Google Convicted In Italy

69 replies
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
#convicted #google #italy
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1791323].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
      Originally Posted by DogScout View Post

      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.
      You forgot about here in Australia as well, the first western country to implement a mandatory clean feed.

      Chris
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1791326].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1791402].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1791572].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
      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
      Signature
      Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
      Fast & Easy Content Creation
      ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1791684].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      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.
      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800197].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author remotedb
        Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

        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.
        It's a can of worms that needs to be opened. If you are going to do business in a country, you have an obligation to respect their laws. It's the cost of doing business.

        If the laws are unfair or impractical, you don't do business there. Other businesses who are willing to do what it takes to comply will rise to fill the void. That's called free enterprise, it also helps to prevent global monopoly.
        Signature
        TwEmpire -Build an empire of Twitter followers on autopilot FAST!! Phase I Beta Test Coming Soon!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800326].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
          Originally Posted by remotedb View Post

          It's a can of worms that needs to be opened. If you are going to do business in a country, you have an obligation to respect their laws. It's the cost of doing business.

          If the laws are unfair or impractical, you don't do business there. Other businesses who are willing to do what it takes to comply will rise to fill the void. That's called free enterprise, it also helps to prevent global monopoly.

          Good, then you won't mind one bit when Communist China decides to try you in abscencia over a blog reply, and sentences you to death for it.

          After all, it is the cost of doing business.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1810035].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
            Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

            Good, then you won't mind one bit when Communist China decides to try you in abscencia over a blog reply, and sentences you to death for it.

            After all, it is the cost of doing business.
            Maybe they could execute me in absentia?
            Signature
            "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

            Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1810148].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author remotedb
            Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

            Good, then you won't mind one bit when Communist China decides to try you in abscencia over a blog reply, and sentences you to death for it.

            After all, it is the cost of doing business.
            They couldn't because I'm not doing business there. But if I had an office there and flagrantly violated their laws, then yes I would expect to be tried
            Signature
            TwEmpire -Build an empire of Twitter followers on autopilot FAST!! Phase I Beta Test Coming Soon!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1819932].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
              Originally Posted by remotedb View Post

              They couldn't because I'm not doing business there. But if I had an office there and flagrantly violated their laws, then yes I would expect to be tried
              Don't be so sure. If your information can be seen
              there they may claim the right to regulate you.

              I live in the Midwest. I was in the mortgage business
              for many years. I once received a letter from the Attorney
              General of Massachusetts claiming some violation of their state
              laws.

              I did not "do business" in Massachusetts... had no license there...
              none of my agents lived or were licensed there... we had never
              solicited or closed a mortgage loan there... yet they were claiming
              jurisdiction because our site could be viewed by residents of their
              state.

              My attorney said we could... most likely... win our case if I
              wanted to press it but the smartest thing to do would probably
              be to just make changes to the site. That's what I did.

              Tsnyder
              Signature
              If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1819969].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author butters
    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...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1791709].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mogulmedia
      Originally Posted by butters View Post

      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...
      Yes it's funny, but true!
      Signature

      Converting sales copy and professional press releases -> Here <-

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797828].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NK
    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.
    Signature

    Affiliate Link Cloaking & Tracking Software - The most powerful tool available for affiliate marketers who are sick and tired of making way too little money!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1791756].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      "If individuals like myself and my Google colleagues who had nothing to do with the harassing incident, its filming or its uploading onto Google Video can be held criminally liable solely by virtue of our position at Google, every employee of any internet hosting service faces similar liability," he added.
      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
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I'm going to work on being less condescending
      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1791858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author talfighel
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1792022].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author entrepenerd
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1792117].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TammieJJ
      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.
      Signature

      TammieJJ

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1792164].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1792303].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      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.
      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
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I'm going to work on being less condescending
      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1792372].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author islander1
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        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.
        The same can be said of the Mall of America or Disneyland, yet if someone walks along the sidewalk at Disneyland showing a video violating someone's privacy, do you arrest that person or the Disneyland executives?

        To take it a step further, when Disneyland discovers it, they will throw the person out, just as when Google discovers the video, they will ban it.

        I think the analogy works fine and Google should not be held responsible for this.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1795000].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      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.
      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...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1792410].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jjpmarketing
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1792453].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Strange you say that as I was thinking of that monopoly issue myself.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I'm going to work on being less condescending
      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1794960].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
    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
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1795165].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
      Originally Posted by L Wilson View Post


      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.

      Lee
      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1795253].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
        Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

        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.
        It certainly is going to get interesting. This is the problem, we mostly all agree that we don't want this kind of control but the reality is that all the things we want, naturally lead to things we don't want. It's not an easy argument, but most of our arguments, including my own, are blinded by hypocrisy and complacence.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1795289].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
      Banned
      Originally Posted by L Wilson View Post

      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
      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797232].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Daniel Brock
        YouTube now...web hosts later.

        If this starts catching on, it will be virtually impossible for web hosts and other similar services to exist.

        Do you have to monitor broadcast emails as well?

        Do I have to monitor every file placed on my server?

        That is just ridiculous.

        I hope all you people that are for this ruling will enjoy the $50/m price hike on your once $10/m web hosting plans.
        Signature
        Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
        Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797284].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
        Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

        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.
        That's not what I am saying at all and you'd know that if you read it properly. I'm simply saying give an alternative option.

        Let me ask this you this. Do you think everyone should have free reign to post any video they like? If not, then tell me what can be done to stop it if you think you have the answer.

        I'll say it again, even though it will make no difference to those that can't be bothered to read properly, I have not said I support this.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797760].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WealthHunter
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1795270].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
      Originally Posted by WealthHunter View Post

      i think each posts of video has to be review first before it was being published.
      That's a solution, but then everybody will start moaning that they have to pay for it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1795292].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Daniel Brock
        Originally Posted by L Wilson View Post

        That's a solution, but then everybody will start moaning that they have to pay for it.
        20 hours of video uploaded every minute.

        Think about the man hours involved.

        28,800 hours of video to be reviewed each day.

        Let's say one employee can review 8 hours.

        That comes to 3,600 people devoted to reviewing content each day.

        Let's say on average these people make $8.00/hour.

        That's $230,400 PER DAY in nothing but expense.

        Or about

        $84 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

        And that's without calculating the salary of the managers required to manage 3600 people.

        I don't know how much youtube makes in profit per year, but that expense will greatly effect their business.
        Signature
        Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
        Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797322].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
          Originally Posted by Daniel Brock View Post

          20 hours of video uploaded every minute.

          Think about the man hours involved.

          28,800 hours of video to be reviewed each day.

          Let's say one employee can review 8 hours.

          That comes to 3,600 people devoted to reviewing content each day.

          Let's say on average these people make $8.00/hour.

          That's $230,400 PER DAY in nothing but expense.

          Or about

          $84 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

          And that's without calculating the salary of the managers required to manage 3600 people.

          I don't know how much youtube makes in profit per year, but that expense will greatly effect their business.
          This is my point exactly though.

          Most people here says don't blame Google.
          Most here (I presume) thinks these videos shouldn't be allowed.

          The two completely contradict each other. You can't have both unless you have a better option.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797776].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Daniel Brock
            Originally Posted by L Wilson View Post

            This is my point exactly though.

            Most people here says don't blame Google.
            Most here (I presume) thinks these videos shouldn't be allowed.

            The two completely contradict each other. You can't have both unless you have a better option.
            I think what they are currently doing is the only way to reasonably go about it.

            Removing the videos upon complaint. But having to actively screen every video is var beyond reasonable IMO.
            Signature
            Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
            Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797825].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
          Originally Posted by Daniel Brock View Post

          20 hours of video uploaded every minute.

          Think about the man hours involved.

          28,800 hours of video to be reviewed each day.

          Let's say one employee can review 8 hours.

          That comes to 3,600 people devoted to reviewing content each day.

          Let's say on average these people make $8.00/hour.

          That's $230,400 PER DAY in nothing but expense.

          Or about

          $84 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

          And that's without calculating the salary of the managers required to manage 3600 people.

          I don't know how much youtube makes in profit per year, but that expense will greatly effect their business.
          I think Google can afford $84 million out of their hundreds of billions.
          Signature
          "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

          Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798450].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CmdrStidd
            Originally Posted by Kirk Ward View Post

            I think Google can afford $84 million out of their hundreds of billions.
            Thats great, thats fantastic.

            BTW, can the hosting company that hosts your sites afford that as well to monitor every word you put up on your blogs, and posts, and sales pages. Not to mention all the membership sites that now have forums and will have to super police them or be sued. Can you afford to monitor your forums that you run? If you can, great, more power to you, but several on here cannot and this lawsuit will set the precedence that you have to monitor everything or risk governments coming in and suing you in criminal court. Ready to spend 20 to life in prison because someone posted something that the Italian govt took offense with? I sure hope you are. I personally have been in jail before and I have no intentions of going back there for anyone. I will shut down all sites and stop even looking at the internet if this is what it is coming to.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798506].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author forumer147
      Originally Posted by WealthHunter View Post

      i think each posts of video has to be review first before it was being published.
      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
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1795858].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author grayambition
      Originally Posted by WealthHunter View Post

      i think each posts of video has to be review first before it was being published.
      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.
      Signature

      Jan Weingarten
      Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very"; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be. ~Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798226].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by grayambition View Post

        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.
        It's not an entirely different issue. Google's lack of responsibility in the area of privacy is exactly why they are in this predicament.

        They were convicted of privacy violations of a handicapped child... A child who was videotaped being abused and then further abused by allowing this video on the site for 2 months.

        Google had every opportunity to remove this video and avoid the entire incident. They did not remove it for 2 months after being made aware of the problem by the child's father and an Italian advocacy group for people with Down's Syndrome (although the child is autistic, rather than having Down's syndrome). The prosecutors accused Google of negligence, because the video had been flagged by users for 2 months and still allowed to remain online. They waited until the police got involved before they removed it.

        As for the Google Buzz issue, again .... nowhere in their terms of service do they say that at any time they feel it, they will have your contacts autofollow you and then share your conversations with any of those contacts with ALL of your contacts. If that isn't a blatant privacy violation, I don't know what is.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800124].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          Google had every opportunity to remove this video and avoid the entire incident. They did not remove it for 2 months after being made aware of the problem by the child's father and an Italian advocacy group for people with Down's Syndrome (although the child is autistic, rather than having Down's syndrome). The prosecutors accused Google of negligence, because the video had been flagged by users for 2 months and still allowed to remain online. They waited until the police got involved before they removed it.
          I was not aware of that. That changes the whole landscape. If Google knew about it,
          the video was flagged for so long without appropriate intervention by Google, then
          they clearly dropped the ball in a huge way.

          If that's the case, then it does seem legal action is appropriate. It is negligence.

          Perhaps one remedy would be for Google to automatically disable a video if it is flagged
          some certain number of times. Multiple flags, from different IPs, would indicate a higher
          liklihood that a video really is offensive. Then, the video should be human-reviewed to
          confirm, or not.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800183].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mahesh2k
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797336].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
    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
    Signature
    If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797359].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      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.
      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".
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797407].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        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".
        That was a pretty reactionary response... lol

        Like I said... Google... and pretty much every other major
        site on the 'net... is pretty clear about what they will and
        will not do with the info you provide. Nothing you've written
        contradicts that.

        As for credit card info... you're being absurd. Of course that
        info is private... federal law and all that, you know?

        Tsnyder
        Signature
        If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798196].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
      Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

      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.
      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.
      Signature
      Screw You, NameCheap!
      $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

      SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797495].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Daniel Brock
        Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post


        Perphaps Google should do more than just remove content.
        Such as.....?
        Signature
        Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
        Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797526].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
          Originally Posted by Daniel Brock View Post

          Such as.....?
          Report the uploaders to authorities. Ban them from all services. Maybe even sue them for breach of contract.
          Signature
          Screw You, NameCheap!
          $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

          SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797589].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Daniel Brock
            Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

            Report the uploaders to authorities. Ban them from all services. Maybe even sue them for breach of contract.
            That's even more ridiculous than having to actively monitor all videos...

            So now the FBI is going to have their own Youtube task force to handle all the reporting, as well as a court created just for all youtube offenders...
            Signature
            Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
            Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797845].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
              Originally Posted by Daniel Brock View Post

              That's even more ridiculous than having to actively monitor all videos...

              So now the FBI is going to have their own Youtube task force to handle all the reporting, as well as a court created just for all youtube offenders...
              All reports don't goto the FBI. You would report most of it to the local police department of the uploader.
              Signature
              Screw You, NameCheap!
              $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

              SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797889].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Daniel Brock
                Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

                All reports don't goto the FBI. You would report most of it to the local police department of the uploader.
                OK even worse.

                Now each local department needs to train and employ someone to handle Youtube crimes. Local departments already have enough to worry about...internet complaints would only make it worse.

                I'm sure they will love that...
                Signature
                Clickbank #1 Best Seller: The Deadbeat Super Affiliate.
                Click here to learn how to make money online in your bath robe and gym socks!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797908].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
                  Originally Posted by Daniel Brock View Post

                  OK even worse.

                  Now each local department needs to train and employ someone to handle Youtube crimes. Local departments already have enough to worry about...internet complaints would only make it worse.

                  I'm sure they will love that...
                  It's NOT YouTube crimes. It's crimes that happen to take place on YouTube and other sites. Or shown on them.

                  If there is a law being violated on youtube or on a street corner, it should have a means of being dealt with.

                  Like I said earlier at some point we MUST hold hosts and site owners responsible. Safeharbor is great but only if they don't know the law is being broken. Google did. Google does. Google hides behind the law to let people break the law.

                  Simply removing the content isnt always enough.
                  Signature
                  Screw You, NameCheap!
                  $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

                  SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798148].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Daniel Brock View Post

          Such as.....?
          "We" don't need to provide solutions. It's Googles site and it's Google's problem.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797812].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

        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.
        Not only did Google profit from a video of an autistic child being abused, but they kept it up for 2 months after it was brought to their attention.

        Is there no Google executive or staff that is intelligent enough that could simply look at the video and say ....
        this is freaking wrong and delete it? Does that kind of action take two months and the police to get involved before acting on? They're idiots. Greedy idiots.

        Imagine that was your child and your child and your family had to endure that.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797570].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    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?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1797723].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      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?
      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
      Signature
      If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798217].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Tsnyder View Post

        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
        The death of that trainer has been reported by news stations ... video of the dead trainer or the whale killing that trainer has not been broadcast all over news stations. That's a pretty big difference.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800166].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CmdrStidd
    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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    Originally Posted by Traffic-Bug View Post

    I dont think it is reasonable to expect user generated content sites to be held accountable for what their users post on them.
    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.
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798871].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      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
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I'm going to work on being less condescending
      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1798974].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        TIt 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.
        While I agree with you on this in many ways, in many ways the right to free speech legally trumps the right to privacy. The right to privacy is a recently endowed "right" and is not explicitly endowed by the Constitution as the right to free speech is.

        That being said, I think the courts have ruled that free speech does not give you the right to damage another, which is where Google is starting to get sloppy in their management. These guys getting convicted of the crime appears to me to be a function of their sloppy management, and as such, they should be held accountable for the damages inflicted because of their failure to perform. Think of it as being convicted for negligence.

        Back to the Constitution thing of free speech. This is an Italian case and all our USA posturing can go piddle. Each state, whether national or local, has the right to determine its own laws, and entities wishing to operate within their jurisdiction have to abide by those laws until they are overturned or replaced. That's just a fact.
        Signature
        "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

        Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800180].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author EruwanGerry
    Google as always is trying to conquer the world!
    Signature

    Learn the easy way to make money on eBay! Click Here

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800208].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author frank.smith
    ridiculous. that all they are left to do?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author remotedb
    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.
    Signature
    TwEmpire -Build an empire of Twitter followers on autopilot FAST!! Phase I Beta Test Coming Soon!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1800305].message }}

Trending Topics