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.

132 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. Wow... by CarAnalogy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't usually complain about badly written summaries, but this one made my head explode.

    1. Re:Wow... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 5, Funny

      You's didn't thinked the summary's quality were as good you had likening?

    2. Re:Wow... by mikael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even worse, one of Google's employees provided the IP address of the wrong user. So an innocent man was beaten, and punished for no crime.

      I hope his compensation claims is successful and for a substantial amount of money - and that the sloppy Google employee is fired.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Wow... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    4. Re:Wow... by ichthyoboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jar-Jar...is that you?

    5. Re:Wow... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That, apparently, depends on which country you're talking about.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    6. Re:Wow... by omnipresentbob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wasn't a Google employee who supplied the wrong IP, it was an Airtel employee who gave the wrong name.

    7. Re:Wow... by rkanodia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Technically, Shivaji is a historic figure, but either way, I don't really see him showing up to bring suit.

    8. Re:Wow... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.)

    9. Re:Wow... by janrinok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sucks that the wrong guy got apprehended. Other than that... what is the problem?

      Other than the fact that he was beaten for no good reason? Don't you think that is bad? What would you say if it had happened to you?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    10. Re:Wow... by Hellpop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surely I am not the only one asking, "How is this a crime?" People who take offense of drawings of their immaginary friends not being the way they picture them are just childish. That's the kindest way I can put it.
      Mischief, maybe. Tasteless, possibly. Crime, no fucking way! People like this, living in the Dark Ages need to get with the program. And people have the gall to criticize the U.S.?
      Correct this crap, then maybe you have some right to criticize us. Glass houses? Hell, theirs are made of rice paper compared to ours...

      Someone will invariably mistake my outrage for trolling. I'm OK with that, I can take it. They have a right to speak freely too...

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    11. Re:Wow... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do think it was bad. I think it's an indication that we need to get rid of anonymity so next time the right person will be apprehended.

      Put your money where your mouth is: post your name and adress here.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Wow... by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Surely I am not the only one asking, "How is this a crime?"

      See your laws on marijuana. Some dumb fuck (in your case Harry J. Anslinger) gets pissed off by something and decides to launch a crusade against it, lies about it, forces their belief on others, and then nobody else has the bravery and/or intelligence and/or power to stand up to them despite all medical/social/scientific evidence, logic, or moral arguments.

      >People like this, living in the Dark Ages need to get with the program.

      I agree with you but America is hardly unknown for religious stupidity. Religion is ignorance in all places and at all times; nationality is largely irrelevant. Western secular societies are by far the lesser culprits though.

  2. Gnostech! by ideonode · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hindu saints have IP addresses?

    1. Re:Gnostech! by hansraj · · Score: 5, Funny

      And while meditating their IP is 127.0.0.1 for "Truth lies within".

    2. Re:Gnostech! by kenj0418 · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Hindu saints have IP addresses?

      They have to. Otherwise, how would American churches be able to offshore their Saint positions to India?

    3. Re:Gnostech! by mounthood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but you can only use UDP, not TCP. (There are some secretive groups that say they can get ICMP to work, but I don't know about that.)

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    4. Re:Gnostech! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Funny

      And while meditating their IP is 127.0.0.1 for "Truth lies within". My God's IP is 192.168.1.1
      For he is the gateway through which all knowledge flows.

      He also said to beware of gateways wearing false numbers, for those are the path to hell.
      (That means you 192.168.100.1)
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Gnostech! by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey! That's MY ip address!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:Gnostech! by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ray! If someone asks if you're a God ... you ... say ... YES!

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  3. Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad things' by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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')

  4. compliance, not judges by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:compliance, not judges by bryanp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they're not going to try and make a judgement call about what is evil then they should drop their (now obviously) hypocritical slogan.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    2. Re:compliance, not judges by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:compliance, not judges by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the best question to ask for both the Google and Yahoo issues. While some information is known, even in North America, companies are expected to play by the rules of the law. When the judge says give up the info, you are supposed to do so, not ask what they are going to do with it.

      Now, that can have bad consequences in some countries, and that is painfully clear. I would like to see the detailed information about what was asked of who, exactly, and how it was asked and by whom. Those details could clearly wash away the cloudiness of who did evil.

    4. Re:compliance, not judges by Quixote · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wow.. when Yahoo did this (respond to a court-issued subpoena), everyone here was all up in arms.

      And when Google does the same thing, everyone nods approvingly.

      What a bunch of brainwashed people.

      Here are some highly-rated comments on Yahoo's story, to refresh everyone's memory: 1 , 2 , 3 .

      Keep drinking that "don't be evil" koolaid!

    5. Re:compliance, not judges by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Evil is relative, and Google is a multinational company.

      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.'"
    6. Re:compliance, not judges by Ostien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Judges are overrated in my opinion. One should disobey a law that they know to be unjust. Laws can be wrong, just as easily as humans can be wrong, and just because something is written does not make it fact, and certainly does not mean it should be followed.

      --
      Reality is a big nasty dragon. Fortunately I don't believe in dragons.
    7. Re:compliance, not judges by pluther · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... even in North America, companies are expected to play by the rules of the law. When the judge says give up the info, you are supposed to do so, not ask what they are going to do with it.

      And that's a scary, scary thought.

      "What are they going to do with it?" should be exactly the question asked when anyone is asked to give up personal information.

      And when the answer is "we're going to imprison him and mistreat him for speaking an opinion we don't like", the response should be "No."

      Yes, this would cause problems with China. They might threaten to fine them, or even to kick them out of the country. And Google can respond by threatening to close their data centers in China or to leave the country.

      Sure, fighting back's not the easiest route, nor the most profitable, to take, but certainly the only one in keeping with their slogan of Don't Be Evil, which is now being shown to be increasingly meaningless.

      And, as for "...even in North America..." I don't know the law in Canada, but in the US and Mexico there is a great deal of law and legal procedure that can be used to protect people in cases like this. In the US especially, mindless obedience to authority goes against the most important founding principles of the country.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    8. Re:compliance, not judges by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, we need to remember that Google is a company, not a judge in a court of law.
      Was that the case as well for the manufacturers of Zyklon? Do you feel the same about "defense contractors" involved in the production of Nuclear Bombs? If it where still illegal for blacks and whites to marry, would you be OK with rounding 'em all up because after all, "it's the law"?

      Businesses should not be free to ignore moral and ethical issues simply because something is the law where they do business. This is not to the benefit of society as a whole. If a company does not benefit society, they must go.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    9. Re:compliance, not judges by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you so trapped in an idealistic, geek fantasy world that you don't realize that a company slogan is not legally binding? Of course it's not legally binding. It is, however, morally binding.

      Do you not understand that when a company goes public, it is responsible to its shareholders, not to its slogan? I realize it. I also don't care. Hypocrisy is bad.

      So if they changed their slogan to "Make more money!" and continued ratting out foreigners to their governments, you'd be perfectly happy? I wouldn't, but at least they'd be honest about it.
      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    10. Re:compliance, not judges by kabocox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      And we in the west aren't brainwashed by our public education, cable TV, various churches, and internet? Our brainwashing is just different from theirs brainwashing. I tend to call it our culture is different than their's though it's much more polite.

    11. Re:compliance, not judges by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Flamebait is posting something that you *know* will start a fight. No its not,you cock munching faggot!!!11(e^i6pi())

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  5. Mixup by hansraj · · Score: 5, Informative

    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".

    1. Re:Mixup by arktemplar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not sure I get this, why would me saying "Obscene" things about Sonia Gandhi get me in jail ? I thought that India had some of the better free speech laws out there, it's only the people like Shiv Sena etc. who mess around with this stuff. Also For the information of most of the people here - Shivaji wasn't a saint as such, just a highly respected king, so sumamry isn't quite correct about that bit.

      I mean what was the situation (TFA has not got too many details)

      Police : I CAN HAZ HIZ IP ?
      Google : Of course, you want email access with that ? should we supersize the order ?

      --
      blog plug -> The Darker Side of Light
    2. Re:Mixup by unikuser · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesing thing about Shivaji's case which happened in August 2007 was that, they arrested wrong person the first time (Airtel local ISP mixed up ip info. he he). And that guy sued Airtel for screwing him for months in jail. Second time, they might have got the right person.

  6. Meanwhile, back at the ranch... by OglinTatas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US Telecoms are demanding immunity for assisting unlawful federal wiretaps.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch... by adpsimpson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This really gets to me.

      Of all the British citizens sent to Guatanamo Bay, those sent back to Britain to handle have been released with no charges. There is very good evidence to say that many, if not most, held there are entirely innocent. None have yet received any form of trial, with some having been held for 6 years.

      On top of this, the PATRIOT act (which has everything to do with undermining the constitution and nothing to do with true patriotism) now makes it possible to send US citizens to Gitmo.

      On top of this, nearly all US phone companies are implicated in spying on US citizens illegally, allowing the FBI/CIA etc who-knows-what access to every phone call handled.

      On top of this, the president wants to grant these telecoms retroactive immunity from prosecution, since he asked them to do it.

      And on top of all this, Americans have the nerve to get their knickers in a twist when another American company Obeys the laws of a country in which they do business?

      By all means campaign to change the attitudes of those in power in repressive countries. Please, do. But remember Google was (presumably) obeying a court order.

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
    2. Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch... by adpsimpson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dang, hit 'Submit' instead of 'Continue editing'...

      My point (not very well made) was that Google are caught between a rock and a hard place by obeying repressive laws in the countries where they do business, while in the US most telecoms and the government simply ignore the laws designed to protect people in order to be every bit as oppressive.

      Pot, meet Black Kettle.

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
  7. One big difference by quanticle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:One big difference by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nonsense. They have elections in China. And the one party similarities between China and the US are more extensive than they appear.

      --
      What?
  8. Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hypocrites by macbeth66 · · Score: 2


      What makes you think that the OP was from someone in the States or is an American? And, even if he is, what difference does that make? I am an American and complain about these practices ( oppression ) regardless of where they might occur. I just holler louder when it happens in a democracy ( US, India ) as opposed to a slave state ( China, Iran ) because it isn't *supposed* to happen.

    2. Re:Hypocrites by hansraj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think the USA is calling Google Evil. It is just a reporter who doesn't represent the official stand of the US. Also, even though the majority of Slashdotters might be from USA (I have no idea), it has a pretty international reader base.

      The whole world and everything under the sun does not revolve around the US. Stop talking about US all the freaking time!!

      I suppose the focus of the story should have been "Rights in India" as opposed to "Google is Evil". Anyway, no harm still focusing on India and leaving US out of something that doesn't involve it.

      PS: I am an Indian national.

    3. Re:Hypocrites by adpsimpson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You forgot to mention the torture metted out in Guatanamo Bay and prisons in Iraq (Abu Graib amongst others), kidnapping, rendition and transfer of prisoners for torture in Eastern Europe, North Africa or the Middle East. All of which can now also be applied to US citizens.

      It's not the contrast between the application of corrupt laws in India or China and the corruption of the law in the US that is the most shocking, it's the fact that both end in the same abuse and, frequently in the US and China's cases (I'm not up to spead on India), execution or death under torture.

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
    4. Re:Hypocrites by Locklear93 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quite a lot of us would very much like to get our houses in order, so to speak. However, individually, I am not able to alter United States government beyond the one vote I'm allotted (and any sort of letter writing to senators and the like, which I've been known to do). As a private citizen more than happy to draw attention to the insanity that's passing for legislation and law enforcement these days, I don't feel the slightest bit hypocritical in condemning other such abuses. Now, if congressmen who voted for the Patriot Act slammed Google over this, then I'd be handing you a megaphone to call them hypocrites.

    5. Re:Hypocrites by Dekortage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If American history is any indication, they will fail eventually even if it involves gunfire.

      On the other hand, we didn't have television during any of the internal battles over our nation and its states... we might all rather sit on our butts and vote for the next American Idol instead.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    6. Re:Hypocrites by hansraj · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hah! If real Indians lived in that continent you wouldn't have been able to even come close. All we would have needed to do was to add a few more spices to our favorite curry and gas you all invaders.

      PS: The British managed to stay that long in India because they very cleverly stole all our spices and exported them out of the country!

  9. Shivaji was a warrior not a saint. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  10. Worthless! by Dread_ed · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Worthless! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the punishment fits the crime, my guess is the picture is something like 2girls1cup...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  11. google better not do this at the Olympic Games to by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  12. India is to blame by esocid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:India is to blame by Barraketh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Democracy my ass.
      Actually, there is no inherent reason why a democratic society should be any more tolerant than a dictatorship. We (the U.S.) keep focusing on the democracy part, and bringing democracy to the world, when in fact what makes the U.S. special is the constitution that protects the right to free speech and equal treatment by law. Without a well drafted constitution, democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
  13. Is today crappy article day? by Eg0Death · · Score: 2

    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?
  14. Dont be evil by Brain-Fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Dont be evil by bryanp · · Score: 5, Funny

      .The motto is not "do no evil," it is "don't be evil.

      Apparently they need to change it to

      Do no evil*

      *void where prohibited by law or the financial interests of our stockholders

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    2. Re:Dont be evil by Artuir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, if you examine *anything* in the English language closely enough, you will find that all of it is basically an ill-defined hodgepodge of concepts. Anything when looked at too closely loses meaning, and you're just trying to find witches to hang I think. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

      They couldn't come right out and say, "we won't be dicks, promise" for their motto now could they? They've done a good job with things so far, I think, given how most companies turn out when they get to be Google's size.

      Besides, I don't exactly see Google trumpeting the damn thing. Maybe I'm missing something. It's just the slashdot crowd that keeps picking it up over and over again and repeating it like it's some kind of god-fearing mantra. Google, as best as I can tell, has it on two of their pages. How is that "trumpeting it loudly"..? Aren't you over-exaggerating? Again, maybe I missed something, but who really gives a crap?

    3. Re:Dont be evil by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's actually on more than two of their pages. It's in a few places on their investor relations pages and on some other pages that discuss their policies. But you're right in that they're not announcing it everywhere.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Dont be evil by joelwyland · · Score: 2, Informative

      The motto is not "do no evil," it is "don't be evil." I know it's a small distinction, but the motto actually is "Do good. Don't be evil." The idea isn't just a restriction, it gives the direction to actively benefit people and reinforces it with a restriction.
    5. Re:Dont be evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't exactly see Google trumpeting the damn thing. ... Google, as best as I can tell, has it on two of their pages. How is that "trumpeting it loudly"..? I worked at Google for several years. It is a BIG thing internally. Arguments and debates break out amongst engineers about certain features of software or actions of the company. The people in the company really do care about the idea of doing good and avoiding evil. The problem is that there is a big grey area and they acknowledge that in their debates. Censoring results for Google China was a HUGE debate within the company and they sincerely cared about the issue. They weren't just ignoring the evil of censorship, they eventually came to the decision that the Chinese users would still be able to access google.com to get their uncensored results if they were searching sensitive topics, but if they were just doing mundane searches having a locally served and maintained google.cn would provide those users with a better experience and better search. This way they could follow the laws of the local country, help those people get better information for a large percentage of searches and they would still be able to access the uncensored version of google.com like they had been able to all along. They do care about being good. They want to help people. They also want to make money. Yes, as time goes on, I think they are slipping and getting shady, but a large group of people in the company sincerely care about this aspect of the Google culture.
    6. Re:Dont be evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  15. asked? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny
    and asked to use the same bowl to eat and to use in the toilet.

    He was asked? Does that mean it was optional? I don't know about this guy, but I'd lean towards "No."

  16. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by neuromancer23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> 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.

  17. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I applaud their help in stopping crime


    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.

  18. Sloppy Definition? maybe... by Holi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the world can't agree on morality. The problem is that dictators (some of them democratically elected) don't believe in civil rights. The problem is that human beings abuse power (and even those who think that they never would tend to do so when given power.)

    2. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by wattrlz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dunno, I could think of a few people who I wouldn't have issue hearing were being beaten, jailed, etc. The difference here is that a man was put in that situation - by Google, who of all entities should know the consequences of their actions considering that their core competency is data mining and appropriate ad placement - over an image. Something the majority of google's product/customer base would take issue with and perhaps even consider, "evil". Most westerners (and probably other people too, but I can only speak about what I'm familliar with) believe that in a perfect world there would be nothing you could say that any of us would want you to be placed in an indian-fetish-dungeon over. Google, as an American company, should respect that.

    3. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did they have reason to believe that the man would have been treated this way? I don't know much about the conditions of jails in most other parts of the world. I suspect that jails in, say, Belgium are fairly clean and suspects' rights are generally respected. I believe that Egyptian jails are probably pretty dirty and it's dangerous to be a suspect. These are, however, based on very limited knowledge, and I have no idea of the conditions for a jail in India. It's even possible that the conditions vary significantly based on the region, with some clean and respectful and others slums that should be torn down and the local police drawn up on charges.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by omeomi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the problem is that India and China are huge countries. Google and Yahoo don't want to take a chance of being banned in a country of that size, so they do whatever the governments of these countries want.

    5. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by wattrlz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did they have reason to believe that the man would have been treated this way? I don't know much about the conditions of jails in most other parts of the world. I suspect that jails in, say, Belgium are fairly clean and suspects' rights are generally respected
      "...Alain Grignard, an OCSE prisons specialist who has evaluated Guantanamo on several occasions, including earlier this year, has concluded that Guantanamo's facilities and cultural sensitivity to Muslims is superior to that found in Belgian jails...."
      http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/clive_stafford_smith/2006/06/cultural_sensitivity_guantanam.html

      See? They should have Googled it.

    6. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by clampolo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did they have reason to believe that the man would have been treated this way?

      Who cares? Why are they giving out people's info ? "Don't be evil, unless there's ca$h in it."

    7. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by xSauronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      lets play a game and replace "country[ies]" with "market[s]" to get a better idea of how google views India and China

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    8. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by wurp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The act of concealing is an evil act, just like spreading misinformation is also an evil act.


      Say what? Concealing is *absolutely not* an evil act.

      For example: when someone with power over you is doing evil, and you act to stop them, and you try to conceal your identity and/or the ways you try to stop them, that is good, not evil. If you broadcast to everyone everything you do, then the people who are evil and powerful will walk all over you.

      Concealing may be evil, depending on the circumstances. Misinforming is more likely to be evil, but still depending on the circumstances.

      Evil actions are those that hurt people (or, to a lesser extent, other living things).
    9. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by joelwyland · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google, as an American company, should respect that. Google started in the US, but it is an international company. The majority of its traffic comes from outside the US. They want to be able to work in other countries and to do that you have to obey their laws. When you travel abroad, you have to obey the laws of your destination country, why should Google be any different?
    10. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the problem is that India and China are huge countries. Google and Yahoo don't want to take a chance of being banned in a country of that size, so they do whatever the governments of these countries want.
      That just begs the question. Do you believe civil rights and freedom would be promoted in India and China if Google and Yahoo were banned there? Need I point out that the government of China is working on a (government-controlled) search engine like Google and would like nothing more than for Google (and Yahoo and Wikipedia) to disappear from their neck of the Internet. This is pretty much the same issue that's been debated ever since Nixon normalized relations with China. Do you wait until a rogue country changes its political ideals to sufficiently match yours before you conduct business with them? Or do you partially compromise your ideals and conduct business with them in the hopes that it will accelerate those changes?

      Google and Yahoo may be trying to walk a fine line between offering the citizens of those countries access to information, while simultaneously trying to avoid getting banned. That is, this is probably not a case of there being a clear evil choice (turn over the IP address) and a not-evil choice (don't turn over the IP address). If refusing to give the IP address would've gotten them banned from providing service, then turning over the IP address may in fact have been the lesser of two evils.

    11. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Concealment itself is not evil. An intention behind concealment may be evil, but the act itself is not.

      Consider:

      Is placing a witness to mafia crimes in the Witness Protection Program to safeguard his life and the lives of his family an evil act by the government? By your definition, this conceals information from someone (the mafia), and therefore it is evil, despite the fact that their lives would be in danger otherwise.

      On a more mundane level, is concealing one's home phone number by declining to have it listed in the white pages evil? By your definition, it is, though it may allow someone to avoid easy contact from people he or she would prefer to avoid (perhaps an problematic ex).

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    12. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.


      Really? So, say I catch some kid trying to shoplift. Out of the goodness of my heart, I decide not to press charges, and instead just tell his parents. His parents take him home, beat him, lock him in his room for a week, and force him to endure all sorts of humiliating punishments. You're saying what I did was evil?
    13. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Concealing is a tool, just like violence.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    14. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by KoRnhornio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait wait wait... this man's GOVERNMENT is making him use the same dish to eat and shit, and GOOGLE is the bad guy?!?

    15. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if you knew they would react that way, but the analogy fails regardless. You have a perfectly legitimate right to stop people from shoplifting in your store, whereas this guy didn't do anything wrong.

    16. Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I certain would invalidate the entire western judicial system, though, because punishment or 'rehabilitation' both depend on the idea that it's legitimate to use force against someone in response to prior wrongful acts, when doing so would only add to the total amount of coercion in the world, rather than preemptively in anticipation of future acts.

      Hrm.

      I've had quite a few jobs in my life, some intellectual, some a bit less so. Three of them in particular taught me a lot about human nature and the relationship between power, benevolence, trust, and performance. The three jobs were:

      1. Security guard.
      2. Dog trainer.
      3. Military Instructor.

      In all three cases, the style of leadership or control could lead to vastly different outcomes:

      1. If you treat people (or dogs) in a purely benevolent manner, with no thought to their conduct, they will almost invariably turn on you. In a human workplace this means decreased productivity, inappropriate behaviour on the part of employees, and, surprisingly, plummeting morale.
      2. If you act like a fascist dictator, imposing punishment without ever rewarding good performance, you will inevitably create an environment where those whom you hold power over will be miserable, and have no desire to achieve anything. You will, in other words, get complete obedience, but no creativity or individual thought whatsoever.
      3. The best way to get good performance out of people (or dogs) is to reward good performance, and punish bad performance, but also to do so consistently, without fail. The worst thing you can do is be inconsistent. In the extreme cases, inconsistent punishments and rewards will result in those whom you hold power over acting like paranoid neurotics. It's especially heartbreaking to see this type of behaviour in dogs.

      One thing that really surprised me initially, though, is that humans and dogs generally respond identically when faced with these circumstances. It SHOULDN'T be surprising, since we are just another species of animal, but it did surprise me nonetheless.

      What I've learned from these experiences is that we as a species crave order - and to have order, we need some level of discipline and control. At some deep level we want to reckognized and rewarded for our accomplishments, and we need to see that those who act contrary to the good of the group are held accountable and suffer as a result of their actions. Our entire concept of justice is based on the idea that "good" actions result in prosperity, while "bad" actions result in destitution. The only difference between societies seems to be in how we define "good" and "bad".

      Every species on the planet exhibits systems of reward and punishment, so why should we be any different?

      By the way, if you want a more intellectual argument rather than one based on personal experience, do some research on "Games Theory". In particular, "The Prisoner's Dilemma" does an excellent job of explaining exactly why a consistent system of reward and punishment works better than any other system.

      Because other people's children are not their property or that of a 'village' to enforce (rather than advise) such standards on,

      But they are. If they weren't, we would grant the same rights to 2 year olds that we do to adults. Likewise, we would not have different ways of pursuing legal charges against minors and adults, and we would most certainly not hold parents accountable for the actions of their children.

      Clearly, children ARE the property of their parents - however, they are property over which society (partly through the government, partly through social interaction) also exercises some control. Children do not become free citizens until they reach the age of majority, and claim the same rights as the rest of society.

      and further the 'It Takes a Village' presumes universal agreement on how to raise one's children and thus tends

  19. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I applaud their help in stopping crime... Juicy tidbits from TFA:

    22-year-old IT professional Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid. His crime was writing in an orkut community named "I hate Sonia Gandhi." Sonia Gandhi is a prominent politician in India . . . he created a profile and then posted content in vulgar language about Sonia Gandhi in the community.

    . . . 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
  20. Google gave IP address. Police bungled it by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Looks like, Google provided the IP address of someone who posted derogatory images of Shivaji to the Indian authorities. They contacted the ISP and they fingered a wrong party. May be they fingered the current holder of that IP address instead of the user at the time of posting.

    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
  21. Profit-seeking animals by barocco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  22. I really can't tell if you're joking. by Fross · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. Saint Shivaji? by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  24. Re:India is slowly losing my respect by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah, you must be a Bush supporter. Democracy is great! As long as you vote my way.

  25. Even the Post Title by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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..."
    1. Re:Even the Post Title by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know... I thought they liked to be called Native Americans now.

    2. Re:Even the Post Title by laserbeak43 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      would you prefer the title be "American Man" or something like that before you take it seriously?

    3. Re:Even the Post Title by mweather · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, they actually hate that. They prefer their tribe's name.

    4. Re:Even the Post Title by laserbeak43 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what more detail do you need? the main is eating shit out of a bowl cause he posted a picture of a god online.

    5. Re:Even the Post Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what more detail do you need? the main is eating shit out of a bowl cause he posted a picture of a god online. ...and it's all thanks to Google!

    6. Re:Even the Post Title by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can't understand why Google helped them, it's not like it was a big deal. Just like all the bullshit because of those Mohammed pictures over here in scandinavia, I mean who gives a fuck? It's just an imaginary fictional character anyway. Personally I'd be willing to draw 50 Mohammeds or Shivajis eating their own shit for each complaint on them. (Or Jesus for all I care, or may I say it _YOUR MOM_ to whoever reads this :D)

      Who cares, it's just a picture, feel free to answer with imageshack links of your drawings of me.

    7. Re:Even the Post Title by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      who gives a fuck? It's just an imaginary fictional character anyway. Who? Those who convince others to obey them for fear of that character.

      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...

    8. Re:Even the Post Title by aliquis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I must add that after posting that a small bit further down in the same thread I found information that Shivaji wasn't an imaginary person but a real one living 1627-1680 and considered a hero in India according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivaji

      Just to get the facts straight. (And I'm willing to admit that Jesus as a person probably was real aswell, not as a son of god thought... And neither are god, regarding mohammed I don't know the story so I can't tell.) I just expected this Shivaji to be some sort of indian god.

      I can see how behaving bad against an oldtime hero of the country don't make you popular, thought getting beaten with sticks are a little to much of a punishment for it. Some religous people probably think behaving bad against a godess are even worse, they are just wrong ;)

      In any case I think it's ok to bash all official characters, and most private ones aswell ;D

    9. Re:Even the Post Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what do you call a Chinaman without being raked over the coals by the PC Police? You could try "him", "her", or even "person". What is the point in bringing up race or nationality (unless you are focusing on the fact that they are different from you)?

      And why are China men offended by "Chinaman" Intent.

      ...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?
    10. Re:Even the Post Title by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Could you title it "2 Gods, 1 Bowl"

    11. Re:Even the Post Title by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny
      "I know... I thought they liked to be called Native Americans now."

      No, the proper way to differentiate them is "dot" Indian or "feather" Indian.

      :-)

      I think that is the current 'PC' way....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Even the Post Title by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "It's the same reason why the term 'Nigger' is unacceptable even though it's just a mispronunciation of the Spanish word for Black: it's associated with horrible historic brutality that the vast majority of us (you excluded, apparently) acknowledge as wrong."

      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.........
    13. Re:Even the Post Title by Anonmyous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      I have to disagree. 'Black', I think is generally acceptable, but a white person saying 'nigger' isn't. If you're hearing it from them, I'm guessing you're in one of those Hillary-Clinton's-Last-Stand states like West Virginia where they don't usually do lynchings anymore, but darned if they'll vote for one.

      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.
    14. Re:Even the Post Title by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Informative

      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
  26. Re:India is slowly losing my respect by ZwJGR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  27. Beaten and imprisoned based on an IP address... by RandoX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why I refuse to be an exit node.

  28. Reason of Arrest by hansraj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Reason of Arrest by Weedlekin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Apparently "being obscene" is a crime in India"

      Being obscene is a crime in most places. The only differences are (1) what counts as obscenity, and (2) the penalties.

      "India has many laws that are rooted in the prude thinking that is pretty much common there"

      The same can be said for many countries when seen from the viewpoint of more liberal ones. Inhabitants of much of Europe for example regard the fact that women in the US can be arrested for going topless on public beaches as laws that are rooted in prudishness that appears to be extremely common there.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  29. He posted under his (almost) real name by vpaul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  30. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by Noexit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  31. Re:India is slowly losing my respect by hesiod · · Score: 3, Informative

    8/10: Good troll, but you need more froth around the mouth area.

  32. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Informative
    No - what he did was more akin to insulting Jesus or the Holly Sprite or Dog - still not illegal, but likely to upset a whole bunch more people than insulting an idiot, a power-crazed feminist, a genuinely sensible guy or a nice old geezer who's much maligned (there - equal opportunity again).

    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
  33. Re:Please... by iNaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've got a good idea, let's take out all the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, etc. that is in English too...

    Oh, wait a minute. I think it would just be easier to add 'lathi' to my vocabulary.

    --
    The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
  34. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  35. Here you go by hansraj · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

  36. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by Locutus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having said that, you're right - it's no place of Google's to assist in the application of unjust law. so businesses don't have to obey laws outside of the country they're from? Cool, I'm incorporating and gonna start stomping on all those MS OOXML idiots around the world who voted for it.

    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
  37. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by Main+Gauche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  38. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
  39. be specific by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  40. Figure it out, Sergey by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  41. the three stooges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "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?

  42. NO. by xant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  43. Why would somebody do this? by the+brown+guy · · Score: 3, Informative
    assuming that the Shivaji referenced in the article is the same one on Wikipedia, he seems like a nice guy.
    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 .[5]. He also visited Mouni Maharaj temple and Samadhi at Patgaon (Bhudargad Taluka near to Gargoti) in Kolhapur district. Shahaji had donated a huge piece of land to Shaha-Sharif Durga of Ahmednagar. Shivaji allowed his subjects freedom of religion and opposed forced conversion. The first thing Shivaji did after a conquest was to promulgate protection of mosques and Muslim tombs. One-third of his army was Muslim, as were many of his commanders: his most trusted general in all his campaigns was Haider Ali Kohari; Darya Sarang was chief of armoury; Ibrahim Khan and Daulat Khan were prominent in the navy; and Siddi Ibrahim was chief of artillery. Shivaji had respect for the Sufi tradition of Islam.[6] Shivaji used to pray at the mausoleum of the great Sufi Muslim saint Baba Sharifuddin. He also visited the abode of another great Sufi saint, Shaikh Yacub of the Konkan, and sought his blessings. He called Hazrat Baba of Ratnagiri bahut thorwale bhau, meaning "great elder brother". Kafi Khan, the Mughal historian and Bernier, a French traveler, spoke highly of his religious policy. He also brought back converts like Netaji Palkar & Bajaji in to Hinduism. He prohibited slavery in his kingdom. Shivaji applied a humane and liberal policy to the women of his state.[6] There are many instances in folklore, which describes Shivaji's respect for women, irrespective of their religion, nationality, or creed. Shivaji's sentiments of inclusivity and tolerance of other religions can be seen in an admonishing letter to Aurangzeb, in which he wrote: "Verily, Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. They are used by the true Divine Painter for blending the colours and filling in the outlines. If it is a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in remembrance of him. If it is a temple, the bells are rung in yearning for him alone."[6][7][8] The point of this long post is that I can't see why anybody would do this? Unless they were trying to increase tensions between hindus and muslims, because I am *assuming* that he is muslim. And as a Sikh from India, I think that the religious issues between Sikhs and Hindus/Muslims aren't as serious as they used to be.....This is just weird. If a Muslim wanted to piss off Hindus, it would make sense to have a controversial picture or w/e of a major hindu god or godess.
    --
    Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
  44. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by ewhenn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    Tastelss? Perhaps. Illegal? Not where I live.


    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.
  45. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.


    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.
  46. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  47. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're given the choice: "Shoot this dog, or we kill your entire family".

    What do you do?


    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.
  48. Is it that hard? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

  49. The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  50. Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin by quarterbuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  51. Easy fix for Google by ViperOrel · · Score: 2

    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.

  52. Re:Whole Lot of Nothing by alexborges · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No no no, do NOT get all international on what constitutes democratic values and the philosophy where they derive from.

    Sure, i too can get tolerant and accept that the Indian people have the right to institute in their laws things like hitting people for expressing their thoughts and then making people eat from the shithole.

    There is nothing we can or should do to stop the Indians from doing whatever the hell they feel like with their own laws.

    NOW, an AMERICAN company, HELPING a foreign government to do exactly what i depicted above, is NOT DOING A NICE THING.

    They are doing an EVIL thing if we judge them from occident we can say certaintly and ethically say, we SHOULD say: fuck google and the horse they rode on.

    Fucking assholes.

    --
    NO SIG
  53. Two clarifications by sijucm · · Score: 2, Informative
    Using the same bowl in toilet can mean that he used the same bowl to get water to wash himself. It doesn't necessarily mean that he used it in any other way.

    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.