Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Italy convicts 3 Google execs in abuse video case

  1. #1
    Veteran
    standin's Avatar
    Member No
    24487
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    08-20-2016 @ 06:12 AM
    Location
    an apartment
    Posts
    2,274
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    920
    Thanked 144 Times in 92 Posts


    Blog Entries
    21
    Rep Power
    18

    Italy convicts 3 Google execs in abuse video case

    By COLLEEN BARRY, Associated Press Writer Colleen Barry, Associated Press Writer – Wed Feb 24, 6:31 pm ET

    MILAN – It seems that when it comes to letting the Web be the Web, it could be the United States against the world.

    An Italian judge on Wednesday held three Google executives criminally responsible for an online video of an autistic teenager being bullied — a verdict that raises concerns that the Internet giant, and others like it, may be forced to police their content in Italy, and even beyond.

    The reaction to the verdict in the United States was swift and nearly unanimous in its condemnation of a dangerous precedent experts said threatens the principle of a free and open Internet.

    However, Milan Prosecutor Alfredo Robledo reflected a European concern with privacy when he expressed satisfaction with a decision he said protected a fundamental right, putting the interests of an individual before those of a business.
    "This is the big principal affirmed by this verdict," Robledo said. "It is fundamental, because a person's identity is a primary good. If we give that up, anything can happen and that is not OK."

    The charges stemmed from a complaint by Vivi Down, an advocacy group for people with Down syndrome that was named in the 2006 video posted on Google Video, a video-sharing service Google ran before acquiring YouTube later that year.

    The footage showed an autistic student in Turin being pushed, pummeled with objects, including a pack of tissues, and insulted by classmates, who called him a "mongoloid."

    The prosecutor's case emphasized that the video had been viewed 5,500 times over the two months it was online, when it climbed to the top of Google Italy's "most entertaining" video list and had more than 80 comments, including users urging its removal.
    Google argued that it was unaware of the offensive material (bullshit) and acted swiftly to remove it after being notified by authorities, taking the video down within two hours.

    Those convicted of violating Italy's privacy laws were Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer, its senior vice president and chief legal officer David Drummond and retired chief financial officer George Reyes. They were given six-month suspended sentences.

    They were absolved of defamation charges, along with a fourth defendant, London-based senior product marketing manager Arvind Desikan, who was charged only with defamation. All were charged in absentia and denied wrongdoing.

    Google called the decision "astonishing," saying it "attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built."

    While there is no debate that the executives had no role in creating or uploading the video, they were held liable under Italian law as officers of the company. Wow, the mob has a better grasp of ethics than the US

    "The judge has decided I'm primarily responsible for the actions of some teenagers who uploaded a reprehensible video to Google video," said Fleischer, who is based in Paris.

    "If company employees like me can be held criminally liable for any video on a hosting platform when they had absolutely nothing to do with the video in question, then our liability is unlimited," he said in a statement. good ya then
    Drummond said he was "outraged" that he was found criminally responsible for the video, noting that both European Union and Italian law recognized that Internet service providers like Google are not required to monitor content that they host.

    "This verdict sets a dangerous precedent," Drummond said in a statement from Google's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters. It also "imperils the powerful tool that an open and free Internet has become for social advocacy and change."

    In the United States, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally gives online service providers immunity in cases like this, but no such protections exist in Europe.

    Google and other hosting platforms generally rely on other users flagging objectionable content. (bullshit) They say the monumental effort it would take to prescreen the 20 hours of video that are posted every minute to YouTube alone makes such controls unthinkable.

    In the privacy vs. freedom of expression debate, Europe's championing of privacy has merit, said Carlo Alberto Carnevale Maffe, an Internet economist at Milan's Bocconi University. But he said Europe falls short by "not providing a clear, transparent legal environment."

    "Europe is too ideological. This is why we are not the place where Yahoo and Google were born," Maffe said. "Google has been developed with an American mindset, much more entrepenuer-friendly."

    Google spokesman Bill Echikson made clear the Internet giant has no intention of pulling out of Italy, as it has threatened to do in China over censorship concerns, noting that Italy "is a democratic society." rolleyes
    Privacy experts warned the Italian decision could embolden authoritarian regimes.

    "We are concerned that non-democratic countries will point to it as a precedent for holding companies responsible for hosting content. This could have a chilling effect on free speech," said Ari Schwartz, chief operating officer of the Center for Democracy & Technology in Washington D.C.

    The U.S. Embassy in Rome also expressed disappointment in the verdict.

    "While we recognize the reprehensible nature of the material, we disagree that Internet service providers are responsible prior to posting for the content uploaded by users," it said in a statement. "The fundamental principle of Internet freedom is vital for democracies which value freedom of expression and is protected by those who value liberty."

    Google argued that it removed the video two hours after it received notification from police, which it says is in line with a EU directive that requires it to respond to authorities' requests.

    However, prosecutors also suggested during the trial that the company's policy of having users flag material fell short. It is unclear if that argument had sway with Judge Oscar Magi, who will issue his written ruling later.

    Eddan Katz, international affairs director of San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, argued that the incident itself might have gone unreported if not for the video. That supposition was supported by a statement made to authorities by the autistic teen's father, who expressed anguish at seeing on the video how his son had suffered but hadn't had the courage to tell his family.

    Thanks to the footage and Google's cooperation, the four bullies were identified and sentenced by a juvenile court to community service.

    Exposing wrongdoing and abuse, Katz said, is a strong argument against placing limits on the Web.

    "The implication would be that those videos exposing wrongdoing on the part of government, corruption, or organized crime would not be aired. How do we differentiate between the positive exposure of that kind of information, and the negative?"


    Italy convicts 3 Google execs in abuse video case - Yahoo! News
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  2. #2
    Veteran
    standin's Avatar
    Member No
    24487
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    08-20-2016 @ 06:12 AM
    Location
    an apartment
    Posts
    2,274
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    920
    Thanked 144 Times in 92 Posts


    Blog Entries
    21
    Rep Power
    18
    Once the video was flagged, Google should have pulled it for due to criminal content and handed over to the police with the information to prosecute.

    Does Google's TOS condone criminal activity?

    When people commit crimes in public, they have no expectation of privacy.

    If crime is committed at your place of business, the business should be responsible for reporting it or face liability. Google should pay for their own security and investigative division and should not expect governments to do the in house security work free. You absolutely cannot expect to have that large of a gathering of people and not have significant security divisions. In addition, at the numbers Google needs to have in security divisions, they would require a division that investigated their security division.

    It is just a shame, how little they give a flip.
    Last edited by standin; 02-25-2010 at 10:13 AM.

  3. #3
    Kill A Commie For Mommy
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Kristy's Avatar
    Member No
    7609
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:47 PM
    Location
    Denver, Colo
    Posts
    16,323
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked 2,752 Times in 2,062 Posts


    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by standin View Post
    [COLOR="Silver"]

    Google called the decision "astonishing," saying it "attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built."

    Drummond said he was "outraged" that he was found criminally responsible for the video, noting that both European Union and Italian law recognized that Internet service providers like Google are not required to monitor content that they host.

    "We are concerned that non-democratic countries will point to it as a precedent for holding companies responsible for hosting content. This could have a chilling effect on free speech," said Ari Schwartz, chief operating officer of the Center for Democracy & Technology in Washington D.C.
    How ironic since Google itself is the biggest bully on the internet. Just exactly what is this bullshit from Big Brother? Google doesn't give a shit about "principles of freedom of which the internet was built" for if they did, they'd have no problem showing hardcore porn or animal mutilation on their shitty youtube with nothing more than a disclaimer. If you're going to host a internet site - any internet site - you are responsible for the content that appears on it as well whether it be criminal or not. Don't hide behind a facade and call it "censorship" when Google is pulling content from sites everyday they host - especially bloggers who post Mp3 downloads.

    As for the "non-democratic counties" I found it odd that a tool for the "Center for Democracy & Technology" (heh, there is a "Center" for anything these days) would be so concerned. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior no matter where it's sourced and while the hosting site my not be directly responsible for the crime itself they should be held liable if they were aware of the illegal act and failed to do anything about it.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  4. #4
    Veteran
    standin's Avatar
    Member No
    24487
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    08-20-2016 @ 06:12 AM
    Location
    an apartment
    Posts
    2,274
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    920
    Thanked 144 Times in 92 Posts


    Blog Entries
    21
    Rep Power
    18

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anger at Italy school crucifix case
    By Golden AWe in forum Max's Non VH/DLR Related Stuff
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-05-2009, 12:53 PM
  2. FBI: Man arrested in ESPN reporter nude video case
    By standin in forum ALinChainz' Locker Room - Sports Central
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 04:43 AM
  3. Sen. Grassley demands answers on ethanol from oil execs
    By Hardrock69 in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2007, 10:25 AM
  4. Documents tie shadowy US unit to inmate abuse case
    By Nickdfresh in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-13-2006, 08:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •