazy people. The press and judiciary is last resort of a sensible person.
Hope my home does not get burnt for this comment. Slashdot, please do not give away my IP address.
You may have missed the part where he doesn't live where you live...
India is a democracy, that nation sets its own laws and decides its own morality. I don't see why the West should use its companies as yet another means of forcing its values on others.
If I understand things correctly, he would have been using the bowl to wash himself, not as a toilet. Still bloody disgusting to have to eat out of the same bowl, mind.
OD
Oh this put a a whole new twist to it. When did he get sainted?
Next he will be Knight Shivaji.
I see it now Knight Shivaji Vada Pav.
...but yes, only in the sense that we are all divine. Divine or not, it is likely he - or those who conceived his story - had some semblance of true enlightenment (which is quite a natural and desirable psychological state). If one follows the precepts endorsed by Jesus, Buddha, et. al., one will inevitably transcend the mind that thinks and realize "the way it all is." There is serious merit in the Dharma, and I think it's a mistake to throw it out just because the followers of Jesus have generally no clue about the core of his teachings.
-- thinkyhead software and media
It might be the responsibility of the Indian people to stand up against unjust laws, it is not the responsibility of a corporation like google. They are not even an Indian corporation.
That statement doesn't make any sense. It is the responsibility of all people to stand up against unjust laws period, whether done behind the unaccontable screen of a coporation, and regardless of whether they're in your home country.
The same logic you've applied, is just why things like the genocides in Armenia, Bosnia, Rwanda were allowed to happen. Human beings are human beings. It is our duty as decent people to help them. National boundaries do not change this simple fact. Hence why we're so interested in help out people in Burma, for example.
Your argument about Iraq is a false argument, since we did not go there to create a democracy, and our military actions routinely undermine any claims otherwise. If we actually cared about the Iraqi people, don't you think we'd at least bother to count how many of them we killed?
Life is too short to proofread.
They probably won't. Most major players such as Microsoft, Yahoo!, IBM have major centers in India now - thanks to the US's strict visa policies. Related: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6682743.stm