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.
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".
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
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!).
Actually, a "troll" is usually defined as someone who posts something inflammatory to elicit responses; the people who respond (like myself right now) are just called "suckers".
At least I'm in good company. Somewhere, up in heaven, Harriet Tubman is flipping you off.
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.
Actually, Evil isn't relative - it's subjective. Totally different. The former implies that there is a single standard of evil which is the same for all people but which varies based upon circumstances. The truth however is that Evil is defined differently for each person.
In other words, it's a stupid, disingenuous slogan, and Google should drop it for that reason alone. But given that Google is originally a US company, founded by Norteamericanos and with a slogan written in English, then I postulate that it can reasonably be measured by the standards of the USA - and one of our basic cultural values is the right to believe (and say!) whatever you want. By that measurement, this action is evil and since you can only be judged by your actions, then Google is evil.
It's quite possible that in China, the government would consider Google "evil" for not helping them to censor their people into submission.I have a similar issue at home; we have a cat named "Evil Kitty". Actually, where they had her before they first named her that (she has a sister named "Good" who was more friendly in the past) they tried to rename her Tibet, but I thought that was a stupid name for a cat, and she is evil to the mice so it's back to Evil. However, what the people of China believe due to large-scale brainwashing is really not that interesting to the subject of Evil, because of its very subjectivity. The very fact of the cultural brainwashing that instructs the Chinese to do as they are told is Evil by our standards in the Western world, where we value individuality and choice.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
The TechGoss article linked mentions a compensation demand of 20 crore rupees, which I think equals 200 million rupees, and according to XE, that works out to about US$4.7 million. Whether he actually gets that is yet to be determined, of course.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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!
Wasn't a Google employee who supplied the wrong IP, it was an Airtel employee who gave the wrong name.
More importantly, he's a symbol of Hindu national resistance to Mogul dominance - and is thus a charged symbol of the tensions between Muslims and Hindu practitioners in India.
It might be somewhat analogous to someone posting an image defacing Abraham Lincoln (or Robert E. Lee) in the US, with a religious element to that gesture. (Of course, it would be protected as free speech here, but it could trigger a fight.)
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
Just to clarify Shivaji was a king in the western part of India ruling during the 17th century. He is neither a saint nor a god but is revered in the western state of Maharashtra for fighting the Muslim rulers. .. :)
But I agree with the other parts of your comment
You can be pissy if you want, but you're wrong. The above description of the stance on China and the desire to help them (as well as make money) was the management position on the subject. I know that's hard for you to understand because it's a strange place on the inside. Granted, the longer they are public the more traditional the company is becoming, but people throughout the whole structure of the company take pride in how much they can help people.
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
Well, I dunno. I think if you're a public person, or public conversation where you have a mixed race crowd, you won't hear it from non-blacks that much. But, in conversations with an all non-black group, I don't know that when referring to blacks that you ever hear them called African-Americans. You hear the term black or nigger used almost interchangeably. However, when I hear it in conversation with others...it isn't being used in a derogatory way honestly...it is synonymous with the term black person. It never had a derogatory slant really as I was growing up. I find this is much more true in the southern part of the US, than the northern part. I think the word nigger is alway pictured as derogatory up north, but, not always meant that way in the south. I hear people's grandparents (and older) often use the term "nigra"...which is a variation of the word negro, which was common a long time ago as the standard way blacks were referred to, and they way they referred to themselves. Back then, they were aka "colored people".....NAACP you know.
So, they way it is as I observe it, and these are WELL educated people, not rednecks as many might think...when there are no blacks around, you usually hear the terms blacks or niggers. Heck, in the south, most of the time I hear blacks talking about themselves..they say nigger or nigga.
But really, in my practical experience, outside of a tv show or someone that is really trying to be politic....no one in real conversation calls black people African-Americans, in the US.
Just shows the hypocrisy I think in this day of having to be PC at certain times.
Your experience would vary depending on the region your are in or grew up in.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As for black people using the term 'nigger' or 'nigga', it's one of two things:
- Multiple generations of people being taught they're inferior until they finally accept it. (Which isn't to say that past family hardships are an excuse for underachievement or to suggest that the current generation of white people 'owes' black American's anything other than the respect and equality under the law not afforded their ancestors, but simply that the horrors of slavery in America went even beyond forced labor and corporal punishment)
- Black culture 'reclaiming' the word under a different connotation, which strips some of the power the word has when used in a derogatory fashion.
As for your family using it, I'm sure they're perfectly nice people who aren't interested in restoring slavery or any such thing, but they're probably like some of my family from Texas: They understand and support equal rights on a legal/moral/theoretical basis, but think things like friendship or/or intermarriage between people of different races is a bit unnerving.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.
Those people aren't native to North America. They came across the land bridge from Asia. The first people native to North America were the Métis, a distinct culture and race that was created in this place. The other tribes were no more indigenous to this place than the British or the French.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth