Slashdot Mirror
Google Privacy Counsel Facing Criminal Charges
ProfJonathan writes "According to a story in the IAPP's Privacy Advisor, Google's Paris-based global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, is facing criminal charges in Italy for defamation based upon a user's posting of a video to Google Video. Mr. Fleischer was on his way to the University of Milan for a speaking engagement when he was met by Italian law enforcement officials. As with the 1997 case of Compuserve's Felix Somm and the 2006 arrest in Texas of BetOnSportsUK's CEO during a layover on a trip to Costa Rica, this case once again highlights the risks faced by executives and employees of online companies whose activities may be legal and protected in their own countries, but illegal elsewhere in the world. Troubling, and worth watching."
No kidding.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Dear Polizia,
You're a bunch of idiots.
Thanks,
-The Internet
It sucks for those that get arrested, but eventually things will get to the point where people/companies avoid travel to countries with such restrictive laws. That in turn will cut down on business deals and partnerships, etc. The countries will pay for these laws economically.
(On a similar note, the US is probably going to suffer based on the increasing issues with travel in the "Post 911 World.")
Think Deeply.
So does this mean if I post an offensive comment in Italian that Slashdot's lawyers can't goto Italy anymore?
What we need is one world government, run by me of course, so that all laws are unified and global and do not respect exclusively-religious morals.
... to remove something like that.
I know this is my opinion on how hasty one ought be, but its not like Google was condoning the act or promoting the video. It seems that they were not immediately aware, and once made aware, moved quickly to make things right.
Whats the problem here? Do we all have a duty to right the wrongs of others in nanoseconds if those wrongs are somehow involved in our own publicly accessible properties? What about offensive graffiti? What about belligerent racism on a myspace comments section?
What if Italy has had a terrorist in its borders for more than 24 hours? Ought we hold them accountable for harboring terrorism due to lack of rapid response?
Che cazzo, Italia.
What other group of people use the technique of massively affecting innocent people's lives in order to fuel their (mostly unrelated) cause?
I record my sleeptalking
Since the Internet's reach is global, and the communications and transactions that take place on it are global, it only makes sense that a global legal jurisdiction needs to be set up to deal with such issues.
This law regime needs to trump national laws.
Its establishment would require negotiation of appropriate universal standards. It is interesting to speculate whether this would have to tend toward the least restricting and punitive law or the most. I suspect that "the least" or some average of the rules in powerful and sane and democratic states is the only thing that might work.
I'm only saying what makes sense. Not what is likely to happen any time soon.
Net architecture is politics.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
anyone?
First of all, this sort of prosecution is likely to be immensely counterproductive. What kind of businessperson would want to travel to Italy when they prosecute individuals for supervisory responsibility of departments that have made a diligent, good faith effort to comply with the local laws from 10,000 miles away?
In addition, the modern conception of legal jurisdiction is all screwed up. Traditionally, jurisdiction comes with the territory. Physical presence in the jurisdiction is required when an essential part of the crime is committed. That is why, for example, states cannot force companies who do not have a physical presence in their state to collect sales tax on online purchases for them. The idea that you can prosecute somebody for an ordinary crime when all the relevant actions occurred outside your physical jurisdiction is a very bad precedent.
So rather than arresting visiting Google executives, if Italy feels so strongly about this, why not just shut down Google's local operations (if any), or create a national firewall and filter Google at the border? Or require ISPs to filter their entries from local DNS servers? Or threaten to do so unless Google pays some civil fine?
Of course, I should be clear - the notion that Google can be prosecuted rightfully for this specific offense is ridiculous - carriers are never responsible for the content their infrastructure holds. My position, rather, is that of recommending that Google faces as many legal threats as possible, regardless of the context, in light of the behavior they've demonstrated in the past (inching slowly towards world domination? Google AI, anybody? Was I the only one who watched "Colossus?")
/. has been at that point for quite a while... where have you been?
Cut Italy off the Internet. Anyone going to miss them? Anyone?
I've been on freenet, where people can write things without them being suppressed.
What if I'm an anti-Chinese blogger that catches the ire of someone in the Chinese government... Worse, what if my words cause economic harm to China--bad for them but great for my blog... They put out an arrest warrant for me for "defaming"... Now, while I wouldn't fear extradition from the US over my freedom of speech, does this mean that I'm in danger of being extradited to China should I travel to a country that has a liberal extradition treaty with China? Sure sounds like it...
I agree with another poster--it's time for some basic "global laws." It's too bad the UN is too gridlocked and useless to prevent situations like these from happening...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
So you've been downloading CP huh?
Because the criticism has nothing to do with the topic; it was posted purely because of somebody's personal crusade against google. If the poster had actually pointed out something google did wrong in regards to the case we're discussing, it would probably be informative.
In a discussion about IBM patents, for instance, a post bitching about IBM selling equipment to Germany before WWII is a troll. A post bitching about IBM not creating significant new technological advances is on topic, and might be informative or insightful.
Obviously, said video was uploaded to preserve evidence against those disparaging the teen. Google is so mean, they took away the evidence that poor teen needed to prosecute his tormentors.
You can't download chunky peanut butter, but you can die to it!
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
That's how you get organizations like WIPO. Are you sure that's a good idea?
Yeah, you caught me. The only information which is suppressed in the entire world is child porn.
What actions? Some idiots uploaded a illegal video, the Italian Interior Minister sent Google a complain about it, and Google removed the video less than 24 hours after the complain. Well within the EU law.
Even someone is acting "badly" is the Italian prosecutor, which is clear trying to "fight" foreign/big companies for self/government publicity.
Dilbert RSS feed
... It's likely to be Sharia law.
At the moment the various factions of Islam apparently total to more than essentially any other coalition with a common/compatible idea of what "the law" should require and prohibit.
(Granted there are disagreements on details among the factions - some of them major. But there are also great swaths of common ground.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Domination? They have the most used search engine and video sharing websites, but nothing else. If you stop using them, how can they dominate you?
The Bildberg Group seems much more interesting as a "dominating" society than Google. At least they try to be somewhat secretive about their meetings.
Dilbert RSS feed
Well, first, the notion that Google should be accountable to laws demanding censorship is ridiculous. I can think of no instance in which somebody's access to information is inherently harmful, but I can think of dozens in which abridging that access is - when the government is capable of legislating censorship, for instance, you have a whole new host of problems, as information pertaining to government corruption can be suppressed. It is no different from the king being brothers with the man who owns the newspapers.
As for which of Google's actions are reprehensible, well, the actions reprehensible in this case are their continued folding to censorship. In a wider sense, though, their privacy policies are absolutely appalling, as if they're almost positioning themselves to be in complete, monopolistic control of the world's informational and technological infrastructure. Microsoft 2.0.
>Kudos to the Italian government for having the courage to try to tackle one of the most corrupt, terrifying organizations I've ever witnessed.
I'm so confused. I thought Google was God and that Obama was His Prophet?
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
I don't see what point you are trying to make here. Yes, corporations do whatever they can to make profits. They would be quickly destroyed by their competitors should they do anything else. Of course Google is also a pretty large corporation, so they also do things some may find to be pretty bad.
This however, is in no way tied to the article being discussed. What we have here is a country arresting a citizen of another country, because one of a few hundred thousand posts to a service that person is partially in charge of monitoring did not agree with the laws of that country. It should not mater whether the site was google.com, or foobarvideos.com. They could have a dead puppy division for all I care, and this article would still be just as relevant.
Should this progress much further, all it will do is piss off Google, and pissing off Google is not something you should be very anxious to do in this day and age.
The Bildberg Group
The who? I suppose that's part of the problem...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
You know, when the government is elected by public vote (like the Italian) those laws aren't "government censorship", their the "society censorship". People chose what is and isn't right to display publicly. You can be supportive of a full disclosure (including CP and etc), but most people isn't, and the majority rules.
If Google folds to democratic laws, their complying to the people wishes. If they fold to dictatorship laws, well, first their a company not a resistance organization. Second, I bet it's way more effective to soften than dictatorship to offer a semi-caped Google than no Google at all.
Dilbert RSS feed
"Should this progress much further, all it will do is piss off Google, and pissing off Google is not something you should be very anxious to do in this day and age."
Listen to yourself. They've already got you afraid of retribution by their hands.
Yes, the governmental actions in the case are stupid. Yes, Google didn't do anything wrong in the case being discussed. Does this mean that I disagree with the notion that Google should be held accountable to any law at all? Absolutely not. Even if I disagree with most applications of the law, and the one in question, Google has just about reached the bottom of the "people I think should be prosecuted for anything whatsoever so as to curtail their power and image of infallibility."
If I were Google, I would respond to this by immediately removing access to Google Video and Youtube from all Italian IP addresses, citing the trial. If I were Google and I was vindictive, I would also remove access to Google.com Google Maps (iPhone users are probably influential in Italy) and GMail.
It would be the over-reacting response to this over-reacting lawsuit which would cause a crisis far greater than necessary, but it would show the world how ridiculous the response would need to be to prevent such lawsuits. I mean - GMail - you can insult someone from there, right? Google.com - you can search insults from there, right?
So to be cautious, they'd just have to turn off those services while this lawsuit was pending.
I don't wear a tinfoil hat, but if I did it would be so much cooler to fear those guys :P
Dilbert RSS feed
Has Slashdot come to the point where individuals are no longer capable of expressing their opinions without their comments becoming 'invisible?'
Yes, long ago. This is where the moderation system breaks down - it is just too easy to flag a post as Troll when all it means is "I disagree".
The Bildberg group is currently fulfilling the "illuminati" niche in the conspiratorialist's ecosystem.
Just because various countries are sovereign states doesn't mean it's inappropriate to criticize them if they're run by hard-right authoritarians (or hard-left authoritarians, for that matter).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
A huge proportion of censorship of, for example, literary works, was done by elected governments---Ireland's government, which has been democratic since its independence, is pretty notorious for their treatment of James Joyce's works, for example. That doesn't make it not government censorship.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You know, when the government is elected by public vote (like the Italian) those laws aren't "government censorship", their the "society censorship". People chose what is and isn't right to display publicly. You can be supportive of a full disclosure (including CP and etc), but most people isn't, and the majority rules.
If Google folds to democratic laws, their complying to the people wishes. If they fold to dictatorship laws, well, first their a company not a resistance organization. Second, I bet it's way more effective to soften than dictatorship to offer a semi-caped Google than no Google at all.
they're.
All he needs is a marker. Visit the prosecutor. Write "Peter Fleischer is a poopie head" on his desk. File a counter suit over the defamatory content written on his desk.
If a group of leaders of industry and government are meeting together in secret for an extended period of time every year, you would be foolish to believe that they're doing so in your best interest. To disregard conspiracy theories as pseudoscientific or groundless conjecture is to ignore both the existence of conspiracies in all forms of government throughout history and the mounting pile of evidence that the United States government is corrupt and paving the way towards global domination. Let's not forget for a second that we hold all the nuclear weapons, the NSA wiretaps every internet transaction, and that we have been perpetually in war since World War Two.
It is not a valid way to discredit an argument, to call somebody a conspiracy theorist. It is, in fact, inherently an ad hominem fallacy. If you're going to discredit an argument, you point out either a misinterpretation of the evidence or a fallacy in the argument itself - and if you're going to try to cite the 'debunking' of conspiracy theories that so often occurs, well, as a rule of thumb, I've found most of those to be funded by government sources (or, worse yet, the Hearst empire) and supported by extraordinarily flimsy reasoning with little accordance to reality. Of course, that's just my experience...
The idea that you can prosecute somebody for an ordinary crime when all the relevant actions occurred outside your physical jurisdiction is a very bad precedent.
The video was uploaded inside Italy.
Therefore, not "all the relevant actions occurred outside [Italy's] physical jurisdiction"
Or did I miss something between the summary, the article, and your post?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Of course the USA is trying to extradite an individual from the UK who committed all his alleged crimes from UK territory. So far as I know McKinnon has never been to the USA.
With today's technology, why take such risks with meat-meetings?
Get online, and get with it, man.
It doesn't matter if the file was uploaded in Italy. Unless there is some proof of a criminal conspiracy between Google and the uploading individual, it is the latter that has presumably committed a crime within Italian jurisdiction.
These kinds of criminal prosecutions are a uniquely Italian phenomenon, and I'm not surprised at all. One case I remember off the top of my head was Frank Williams, *owner* of the Williams F1 team faced criminal charges in the death of Ayrton Senna at Imola.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article1055305.ece
I would probably point out that Italy is run by the head of a rival media company. It isn't that far a stretch when you understand that he's crooked as a hobo's teeth to think he might be behind it.
1) Kick up a fuss about Google Video and Youtube, using high profile arrests and cries of "save the children".
2) Use said fuss to justify banning Google Video and Youtube.
3) Local company comes out with Italian version of Google Video/Youtube that is safe for Italian homes and children.
4) Profit.
There isn't even any ??????.
Hmm. Kind of surprised that everyone is getting this wrong so far.
This is Berlusconi making a grab for the last piece of media he doesn't own in Italy: the Web.
Sources?
"law-enforcement officials in this case are overstepping their bounds"
This case reeks of political moves. Politicians so often have ulterior motives of say one thing but aiming to do another, but ultimately their ulterior motives are always directed towards one goal. They always seek ways to gain more power over others. When this case is looked at from that perspective, of finding ways to gain power and influence over others, (in this case, gaining influence over a global information gathering company) then the game they are playing becomes obvious.
All the "news" commented on here (in the GP post), about what videos Google has allowed are purely emotion generating news stories, designed to bias public opinion against Google and so gain the upper political hand in the general public perception (in their own country, as that is the power base for that government).
Milan public prosecutor Francesco Cajani and his government friends now have Google exactly where they want it. Now all they have to do is dictate the terms their government wants from Google. (Along the lines of give us this information and restrict access to that kind of information).
After all, Google wants to continue to (be allowed to) do business in Italy. Its all power moves.
According to IAPP article linked in the original post he was arrested on January 23, 2008. Does that mean he was waiting 1 year for a trial? That can't be true, right?
I am italian, and I live in Italy. And I personally know the president of the association who has opened the warrant against google, vividown (http://www.vividown.org/), and more than anyone else here I know the case, as I can read (I am not a vividown affilate though, but I am friend of some Down's people).
Vividown is an association that takes cares of people affected by Down's syndrome, for anything starting from medical care to relatives support and also legal counseling in various issues.
Vividown has sued Google for only one very basic reason: Google video (at the time, 2006, YouTube was not part of Google Inc) has retained the infamous video of childs that beats up a Down's for *two months*, even if Vividown and other people, mostly relatives of Down's child, has specifically requested to delete it from the Google database multiple times.
THIS IS THE ONLY REASON. That video was seen by tens of thousands people, thanks to the attention of local newspapers, like http://www.corriere.it. And for sure, many of those viewers laugh at that and they dream to beat up them too a Down's child. Many people was outraged of that, and vividown has taken the legal action for this reason. NO internet censorship or whatsoever.
You can read (in italian) the official word from vividown (sorry, in italian) here: http://www.vividown.org/news/Cominicato%20Stampa%20Vivi%20Down%20CI.pdf.
Also, no arrest were made. In Italy, thanks God, not all criminal charges results automatically in jail time. Not only that: even if the case will close in a negative way for Google, the interested people will *not* going to jail anyway, since the resulting (if any) jail time will fall below the minimum required for actual liberty restriction indictement.
And also, vividown do *not want* that Google people go to jail. This has to be understood clearly: IT IS NOT the association desire to censor Google or put a blanket on internet. Vividown want only to avoid that such abuse is repeated again, and that any people/organization has the needed attention to these issues.
In Italy, but I assume in many other places, Down's people is considered inferior, and openly discriminated. Please don't do in internet also!
Exactly because of misfortunes such as this, while being online and on my websites I prefer to the extend I can to unofficially follow the combined set of all laws of all jurisdictions worldwide where I am ever in my life likely to visit. Of course this is impossible, simply because not all laws are freely published online, I have no time to read them all, and most of them are in languages I cannot read. But when I know, for example, of a law that applies to a distant country I could think of visiting someday as a tourist, I try to follow it if possible while online.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We don't need the DMCA here in Italy. We've got anti defamation laws that can be applied more broadly and require less maintenance.
Never argue with an Italian bureaucrat. Chances are he'll find a law on his side.
Internet usage log books? Hell we have perfectly applicable and preprinted log books which were last revised in the early 1900s.
Do we know bureaucracy? Man we invented that shit.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
It is no different from the king being brothers with the man who owns the newspapers.
Strangely appropriate comment about Italy... You do know where Berlusconi comes from?
When did Google remove the video, and how soon was it after receiving the request? It's hard to figure out from your post.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
These kinds of criminal prosecutions are a uniquely Italian phenomenon
for sufficiently unique definitions of 'unique'.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Some idiots uploaded a offensive video
fixed that for you.
are Chinese inventions, not Italian.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
You want to remove the movie from the freeway race where they drive at 160mph.
But lots of people die at 150mph, so let's remove videos of the freeway race where they drive at 140mph.
But lots of people die at 100mph, so let's remove videos of the freeway race where they drive at 100mph.
Lots of people drive in the freeway at 100mph, so let's remove those videos, too.
But lots of people die at 55mph, so let's remove videos of people driving at 55mph.
But lots of people die at 35mph, so let's remove videos of people driving at 35mph.
But lots of people die in their sleep, so let's remove videos of people sleeping.
Lots of people die when they disagree with the government, so let's remove videos of people that disagree with the government.
In this regard, USofAns are right: freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and it's all or nothing. When you take out _one_ of the videos, you usually open the door for someone dictating the tone.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
when the government is elected by public vote (like the Italian) those laws aren't "government censorship", their the "society censorship"
No, that most certainly IS government censorship.
The government is sending armed enforcers.
If you decline to comply,
if you decline to comply with the desired censorship,
if you decline to comply with the desired arrest,
if you decline to comply with the desired imprisonment,
if you decline to comply,
then those gun-toting enforcers have government authority to shoot you dead.
If "society" (meaning "most people") dislike what you have to say then there are a variety of means of "social censorship" available. "Most people" can simply ignore you and your message, "most people" can decline to do business with out publishing or otherwise carrying your unwanted message, "most people" can can activle reject and avoid you and your message, "most people" can even try to actively suppress it by encouraging others towards one or more of those social responses.
For example holocaust denial is government-censored in Germany, and it is socially-censored in the US. In Germany the government will send armed men to enforce that censorship with lethal force. In the US the overwhelming majority of the population will ignore and actively avoid holocaust denialism, the overwhelming majority of publishing media will decline to carry your content, the overwhelming majority of stores and other outlets will decline to carry your content, and the overwhelming majority of the population actively encourage the rest of the population to participate in that "social censorship".
You clearly view "government censorship" as being a dirty word. And this is what i think I hear you saying:
'X' is bad.
I want to do 'X'.
When I do 'X' it's not really 'X'.
When I do 'X' it's not bad.
Government censorship is bad.
I want government censorship.
When I do government censorship it's not really government censorship.
When I do government censorship it's not bad.
Just because 51% of people dislike the same thing you dislike does not change the fact that using the government to censor it is government censorship.
and the majority rules
The majority of Americans once opposed interracial marriage, democratically passed laws against it, and even had it in some state constitutions. The fact that it was the majority of society didn't change the fact that it was discrimination, didn't make it right or good. It just means that most people are all too willing to abuse force and violence against anything or anyone they dislike. That most people are wannabe abusive dictators, and they are perfectly willing and able to join with other wannabe abusive dictators. It's called Tyranny of the Majority.
As an American one of the things I am most grateful for is that a couple of noble idealists thought a lot about Tyranny of the Majority, and those idealists wrote a couple of fateful words into our constitution, and now our courts are fairly good at striking down most democratic-majority-will laws for government censorship. Most.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
1) Identify rich company, ...
2) Interpret law in bizarre way,
3) Arrest Executive from (1),
4)
5) Profit.
Italy has Europe's highest fraud. Basically step (4) above consists of cash payoff: the magic word is "Nero".