Google Convicted In Italy

by 69 replies
79
Whatever you think of Google you have to wonder at the ramifications for anyone who allows other people to post content on their site if this doesn't get overturned on appeal.

BBC News - Google bosses convicted in Italy
#main internet marketing discussion forum #convicted #google #italy
  • They will pull out of Italy and France where the same kind of repression is going on. More and more democratic governments are starting to filter and police the net, not just Korea and China.
    Then when you start making the host liable in addition to the end user... it just doesn't make business sense to try and watch the 20 hours of video going up on youtube in one minute from Italy alone!
    The manpower necessary to hire, and train to catch any content that poses a contingent liability is just too high a price to pay in relation to the return.
    • [1] reply
    • You forgot about here in Australia as well, the first western country to implement a mandatory clean feed.

      Chris
      • [1] reply
  • This is a difficult one. I am very opposed to policing the internet but some things have to be controlled. I have no idea how you can control something like this without everything becoming paid membership or making the wrong person accountable, but posting videos like that just isn't on. Blaming Google executives obviously isn't the right answer but something has to be done. If the BBC allowed that on their channel then the CEO or some employee would be accountable. I remain on the fence without knowing more about it.
  • Banned
    Well Craigslist was held responsible for allowing hookers to peddle their wares openly (and at least one of them got murdered). Websites are responsible for what they post and allow to be posted. Don't autistic children have a right to privacy? Doesn't anyone have a right to privacy. Google doesn't think so. I do.
    • [2] replies
    • Of course people have a right to privacy but it's just unrealistic to expect Google to be reviewing every video before posting.

      The ones who posted it are the ones who violated the boy's privacy so if there is a crime there, prosecute them.

      Tina
      • [ 3 ] Thanks
    • Ok, how about hookers in Nevada, where prostitution is legal? Shouldn't they have a right to post their legal business on Craigslist?

      Also, here in the US, anyone who steps foot out their front door loses all expectations of privacy (this is a Supreme Court ruling). Going by that, I'd say it's ok (though highly tasteless) to post the vid of the kid getting bullied. Much different than Italy.

      Problem with everything you're saying, is laws are different everywhere. What's good and legal in one country is restricted in another. And laws change quite often.

      How can you expect Google to keep up with that? And if Google can't do it, what chance does the little guys like you and me have or running afoul of some law somewhere?

      You open up a whole can of worms when you start talking like that.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Lol the best quote ever... "It is like prosecuting the post office for hate mail that is sent in the post,". Sorry but lol . Why would they even do this...
    • [1] reply
  • This is ridiculous.

    There is absolutely no way for Google to screen everything before its posted. I believe its sufficient enough to have removed the video as soon as it was reported. If they want to talk about privacy, how about the fact that they had Google hand over personal information of the uploaders?

    They might as well start going after facebook users. With the amount of pictures being uploaded, there are bound to be hundred of thousands of photos of people who never consented to having their pictures uploaded.
    • [1] reply
    • This is a bit reminiscent of the "too big to fail" argument. This is the "too big to be responsible for content" argument. For now, it works but whether it should work is questionable to me. So far, removing such content has been sufficient but that could change.

      If you provide a public platform where "anything goes" - eventually you may be responsible for what goes on there. In the US, google would be excused as "too big to do anything about it". May not be true in other countries.

      Will be interesting to see how the appeal goes for this one.

      kay
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • If you don't follow the laws that are outlined in each country, then the gov can do what they think is OK to do in order to re-enforce the laws.

    I don't see anything wrong here.

    Tal
  • If someone were to carry a portable DVD player down the street showing this same video to the cars passing by, would that mean that the city is now responsible for the privacy violation because they provided access to the sidewalk that this person was walking down while violating privacy. NO!!! Everyone would say that's ridiculous.

    Google is no different than the "city" in this case. They have simply provided access to the "sidewalk" that someone else used to violate another's privacy. That should not make Google liable. The person that should be prosecuted is the person that posted the video in the first place.
    • [1] reply
    • Excellent analogy. Google is not and should not be held responsible in this instance. And, as the other poster stated, I do not favor the control that governments, including the current one here in the US, is attempting to place on the internet.
  • [DELETED]
  • Banned
    Well Google will find it getting itself into more and more heat due to privacy issues and I'm glad to see it.

    You blame the "facist" Italians ... I blame a company that thinks that they have a right to do just about anything they want to do without consequences.

    Google's Buzz Draws Privacy Lawsuit | Avvo News

    Google Buzz lawsuit and privacy problems persist

    Google facing lawsuit over Buzz privacy in federal court
    • [2] replies
    • I don't see any analogy - google is a for-profit business. The provide a platform in order to capture market share of viewers and to eventually profit in one way or another.

      There's no reason to "choose" sides - as the court cases on this will play out by law. Facebook and Youtube both have avoided being caught in legal webs so far by cooperating fully with authorities in investigations - but in the future, that might not be enough to protect them.

      The "anything goes" behavior is what will lead eventually to restrictions online - at some point lines will be drawn and it will be interesting to see where the chips fall.

      kay
      • [1] reply
    • I'm not a big fan of Google's cavalier attitude toward individual privacy.

      However, I'm even more strongly opposed to government control and censorship over the Internet. I'm even more opposed when the said government conducts 'trials' on these issues behind closed doors. If the affected individual or their family was suing Google for damages in an open court room that respects the rule of law, maybe I'd be for that, but the government prosecuting them? No, I don't think so. I'll let Mr. Leary express my opinion about that...

      YouTube - Leary's Rant
    • [DELETED]
  • These governments don't want the small fish i.e. the people committing the crimes... they want the people facilitating the crimes like Google.

    It is not a matter of what will solve the problem... it is matter of who will pay for solving the problem. They can stop it outright by going after the facilitators that provide the means for publishing this content... or they themselves can foot the bill by going after each and every small fish that breaks laws like these.

    Google may very well be peaking... Privacy issues will be for Google, what monopoly issues was for Microsoft.
    • [1] reply
    • Strange you say that as I was thinking of that monopoly issue myself.
  • I can agree with those who think this is outrageous but let's put a different hypothetical (or not so) spin on it.

    Over the next two years, thousands of videos similar to the one in question get uploaded to youtube from colleges, internet cafes, via proxies etc, completely untraceable, impossible to catch the person responsible.

    What is YOUR solution? If you can't come up with one then you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

    I don't want anything policed but without coming up with an answer to this question, like I said earlier, I remain on the fence.

    Lee
    • [2] replies
    • I think this is all the tip of the iceberg - privacy and control issues involving the
      internet.

      You mentioned proxies. My prediction is that when proxies sufficiently frustrate
      some gov't or police entity, then things related to proxies will be targeted. The
      various services related to providing proxies will get a bead drawn on them. It
      makes sense because they provide a cover. So of course the expected response
      from gov't/police will be to remove all obstacles to complete privacy.

      Not all who use proxies do so because they're engaging in illicit activities. People
      also use them because they desire privacy, and there's nothing wrong with that.

      I've seen comments from people stating they have nothing to hide. Comments
      supporting essentially complete lack of privacy if they contribute to a good that
      is 'usually' defined by gov't/media/politicians, etc.

      That is a dangerous and naive stance, in my opinion. Gov't/media/politicians are
      not the best choices for deciding what is good for me, or even society. They do
      not have your best interest in mind. But again, that's my learned opinion.

      I'm the first, maybe, to criticize and generally express displeasure with Google's
      apparent attitude toward their place in the world. What has happened in Italy
      may become a precedent and benchmark for future actions.

      It's gonna get interesting.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
    • Banned
      So then, if we can't come up with a solution, or catch the person responsible, by default we should prosecute the "evil" corporation just for the sake of doing something?

      Man, I'd hate to live in your world. God forbid my neighbor gets robbed, and they can't find who did it.
      • [2] replies
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
    • [3] replies
    • That's a solution, but then everybody will start moaning that they have to pay for it.
      • [1] reply
    • I do agree videos posted in the youtube much indeed be reviewed first before publishing but that what makes google and youtube popular controversial videos posted in youtube always create an uproar in our country
    • How on Earth would that be possible??

      and, sbucciarel, I think the Google Buzz privacy issue is entirely different from the issues in the Italian situation. Buzz is Google's product, and they are explicitly taking action, whether you agree or disagree with that action.

      Trying to police other people's actions is another kettle of fish.

      I think Google's responsibility should end with providing good filters (an area where I don't think they've put enough emphasis) and cooperating with law enforcement when there is an issue. To do otherwise reminds me of "Minority Report," where precogs were able to view murders that had yet to be committed, and "criminals" were arrested prophylactically.

      Invading privacy and exposing kids to porn are bad, but the alternative can be worse.
      • [1] reply
  • Before suing google or any other content network ask first how many people cops can handle in real life that people expect content network to monitor humans to check each video. really no-brainer here to understand that number of videos uploaded and viewed are beyond reach of human monitoring.
  • The privacy issues for those who lament Google's use
    of info PROVIDED BY USERS is a non-starter for me.

    The issue is one of reasonable expectations. NOBODY
    can claim to have a reasonable expectation of privacy
    for anything they voluntarily provide on the internet.

    So... it all comes down to contractual obligations.
    Read the TOS... most sites, Google included, lay out
    pretty clearly what they will, and will not, do with the
    info provided.

    If you don't want Google to use your info don't give
    it to them. If you don't want Google mining your info
    from other sources, don't post it.

    Seems pretty simple to me.

    As for the case cited in the OP... it's a joke. I doubt any
    such result could be obtained in a U.S court.

    Tsnyder
    • [2] replies
    • Banned
      That's pretty absurd. I regularly provide my credit card info, my name, address and phone number to purchase items and I expect that to remain private even though I provided it.

      All of the people that signed on for gmail, expected that if Google were to make a change ... like having contacts auto-follow you and all your conversations in Buzz becoming public to all of your contacts, that they would ask us if we would allow this.

      That is why there are privacy terms for every site and privacy laws to protect people's privacy. People do have a right to privacy and websites do have responsibility for the content they provide and Google has it's greedy little paws full of lawsuits right now and I say ... bring them on. Keep them coming. Show Google that it would have been better to stick to their original core principles of "Do No Evil".
      • [1] reply
    • But is this case, the autistic kid didnt give his concent. His privacy was violated. You could even argue that Google profited from him being abused.

      I dont have an answer but know that at some point site owners and even hosts should be held liable for user generated content. I just dont know at what point.

      Perphaps Google should do more than just remove content.
      • [2] replies
  • Banned
    I'm browsing Google Hot Trends right now and noticed here is a hot search term

    shamu kills trainer 2010 video

    Is it reasonable to expect to actually find a Youtube video of the actual death of this trainer?

    How about a few good snuff flicks?

    Google not responsible?
    • [1] reply
    • Why not? It's been shown all over commercial television.
      I find it distasteful but if network and cable TV can show it
      certainly video sites can allow it if they so choose.

      Tsnyder
      • [1] reply
  • To all of you that are saying Google needs to suffer the consequences for this, I want to ask you something. Are you willing to wait for 6 months to a year for your content to be approved for your IM sites? That is what it will come down to, plain and simple. Many of you use Youtube for the hosting of your instructional videos. How are you going to like it when they start charging you $150 to post so that they can afford to have a censor review it? That censor might get around to approving it in, oh, maybe 8 months if you are lucky.

    Lets put this another way, you find a super hot niche, say like the last airbender movie with its toys and whole marketing franchise available. You find and register a domain name and get a hosting site for the niche marketing that you are going to do. You submit your site and when you go to the site to see how everything looks, what you find is a message that reads: "This site has been submitted for review. Once it passes the Italian, German, Chinese, Australian, Yugoslavian and Qatarian review boards and is deemed to not pose any risk of lawsuit to us, the hosts of the site, it will be made available for the general public. All this should be accomplished in 2 to 20 years barring no complications." Now, in that time the hot niche will be no more and you will still have to pay for the domain name and the hosting site during that time as well.

    YEAH, Lets make Google pay for this situation and hold every other big for profit company like YouTube and every host in the world liable for what some stupid punks put on a site. You will make tons of money that way. Way to go, people.

    There is a reason why the founding fathers of the United States made the first amendment to the constitution what they did,(For those that don't know, it is freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion) they knew that anytime you have government sticking their noses in any one of these areas the results were catastrophically bad. Censorship, no matter how needed is never right.

    Here is a great example, an online game with a chat room instituted censorship software. This software monitors what is being typed in the chat room and replaced any "banned" words with stars or asterisks. The problem was that over half the players were from French Canada and one of the words on the banned list was tard because some use it as a shortened version of retard. The problem is that in French, tard means late. It has nothing to do with any insult or cursing. That game is no longer in existence because the few English speaking players were not enough to keep it afloat and the French Canadians all left because they felt like they were being singled out.

    My point is don't be such asinine jerks just because you have a thing against Google. In this instance, Google was in the right and that case is idiotic and sets the completely wrong precedence to be followed. Mark my words, if that case is permitted to stand, either Youtube will shut down as will many others and you will see all your sites being "evaluated for content issues" or you are going to see tremendous jumps in fees to cover the outrageous expenses that censorship inevitably costs.
  • What if its mainly being used to allow people to post pirated software? credit card#? hacked accounts? stolen identities? child porn?

    Even if the site owner didnt intend it for that purpose.

    Like I said, at some point we must hold site owners and even hosts responsible for user generated content.
    • [1] reply
    • The heated arguments are a bit silly - we don't have any control over what happens in this legal case. It's not an argument for or against google.

      When did we reach the point where we think we have a "right" to post anything we want on a free site like YouTube?...or Facebook?

      It has nothing to do with free speech - your right to free speech doesn't give you the right to violate the privacy of someone else. Others have rights, too.

      There are many host providers who will not host porn sites - is that wrong? Other hosts will remove your sites quickly if notified you are being sued for slander posted on the site - or if you are accused of copyright violation. Google has been criticized before for being slow to remove offensive or slanderous videos.

      Why would run anyone run a forum and not monitor it? That's just asking for a site filled with crap.

      At YouTube it has always been "anything goes". Maybe at some point it will go too far. That seems to have been the case for the court who issued this judgment.

      kay
      • [1] reply
  • [DELETED]
  • Google as always is trying to conquer the world!
  • ridiculous. that all they are left to do?
  • Google got what it deserved. They admitted that it was several hours between the time they were notified of this video to the time they finally took it down. It should only have taken minutes, not hours. Google easily has the resources to hire people to respond more quickly. They have elected not to do so, preferring to hire armies of attorneys at 10X the cost instead.

    Had they acted responsibly this would never have been an issue.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 79

    Google Convicted In Italy

    Whatever you think of Google you have to wonder at the ramifications for anyone who allows other people to post content on their site if this doesn't get overturned on appeal. BBC News - Google bosses convicted in Italy