Slashdot Mirror
Google Italy Execs Convicted Over YouTube Bullying Video
FTWinston writes "Three Italian Google executives have been convicted of privacy violations in Italy over the contents of a YouTube video showing a boy with Downs syndrome being bullied — despite the fact that the video was removed as soon as it was brought to their attention, and that Google assisted the authorities in locating those who posted it. Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online. Quite how they were meant to achieve this is another matter."
Google has responded by saying this is a Serious threat to the web.
Don't the Italians have an appeals process?
In the worst case, Google could go to the European Court of Justice since the European E-Commerce directive "says that "technical intermediaries" – web content hosts – are not liable for bad content but the creators or video posters are."
See this Euractiv article for more.
The video was NOT removed as soon as it was brought to Google's attention.
According to the prosecutors the video remained online for two months even though web users had already asked for it to be taken down.
It is also worth mentioning that Google execs will not serve jail time because in Italy sentences of less than three years are commuted for people without criminal records.
I dunno. The "immediately" part only applies if you start counting from the first letter-from-lawyer. If you count from when Google Italy actually received the first written complaint about the video, then it took more than 2 MONTHS before anything happened. (and there's no indication anything would've happened at all, if not for the lawyer-attention)
Obviously innocent? You must have watched a different trial. She and her boyfriend had wildly differing stories about what happened, repeatedly changed their stories and had some other issues explaining what they were doing the night of the murder. Not to mention that it is entirely possible for more than one person to participate in a murder.
Yes, there were some obvious issues in the trial (her dna is found on a knife from their apartment? Shocking!) and there are plenty of well-deserved jokes about the Italian legal system, but to go as far as saying they're obviously innocent.... that's a stretch.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
This is very typical of Italian "justice". You must understand that in Italy they feel sorry for the worst criminals and like to convict lesser ones. People over 35 might remember the Achille Lauro hijacking where an elderly Jewish American cruise ship passenger was killed by terrorists. The terrorists were going to get away on an Egyptian Airliner until President Reagan ordered US fighters to intercept the flight and force it to land in Italy. The Italians showed up with their elite armed police and at gunpoint demanded the right to try the hijackers. And in justice the Italian way, they ended up feeling sorry for all of them and made all of the ones they convicted eventually eligible for work release. And of course, one of them took advantage of this and fled and it was only due to the competence of Spanish authorities that he was recaptured.
You must be aware too that Italy probably has the strongest voice in all of the EU against the death penalty. So like many countries that don't have it, they tend to be pretty soft on true criminal behavior. They are not like the UK where you actually can get locked up for life. Remember a few years ago when some guys tried and failed to do more terrorist bombings in London? At least one of the culprits fled to Italy and demanded to be tried there. He knew that he'd get maybe 10 years at most and be set free if he faced what passes for Italian justice.
No, GP is right. The reason we have stupid laws is because we have stupid and/or corrupt politicians. The judge in this case isn't necessarily either stupid or corrupt - quite often an astute judge who recognises a stupid law will set up a trial case (preferably by finding against someone big enough to take care of themselves like Google) which they know will almost certainly go to appeal. Once it goes to appeal, any precedent set is more binding on the lower courts...
...Except that italy's judiciary (as the judiciary of most of the world, except the former british empire) does not operate under common law, but civil law. Under civil law, precedents do not matter, only the law (as written by the legislative branch) and its interpretation matter.