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 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
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.
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.
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.
Google aren't the ones who posted the video -- they are just the conduit. If Italian authorities wish to take action against those who post videos without permission then let them pursue those who actually choose to post them instead of those who provide the platform.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
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. This is one of the most powerful ways in which the judiciary can use the legal system to highlight unjust laws, and I have respect for those judges who do because they take an incredible amount of flak from the man in the street who just sees a stupid decision.
That's not to say, of course, that the judge in this case wasn't just stupid and/or corrupt (there's definitely a non-zero chance of that), GP is just advocating that we perhaps, you know, get all the facts before decrying him. Generally the wording of the judge's decision will show his intent, if he speaks a lot about being bound by the letter of the law then he's doing this to get the law discussed and perhaps reconsidered. If he mainly talks about the culpability of the defendents then he's likely dumb or getting a brown envelope bonus in this month's salary.
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.
Are you sure Italy has case law?
bickerdyke
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.