Google Italy ruling 'threat to internet freedom'
We read:
"Three Google executives were convicted on Wednesday of violating privacy laws by allowing disturbing footage of a disabled Italian boy being bullied to be posted on the internet. The ruling was the first of its kind in history and was condemned by critics as "the biggest threat to internet freedom we have seen".
America's ambassador to Italy, David Throne, condemned the decision, sayingthat freedom of the internet was vital for democracy. "This founding principle of internet freedom is vital for democracies which recognise freedom of expression and is safeguarded by all who take this value to heart. ”In January Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressed clearly that freedom of the internet is a human right that is to be protected in free societies.
”In all countries it is important to keep a careful eye out for abuse, nevertheless offensive material should not become as excuse to violate this fundamental right.”
The trial centred on footage posted on Google Videos, of an autistic teenager and who was being bullied by four other boys, at a Turin school. The footage was posted in September 2006 and became the most viewed where it remained for two months before finally being removed....
The three executives found guilty by judge Oscar Magi were David Carl Drummond, former Google Italy and now senior vice president, George De Los Reyes, a retired financial executive and privacy director Peter Fleischer. The three were found guilty of violating privacy laws and given six month suspended sentences, while they were cleared of defamation. A fourth executive Arvind Desikan, an executive with Google video Europe was cleared....
The events in the footage took place shortly before Google bought YouTube in 2006 and all four men denied wrong doing. Lawyers for California based Google had argued they were not responsible for material uploaded onto the web and the sheer volume of material which would have to be previewed before being posted made it impossible to do so.
However Marco Pancini, a spokesman for Google Italy, said: "This verdict is an attack on the fundamental principles of liberty on which internet freedom is built. "We will be appealing against this verdict because the people in question had nothing to do with the uploading of the footage, they did not film it and they did not view it.
Source
19 comments:
Human nature being what it is, you obviously can not give some people the ability to put anything they like on places like YouTube, because the result will often be sickening, offensive, and disturbing to many.
While i do believe in a free internet, i also believe in filters, simply because not everyone is sane or rational, especially when they can remain anonymous.
This is a prime example of the vast differences between Socialist European nanny States principles and the 1st ammendment based American freedom of speech.
I believe in a free internet, but I do not believe in freedom of the press.
Or rather, I do not believe the press (and Google here has an attitude very similar to your typical press weenie) should be allowed to flount or even break the law as they see fit.
The content was illegal in Italy, and Google was challenged for that.
Were this China they'd have instantly removed it because they don't want to be seen as unfriendly to the Chinese government.
But Italy doesn't have a communist government so Google wants to put them in a bad light.
I think the issue here, or at least a big part of the discussion surrounding the case, was why they allowed the video to stay online for two months? Had it been RIAA asking them to take down the video it would have been removed immediately. Basically they fumbled the ball and got punished for it.
I think the issue here, or at least a big part of the discussion surrounding the case, was why they allowed the video to stay online for two months?
There are two reasons. First, the video was posted before Google owned YouTube and secondly, there is no way that YouTube can screen the number of videos that are put up on its site. It is simply physically impossible. There are 20 hours of video posted every minute on YouTube.
Had it been RIAA asking them to take down the video it would have been removed immediately.
We agree that it would have been removed within hours if a copyright holder had made a formal copyright claim against the video. (More on that in a moment.)
Just so we are clear, this was not a copyrighted video.
Basically they fumbled the ball and got punished for it.
I guess you mean that Google is successful and that is somehow "fumbling the ball." The fact of the matter is that the video was removed within two hours of being notified that the video was illegal under Italian law.
In short, you have a company that buys another company, gets notified that a video is "illegal" and the company responds by removing the video.
The bigger issue is "why is this video illegal in the first place?" Clearly it can be said to be offensive as no decent human being wants to see a kid with Down syndrome being teased. Why is the video illegal? The kids who did the teasing, the filming, and the posting got no jail time and no suspended sentences either. They got the equivalent of "community service." Yet the video itself was used as evidence. In other words, the very video that was "illegal" was used to prosecute the kids and without its posting, the kids would have gotten away with the behavior.
This was a money and power grab. The Italian judge wanted to show the corporation that he was in charge. A Down syndrome advocacy group was part of the prosecution and wanted money from Google for the incident.
"There are two reasons. First, the video was posted before Google owned YouTube and secondly, there is no way that YouTube can screen the number of videos that are put up on its site. It is simply physically impossible. There are 20 hours of video posted every minute on YouTube."
While i understand your point, it's no excuse. When you buy a company like YouTube, your corporate investigators have already told you of any possible liabilities. If you go ahead and buy that company, those libalities become your property.
And saying that the amount of videos posted there is far too great to be filtered in some way is also no excuse. They can surely do it if they wanted. Google made the decision not to filter simply because they didn't want to do anything that would endanger their bottom line. Now let them pay the price! I'll bet their major share-holder, Algore, is not too happy now, what with his world-wide climate scam coming unraveled, and now this.
"And saying that the amount of videos posted there is far too great to be filtered in some way is also no excuse. They can surely do it if they wanted."
How? It is impossible (with current or forseeable technology) to have a program filter a video for content. Period.
That means you must have human beings view the videos to make such judgments. If Anon 1:50's statistic is correct, that means there are an average of 1,200 minutes of video uploaded every minute of every day. This would mean that Google have to have a minimum of 3,600 employees per day doing absolutely nothing but viewing videos. These 3,600 people would have to include people to cover every spoken language, plus experts in international and local laws in every jurisdiction where YouTube can be accessed. Plus they could never take a break for bathrooms, food, etc. A more realistic number would probably be something like 4,800 to 6,000 people exercising perfect judgement every single time, just to cover current activity.
Do you really consider this reasonable?
Remember, not only did they remove the video within 2 hours of learning of its existence, they also helped the authorities track down the guys who made the video so they could be prosecuted.
So in summary, it's infeasible for YouTube to filter videos in advance. They do act very quickly when violating videos are discovered, including in this case. Furthermore, they were proactively helpful to the authorities.
I see nothing unreasonable about Google's/YouTube's actions here; only in the Italian Court's actions.
While i understand your point, it's no excuse. When you buy a company like YouTube, your corporate investigators have already told you of any possible liabilities. If you go ahead and buy that company, those libalities become your property.
In the civil arena you might be correct. But this was not a civil case. This was a criminal case. What you seem to be saying is that if the owner of a company kills someone, and you buy the company, you should be held for the same murder.
That doesn't work in any sense of the word.
And saying that the amount of videos posted there is far too great to be filtered in some way is also no excuse.
It is a mitigating factor.
They can surely do it if they wanted.
How? How would you suggest that they do it?
Google made the decision not to filter simply because they didn't want to do anything that would endanger their bottom line.
Google removed the video within two hours of being notified that it was not allowed by Italian law.
Now let them pay the price!
So you really think that hosting a non-copyrighted video is worthy of being convicted and going to jail?
If that is the case then that means if you were to make a disparaging remark about the child in the video or anyone here, you would be subject to the same law that was applied to the Google execs.
Is that what you really want? Is that what "free speech" means to you? Do you really believe that any speech that the government disagrees with is punishable by a jail sentence?
Here's an example of what happens when people are free to do whatever they like.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2010/02/26/2010-02-26_angie_jackson_livetweets_her_abortion_to_demystify_procedure_receives_death_thre.html
First of all, the amount of material really is no excuse. Usually there are limits to what you can do. You either abide or you go out of business. It's as simple as that. If filtering poisonous compounds from milk for example would prove to be too expensive for milk companies, they would stop selling milk. What they would not do is keep selling poisonous milk and say "we can do nothing about it, this is impossible for us".
Secondly, it really doesn't matter why the video was illegal. You have to respect the laws of whatever country you operate in or then you have to leave. You cannot sell child pornography in the US despite it possibly being legal somewhere else and you cannot - apparently - publish a bullying video in Italy despite it being legal in the States.
Third, if you as a manager fail to recognize the above facts you do fumble the ball. You mess up. You make a mistake. There's no way around this. If you are incapable of making adjustments based on your operating environment you're not a very good manager. And then you pay the price.
First of all, the amount of material really is no excuse.
It is a mitigating factor.
What they would not do is keep selling poisonous milk and say "we can do nothing about it, this is impossible for us".
This is a false analogy as YouTube is not making or processing the videos themselves.
A better analogy would be a small batch of poisonous milk comes into your local store and holding the store criminally liable even though they had nothing to do with the manufacture or processing of the milk.
As an extension, if you bought the milk, and served it to your family, it would not be right or correct to charge you with attempted murder.
Secondly, it really doesn't matter why the video was illegal.
Actually, in the context of this forum, the censoring of free speech does matter.
Third, if you as a manager fail to recognize the above facts you do fumble the ball.
Then you have fumbled the ball because your premises are false and not factual.
Youtube is in the publishing business. The fact that they are not producers doesn't change anything. There are limits to publishing as there are limits to dairy business. Either live by the rules or stop. Nowhere in this society is it OK to not follow the rules because it's too hard.
"Secondly, it really doesn't matter why the video was illegal.
Actually, in the context of this forum, the censoring of free speech does matter."
Well, yes of course, but then we're talking about two different things. I don't think that censorship of any kind is right. I do however think that a manager of a company should be aware of the business environment he's operating in. They broke the law and got sentenced for it. In this sense it doesn't really matter why the material was illegal. The moral question of whether it should be illegal or not doesn't change the fact that it was. Hence they fumbled.
Youtube is in the publishing business. The fact that they are not producers doesn't change anything.
They are no more in the "publishing business" than the owner of this blog. YouTube's revenue stream is from ads and contracts with publishers. It is not from publishing.
There are limits to publishing as there are limits to dairy business.
As previously stated, your analogy is faulty. No matter how many times you wish to try and change it, it is faulty.
Either live by the rules or stop. Nowhere in this society is it OK to not follow the rules because it's too hard.
You couldn't be more wrong. The validity of a rule or law is based, in part on the merit of concept of the rule and the ability to comply with the rule. There is always a balance between the two. Rules that are overly burdensome are often disregarded and rightfully so.
I do however think that a manager of a company should be aware of the business environment he's operating in.
On the other side of the coin, rules and laws need to be commonsense so that companies may follow them without fear of some bureaucrat targeting a business.
In this sense it doesn't really matter why the material was illegal.
Of course it matters. Are you really trying to say that because a government says something, that the people should just follow their lead like sheep?
The moral question of whether it should be illegal or not doesn't change the fact that it was.
The only problem with that thinking is that the laws of any country are based on morals of the citizenry. To deny the morals behind any law is to deny the rights and morals of the people that allow a particular government to exist.
Hence they fumbled.
They fumbled only if you believe that allowing a video to remain up on a site for two hours after being notified that it was illegal is wrong. They "fumbled" only if you believe that free speech is a criminal offense. They "fumbled" only if you believe that laws should never be questioned. They "fumbled" only if you believe that people should never question authority. They "fumbled" only if you believe that people and companies are sheep.
I will not buy into that definition of "fumble." It is a pity that you do.
I don't know how I could possibly make my stance any more clear to you. I suppose this is one of those agree-to-disagree moments. But I will try one more time.
1.) Regardless of the analogy, I stand behind the idea that one cannot choose which laws to follow. If one decides to go into business one needs to abide by the laws and regulations of said business. If one is unable to do so one needs to quit. Or at least not cry about it when one gets punished (=calculated risk).
"Rules that are overly burdensome are often disregarded and rightfully so."
And yet before they are disregarded they are to be followed.
2.) It is the job of a manager to manage. An important part of this job is to know what one is doing.
"On the other side of the coin, rules and laws need to be commonsense so that companies may follow them without fear of some bureaucrat targeting a business."
Were the laws and rules somehow unclear in this case?
3.) When one breaks the law one gets punished. From this point of view it doesn't matter why the law is what it is.
"Of course it matters. Are you really trying to say that because a government says something, that the people should just follow their lead like sheep?"
I'm saying that if you decide not to follow you get punished. I sometimes break the law myself but I don't expect not to be punished if I get caught. Elections are the right place to make a change if one is so inclined. This works in Italy also.
"The moral question of whether it should be illegal or not doesn't change the fact that it was.
"The only problem with that thinking is that the laws of any country are based on morals of the citizenry. To deny the morals behind any law is to deny the rights and morals of the people that allow a particular government to exist."
Like I said, it was illegal in Italy. Are you saying that Italian law is not based on the morals of the citizenry? Or are you saying that Americans operating in Italy should not be sentenced based on the morals of Italians but instead based on American citizenry's idea of right and wrong?
Maybe the problem here is not the morals of Italy but the morals of Google's American executives who didn't share Italian morals and were unable to understand that they were operating under a different set of rules. That there is no 1st amendment in Italy and that it is illegal to publish videos without the consent of everyone involved.
1.) Regardless of the analogy, I stand behind the idea that one cannot choose which laws to follow.
I understand that is your point. We have a disagreement on the purpose of what laws are designed to do. Laws must be fair and reasonable.
In this case, you seem to believe that just because the law allows someone to be jailed, they should be jailed. That is circular reasoning.
2.) It is the job of a manager to manage. An important part of this job is to know what one is doing.
It is the function of a government to govern within the will of the people. Do you really think that this was a fair punishment? Google removed the video within 2 hours of being notified. How is the threat of a jail sentence reasonable for that?
3.) When one breaks the law one gets punished. From this point of view it doesn't matter why the law is what it is.
Are you kidding me? Laws are challenged every day in this country and around the world. Your position that "the law is the law" is frightening.
Elections are the right place to make a change if one is so inclined. This works in Italy also.
So, in your opinion, the idea of judicial review is null and void? The idea of jury nullification is not valid?
Tell me Finn, would you have turned your mother and father in if they broke the law in communist countries? After all, the law required you to do so. So would you?
Or is there a higher, moral law that you would cling to?
Are you saying that Italian law is not based on the morals of the citizenry?
In this case and this law, yes. The Italians have been screaming about this type of censorship yet the politicians ignore the people.
Or are you saying that Americans operating in Italy should not be sentenced based on the morals of Italians but instead based on American citizenry's idea of right and wrong?
I am saying that a law must be just and proportionate. If not, then it loses its moral foundation. Do you really believe that a video that is up for a couple of hours is worth up to three years in jail? Do you think that a non-copyrighted video has more value than a copyrighted one?
Maybe the problem here is not the morals of Italy but the morals of Google's American executives who didn't share Italian morals and were unable to understand that they were operating under a different set of rules.
Or maybe this was a power ploy and a money grab for the Italian government.
That there is no 1st amendment in Italy and that it is illegal to publish videos without the consent of everyone involved.
No, but thank you for playing. The conviction was on the basis that the video showed one of the kids in the video being treated badly. It had nothing to do with consent from all parties.
You seem to think that just because a government makes a law, that means the law is just.
I believe it doesn't. That is our primary core disagreement.
Governments govern through the consent of the people. When governments lose the consent of the people (as in this case) the law is effectively void.
"In this case, you seem to believe that just because the law allows someone to be jailed, they should be jailed. That is circular reasoning."
No, I believe that when law demands someone to be punished they will be punished. My moral stance on the issue has nothing to do with the above.
"It is the function of a government to govern within the will of the people. Do you really think that this was a fair punishment?"
No I do not. Personally I would keep the Internet completely free. That includes child pornography, material linked to terrorism, violent gore etc. However, my personal feelings doesn't change the fact that when one breaks the law on will get punished for it.
And by the way, my idea of a fair punishment is probably very different from yours. I come from a very different society. Italy is also different.
"Are you kidding me? Laws are challenged every day in this country and around the world. Your position that "the law is the law" is frightening."
Challenge by all means but don't be surprised if you still get sentenced. The law is the law after all.
"So, in your opinion, the idea of judicial review is null and void? The idea of jury nullification is not valid? "
It is my understanding that the men were sentenced. Things would be different in case of a jury nullification. But it just so happens that after the fact it really doesn't matter why the material was illegal. It makes no difference. We have a proverb in Finland: there's no need to hold it once you've shat yourself.
"Tell me Finn, would you have turned your mother and father in if they broke the law in communist countries? After all, the law required you to do so. So would you?"
No but I would be breaking the law and expect punishment for it. It would be a calculated risk.
"No, but thank you for playing. The conviction was on the basis that the video showed one of the kids in the video being treated badly. It had nothing to do with consent from all parties."
You are incorrect. The defendants were found not guilty on defamation charges. They were sentenced because Google was seen as a content provider and was thus supposed to follow privacy laws which prohibit the use of private data for profits. The video would have been legal if everyone involved would have given their consent.
"You seem to think that just because a government makes a law, that means the law is just."
I do not believe this. I do believe however that even the unjust laws are laws. Breaking them has consequences and a business cannot base it's operations on breaking laws. That's why Internet companies operating in China follow Chinese laws or leave that market as Google did. Next we'll see whether they leave Italy or change their M.O.
"Governments govern through the consent of the people. When governments lose the consent of the people (as in this case) the law is effectively void."
I doubt people have taken the streets because of this. Italy is the most backwards country in Europe when it comes to Internet usage. Your average Turinite (?) probably hasn't even heard about this or doesn't care even if he has.
No, I believe that when law demands someone to be punished they will be punished. My moral stance on the issue has nothing to do with the above.
And when a law is unjust, I believe that no one should be punished.
Challenge by all means but don't be surprised if you still get sentenced. The law is the law after all.
I'm sorry, but such an attitude saddens me. It means that you would allow the government to do whatever it wanted without question.
But it just so happens that after the fact it really doesn't matter why the material was illegal.
Of course it matters. How can it not? The whole ridiculous case was built on what some government official deemed to be "illegal."
No but I would be breaking the law and expect punishment for it. It would be a calculated risk.
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."
You are incorrect. The defendants were found not guilty on defamation charges.
No, I am not incorrect. They were charged with the crime of hosting a defamatory video. If the video was not deemed illegal, there is no case.
They were sentenced because Google was seen as a content provider and was thus supposed to follow privacy laws which prohibit the use of private data for profits.
Of course this only proves the point that the judge and other parties were out to get Google. Google did not provide the content at all. Google had nothing to do with the content and reacted in an appropriate manner.
Secondly, the ruling is contrary to the EU laws for companies such as Google.
I doubt people have taken the streets because of this.
Someone has to take to the streets in order to show they disagree?
Italy is the most backwards country in Europe when it comes to Internet usage.
In part because of such laws as this.
You are correct that there is a different culture between us. I respect that there is a difference. I don't respect the idea that one would not stand up or challenge a law that clearly infringes upon basic human rights.
What I have not yet seen mentioned in the discussion is the concept of mens rhea - that a bad mind is required in addition to a bad act for there to be a crime. In this case, it looks like Google had no knowledge of the video violating Italy's law (therefore no mens rhea), and once notified, promptly took down the offending video, which is another indication of the lack of mens rhea. Perhaps there are places in Europe that do not require a criminal intent in order to prove a crime. And if so, it is possible that Italy is one of them, though I don't know.
For some reason Americans seem to have trouble understanding that not everyone has the same laws as they do. This is not an accusation or anything personal, just an observation I've made over the years.
"And when a law is unjust, I believe that no one should be punished."
How very hippie of you. While I agree with your statement I also realize that it is not realistic and the real world doesn't work like that.
"Of course it matters. How can it not? The whole ridiculous case was built on what some government official deemed to be "illegal.""
From moral standpoint we can have a discussion. Does it change the fact? No.
"No, I am not incorrect. They were charged with the crime of hosting a defamatory video. If the video was not deemed illegal, there is no case."
They were charged and found not guilty on defamation charges. Three of the four were also charged for violating privacy laws and for this they were found guilty. After the sentence it was clear that the video was indeed not illegal because of the bullying or the ridiculing of a handicapped youngster. It was illegal however because Italian privacy laws demand that in business use you have to have consent when using private material.
"Of course this only proves the point that the judge and other parties were out to get Google. Google did not provide the content at all. Google had nothing to do with the content and reacted in an appropriate manner.
Secondly, the ruling is contrary to the EU laws for companies such as Google."
It would be contrary to EU laws if Google was seen as a service provider. However the judge found that since Google handles user data and makes revenue doing so they are in fact content providers. Content providers have to follow privacy laws.
If you want to see this as a conspiracy you are free to do so.
Post a Comment