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.
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.
US Telecoms are demanding immunity for assisting unlawful federal wiretaps.
More music, fewer hits
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
This is why I refuse to be an exit node.
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
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.
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.
what more detail do you need? the main is eating shit out of a bowl cause he posted a picture of a god online.
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.
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.
If people start proving the character is impotent and most likely imaginary, then they'll lose their revenue stream! So: Let them eat shit!
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
...but English men aren't offended by being called "Englishmen" and Irish men aren't offended by being called "Irishmen?" That depends largely on who is doing the talking and who is doing the listening. Jesus Christ, if they have to ship a job that involves talking to Americans overseas couldn't they find some foreign assholes who actually know how to speak English? That's a rather ironic complaint for an American, don't you think?