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.
Automatically notify the Italian government of every single public video uploaded to Youtube, and offer them a 5 minute delay before it becomes viewable inside Italy in which time they can reject it.
They'll be begging for it to stop after half an hour.
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.
So one person in their customer base posts an objectionable video, they are informed about that video and remove it immediately, they assist the local police in finding who posted the video, and you think their behavior is deserving of criminal charges?
Man, I hope for your sake you never run a phone company in Italy. Imagine being held criminally liable every time one of your customers calls in a bomb threat to someone. Or the post office. Imagine the postmaster general being arrested and tried for murder each time a bomb is successfully mailed in the country.
What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted? How is that respecting the rights of the individual? Not only is it impractically expensive, it would be violating the right to free speech that many countries allow.
If Italy has their togas in a twist over people posting videos to public sites, the Italian government should pay for banks of censors and filter videos themselves.
Giving individuals rights means that sometimes some individuals (like the assholes who posted the video referenced above) will abuse those rights. At which point you find those individuals and punish them.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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.
"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 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)
In Italy defamation is a beloved way to make people shut up. In two occasions I was threatened to be sued over defamation.
For the record, both times a car driver behaved like an arse and I told them they were 1) "un coglione" which is best translated as knobhead/dickhead/idiot and 2) "stronza" (bitch.) Both times the defamation threat came instantaneously. Knowing it would cost me US$ 100 tops, I actually enjoyed the frigging beggars -their motives were mostly financial IMHO- winding themselves up.
I suppose I actually deserved a bit of verbal thrashing and intimidation in those cases. But imagine much worthier goals being seriously hampered by this. You very quickly defame someone in Italy on the base that they actually deserve it.
We Italians sort of cherish elaborated, concocted, ridiculous laws. It makes us feel "save" in a way that if push comes to shove we will find some way to delay or attack the adversary.
Yes, I'm Italian and quite ambivalent about it. Don't think, however, that I would trade in my nationality that lightly. It's certainly not the best nationality to have but I haven't came across a better one so far. I trust most feel the same about their own nationality.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted?
Apparently that would not be enough. "Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online." So, Someone at Google has to watch every video, personally identify every person involved in the video, and get their consent, and then approve it.
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.
In your analogy, the account holder is the newspaper editor. Google is the delivery company that picks it up and trucks it off.
Put identity in the browser.
"Youtube.com is inaccessible from your country."
Error 1942 - Fascist exception overflow. Please disable Axis powers and reload the page.