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."

15 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But we already knew about the criminal charges

      So here's the story...

      1. Italy announces criminal charges against Google exec.
      2. Google exec goes to Italy.
      3. Google exec gets arrested.

      I'm not sure who is stupider, the Italian prosecutor for bringing this case, or the guy who went to a country where there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

    2. Re:Really? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful
      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    3. Re:Really? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure who is stupider, the Italian prosecutor for bringing this case, or the guy who went to a country where there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

      The latter.

      It's about time Americans realised that the rest of the world is comprised of sovereign states not subject to their jurisdiction. I consider this a bit of a trivial case, but there are much more extreme manifestations of this attitude, such as rendition and detention without charge.

      It's not an acceptable excuse to say "it's OK for us to do it because we're the Good Guys", because much of the world has good reason to doubt that.

    4. Re:Really? by rts008 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First off, I agree with you 100% about the 'American' attitude..

      Having said that, I am struck by this, FTFA:
      "It is believed to be the first criminal sanction ever pursued against a privacy professional for his company's actions.
      The video that sparked the investigation was captured in a Turin classroom. Four high school boys were recorded taunting a young man with Down syndrome, ultimately hitting the 17-year-old with a tissue box. One of the boys uploaded the footage to Google Video's Italian site on September 8, 2006.

      According to Google, more than 200,000 videos are uploaded to Google Video each day. Under EU legislation incorporated into Italian law in 2003, Internet service providers are not responsible for monitoring third-party content on their sites, but are required to remove content considered offensive if they receive a complaint about it. Between November 6 and 7, 2006, Google received two separate requests for the removal of the video-one from a user, and one from the Italian Interior Ministry, the authority responsible for investigating Internet-related crimes. Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving the requests.[*&*]

      Nonetheless, Milan public prosecutor Francesco Cajani decided that by allowing the 191-second clip onto its site, Google executives were in breach of Italian penal code. "

      *&* "Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving the requests." "Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving the requests." vv

      Peter Fleischer was on his way into the University of Milan for a speaking engagement January 23, 2008 [emphasis mine] when five law enforcement officials with summonses surrounded him. According to Fleischer, the officers had been waiting for him, but ultimately allowed him to deliver his talk before taking him to a deposition before the public prosecutor.

      Is it too hard to believe (without more info) that he 'believed*' that this was dealt with, or not an issue?

      [*yes, if you have a 'clue', you will check this shite out beforehand...but...]

      This just smells of vendetta to me; maybe I am uninformed and 'just don't know any better'...Is there more to this story than the info we being fed?(I have no clue..just asking)

      They allowed him to give his talk, but only after 'arresting' him. WTF?

      I think that more info is needed here. There seems to be a lot of pieces missing, and I noticed my 'knee-jerk' reactions getting the best of me here...Good Bye for now!

      *&* "Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving the requests."

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  2. Guessing how this is going to turn out... by ctaylor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Polizia,
    You're a bunch of idiots.

    Thanks,
    -The Internet

    1. Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Polizia were just following the orders of a local prosecutor who decided he's going to split hairs on Google's legal status. Apparently "Internet Service Providers" are not responsible for what third parties post on their sites, but "Internet Content Providers" are. While most believe Google qualifies as an ISP (instead of an ICP) under the EU and Italian safe harbor laws, this local prosecutor doesn't.

      Basically an asshole Italian prosecutor trying to pull off a high-profile publicity stunt to get him the name recognition to jump to a higher elected office. This is like Elliott Spitzer, the crusading Attorney General of New York who parlayed a number of high-profile prosecutions into a successful bid to become Governor... then pissed it all away, but that's another story.

      The prosecutor's an asshole, and if there is justice in the world, he'll end up disgraced and out of a job instead of benefitting from wasting everyone's time to aggrandize himself.

    2. Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... by barzok · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is like Elliott Spitzer, the crusading Attorney General of New York who parlayed a number of high-profile prosecutions into a successful bid to become Governor... then pissed it all away

      Right organ, wrong fluid.

  3. Your Corporate Travel Lawyer by olddotter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.")

  4. 48 hours is plenty hasty... by joocemann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.

  5. Modern conception of jurisdiction all screwed up by butlerm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  6. Re:Anyone got a link tot his video? by ChienAndalu · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want to know what the content is without watching the video, FTFA:

    The charges follow a two-year investigation by Italian authorities into footage uploaded onto Google Video that showed a disabled teen being disparaged by peers.

  7. Re:hmph by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:hmph by icebraining · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. How should Google respond? by Photo_Nut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.