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.
Thats a fucking witch hunt, what the heck else could google have done??
This seems to be a mistake by the particular court that tried the case. Don't the Italians have an appeals process? It's just silly.
We are beginning to see a confrontation between American long held beliefs in free speech and what other nations consider to be free speech.
We are seeing this happen with internet censorship in Australia, Europe, and Asia.
It is quite possible that in the near future the internet will look very different on a per country basis.
This is honestly the first time in my life that I am ashamed of my heritage. This is absolutely ridiculous and reeks of corruption and incompetence. I seriously hope that --for all of our sakes-- this gets overturned in the appeal. But seriously, when did "having evidence of a crime" make you guilty of a crime (So long as you didn't try to tamper or hide it)? Did I miss the memo?
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
From the article it says that Google was convicted of violating privacy law for not getting permission to post the video. The nature of the video is irrelevant. I don't know Italian privacy law, but if they do have requirements that you must get permission to post video recordings of people on the internet, then this is Google's problem for not bothering to care about the local laws.
The UK's former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said the case gave privacy laws a "bad name".
To which I entirely agree. Privacy laws have been used here in the UK (e.g., when the News Of The World posted a video showing Max Mosley in private acts), but the point is that firstly these are civil cases not criminal ones, and secondly, it requires intent, and does not make someone liable for merely "allowing" it, or running a server where users post content.
Even for something that clearly is and should be illegal, this ruling would be worrying - it's making server owners personally and criminally liable, rather than seeing them as common carriers.
But as mad as this is, in some sense this should be no different to say, if China decided to convict a Google exec for linking to pro-democracy pages, for example. Stupid, yes, but Google can and should ignore it. Those convicted do not live in Italy, so I don't see how they would have to comply if they don't visit (of course if they get extradited, then that will be mad). Google doesn't even have to pull out of Italy - they can surely just carry on, and it's up to Italy to try to block them.
The worrying thing though is that this is not some far off country, but a member of the EU.
"reeks of corruption and incompetence" This is, after all, Italy: the country that elected and then re-elected Berlusconi.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Yes. It also means the postmaster general is liable for trafficking in illegal drugs, assuming the person who pushed the kilo of cocaine through your letterbox affixed postage to it first.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online.
And should I get permission from the cop that I catch tasering someone for no reason before I post that video as well? That statement is ripe for abuse.
My wife and I had planned on visiting Italy in the next few years. After watching the trial, we changed our minds. Italy's legal system has ... "flaws."
You misunderstand. Those "flaws" are in fact "features" designed by the government, to support that government (or the media companies associated with it) whenever it needs them.
The president Silvio Berlusconi and his family own 45% of all media in the country (http://ketupa.net/berlusconi.htm). He regularly uses his political position to personally enrich himself and his family.
Google came into the country and threatened his source of income by offering a media platform not controlled by the Berlusconi's. This has nothing to do with the autistic boy in the video, but everything to do with the retarded president.
Or, at the very least, disable all uploading ability on YouTube or posting ability on Blogger or any other user-contributed Google sites from Italian users, citing this case and the unwillingness of Google to accept any more user submissions from Italian users until the case is resolved. I think that would be totally fair and completely within Google's rights.
Google could do that, but That's precisely what Berlusconi wants in the first place: complete control over all media in Italy. It would send more of a message to stop accepting advertisements by Italians, so Google can claim no Italian revenue and pay no Italian taxes.
Here in the UK this kind of story comes up quite frequently - people posting "happy slapping", i.e. abusive, bullying videos online, and the stories always centre around the technology and how sick it is people are sharing this content on their phones/posting it online, very rarely does it centre on how sick it is that we live in a society where this kind of bullying is commonplace. I quite often get the feeling the people in power would be much happier to just ban such videos and go back to ignoring the problem (the way the schools have been doing for at least the last 30 years - hey, if we don't see it, it's not happening).
Let's say that I copy a work that you made, and then say that I made it. Unless the people I release it to recognize that it's yours, how in the world are they supposed to know that it's not my content? And how in the world should they be liable for me claiming that it's my own? Not only is that a logistical nightmare (maybe even impossible), but it's also a childish thing to ask for. What it boils down to is that you (or your guardian in the case where you are not mentally disabled) are responsible for the protection of your own rights. If I constantly harass you (phone calls, emails, whatever so long as it's non-violent), it's up to you to get the police to do something about it. If I threaten to kill you, it's up to you to take measures to protect yourself (calling the cops, hiring a body guard, etc). Freedom is not free, and neither are your rights. You need to fight for them, and to think that someone else should be doing that for you is ignorance at best...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
It's unlikely most countries would adopt the same restrictions China has, but obviously when Europe starts impacting the internet, pants are rightfully bricked. (Not that the U.S. lawmakers haven't had their fair share of calls for net filtering and ISP responsibility in the name of children, privacy, and copyright.)
Just to imagine what the landscape could look like a few years from now, following is *paraphrased* from Google's hearing before congress in 2006.
Some governments impose restrictions that make our mission difficult to achieve, and this is what we have encountered in Italy. In such a situation, we have to add to the balance a third fundamental commitment:
(c) Be responsive to local conditions.
So with that framework in mind, we decided to try a different path, a path rooted in the very pragmatic calculation that we could provide more access to more information to more Italian citizens more reliably by offering a new service – Google.it – that, though subject to Italy's self-censorship requirements, would have some significant advantages. Above all, it would be faster and more reliable, and would provide more and better search results for all but a handful of politically sensitive subjects. We also developed several elements that distinguish our service in Italy, including:
* Disclosure to users -- We will give notification to Italian users whenever search results have been removed.
* Protection of user privacy -- We will not maintain on Italy soil any services, like email, that involve personal or confidential data. This means that we will not, for example, host Gmail or Blogger, our email and blogging tools, in Italy.
* Continued availability of Google.com -- We will not terminate the availability of our unfiltered Italian-language Google.com service.
Are you sure Italy has case law?
bickerdyke
even though web users had already asked for it to be taken down
Is there any indication that this asking involved something other than posting a comment to the video page? I wouldn't expect the site admins to read all the comments. Was the "report this" button used? If so, then there does appear to be something broken with takedown process. Copyright takedowns seems to be executed very quickly.
Maybe your parents could make some sort of claim since they technically created you, but if I take a picture of you hanging out somewhere (or getting beat up somewhere) and my photo becomes the next taking of Iwo Jima or sailor kissing nurse, I am free to sell prints of your likeness to art galleries and license it to news organizations and college dorm poster manufacturers for years to come.
Bottles.
You are privileging the hypothesis. Amanda Knox and her Boyfriend are obviously innocent. Rudy Guede is obviously the sole perpetrator.
Dunno, Italian judges are not exactly known for their pro-Berlusconi stance.
>This is political.
>I would wager that this is Berlusconi's way of trying to control the web, you
I think you don't know much about Italy.
Even the enemies of Berlusconi would tell you he is not controlling the judges. The majority of judges/prosecutors are leftist; judges/prosecutors cannot basically be removed or fired even if they do something really bad or don't show up for work; there's constant attrition between Berlusconi and judges so much so that the opposite of what you said is true: if a judge can do something against Berlusconi chances are that he will do it.
Only in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are VERY narrow under US Federal law.
For example, I could take picture of myself driving a car up the front of the Empire State building and sell those images. What I could not do is claim that the car company or Empire States building was endorsing me or my product.
I think anyone who's been watching Berlusconi's rise in political power, and the means he has employed to do so, and how he has used it to bouy his own media empire, would find it hard to believe he didn't have something to do with that clip appearing on youtube in the first place in order to spark the entire process.
Look around, its not even the first time HE has pulled something like this, its just now he's employing the tactic against the net rather than his industrial competitors.
The exact same arguments apply to any kind of online publishing forum that allow individuals to post content --- there is nothing "special" about video. Therefore, by the same logic, I suppose you also believe that online forums such as slashdot should be required to vet every single post a user makes before it goes online, in case it contains anything illegal etc. In fact, what you're saying is that there should not be such a thing as a public publishing forum. In fact, you're defending fascism - maybe unwittingly through stupitidy or maybe maliciously, but the effect is the same. People like you give me the creeps, what a horrible world we'd live in if you had your way in the legal system. This is precisely why Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".
I do think this is a shameful situation, but it's really not YouTube's fault any more than it's Slashdot's fault that people post up ASCII pictures of Goatse, or it would be Google's fault for finding pages full of racial hate or porn or whatever when you search using ambiguous words, etc. These are high traffic public sites and simply would not function with any need for pre-approval.
Sure, people might upload something to a webpage that you don't want to be there. But they could just as easily email it, IM it, print it out and send it out by snail mail or put it in a self published magazine or newspaper. People are going to be assholes no matter what you do, and punishing the 99.999% of users who aren't abusing services in such a manner because of occasional abuse of the service is IMO simply wrong. By even considering such draconian censorship, you're just letting the assholes win.
which is totally what she said