| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
So the next step is to charge the Judge and Prosecutor for unlawful imprisonment... or maybe some conspiracy charge here? I mean, they don't have subject matter or personal jurisdiction unless the defendants were dumb enough to go there. And no sane American judge would sign an extradition order on the basis of this conviction. | |
It actually defies the mind that they convicted three guys who had no connection to the video whatsoever. I'm not even sure if that's following the letter of the law, while ignoring the intent. It sounds more like basic stupid to me. | |
That's retarded. The kids shouldn't face any criminal charges to begin with. Sure, the school should take disciplinary action against them but bullying is a sad fact of life. Sure, these kids are assholes, but they should have the right to be assholes all they want. That's the price of freedom. | |
What the hell? What kind of ass-brained, donkey licking logic allows you to believe that this move is in any way intelligent? Oh Italian prosecuters. You used to be cool. | |
I see... Well, I'm sorry all users of the Escapist, but since you haven't given me all your money, I'll have to sue you. If these guys get convicted for simply being employees of Google, I can sue you for being members of the Escapist! The world has gone insane! Just like me! | |
I'm fine with the kids getting convicted, and ten months community service isn't too harsh. It's that they then turned around and charged three random people from another fucking country that had no connection with the crime in question with it, and then convicted them of it that blows my goddamn mind. | |
So, someone posts a questionable video, when google is informed of this, they remove the video and cooperate with the police, and then google is charged? Where's the Mens Rea? seriously? I don't think google has to worry too much, this sort of shit would never fly in Canada/US, despite what detractors of the legal system would say. This isn't a crime. Even if the kids broke the law, Google certainly didn't. No Mens Rea (They had no idea the kids were posting a questionable video when it was posted), and no Actus Rea (THEY DIDN'T POST THE VIDEO!).. hence, no crime took place. Maybe next time they WON'T cooperate with italian authorities, if they're just going to incriminate themselves regardless. | |
What a load of bull, they convicted employees of a company, who had nothing to do with something that happened to be posted on their website. | |
I don't suppose you'd settle for a thumb war or something to settle this matter would you? | |
You dare challenge me to a thumb war!? Very well, en garde! Also, if I lose I will sue you for hurting my thumb | |
Oh, ok then. Wait a second if they have no connection whatsoever and theres no evidenc against them how did they even get charged in the bloody first place. I call bullshit and shenanigans. | |
Where is ITALIAN SPIDERMAN when we need him? | |
Well, everybody's voiced their opinion about how this ruling is dumb, so I'll go a little further and ask if there has been an explanation by the judge about this ruling and why it was made. The ruling baffles me and I really want to see how it came about. | |
Italy's courts are retarded then. They complied, they took it down, they even provided information for the arresting of the person's involved. However, Google was NOT involved, so why the hell are they being charged?! Seriously, just because they own the servers that are uploaded to, does not mean that they're legally liable for every individual person in the world that uploaded to them.....unless they do not comply with taking down the illegal ones (which, in this case, they did promptly comply). | |
Uh, no. That behaviour is vile, and needs to be cut out like a cancer, not coddled. | |
So does that mean we can sue government for drug trafficing since they supply and maintain the roads that the drugs are distributed across? This is yet another example of why judges and most political figures need term limits. They have no idea what is going on in the real world because they grew up in a completely different era and time. This isn't the public notice board in a community center. This is an international community with billions of people attached to it. | |
Oh what the hell?! You can't hold a company liable for something like that! Google had nothing to do with it! And then they complied fully to remove the questionable content! You can't hold them liable! Just... just... what the hell, Italy?! You used to be cool! | |
So what this is saying is the workings of technology are subject to litigation based upon the near-completely ignorant interpretation of aging Luddites who were appointed to positions of legal authority by other aging Luddites. Well hoo-fucking-ray. I mean, I always knew that, but I had always hoped everyone in that position would have the sense to say "well, I have no idea how any of this works, therefor I am incapable of rendering a ruling." Since this is essentially analogue systems conflicting with digital systems, does this mean things are just going to get worse as more and more people understand almost completely nothing about their daily interactions with technology? | |
Its gonna make a wole new world of content and such...this is a sad day | |
Surely the Google employees can claim the same thing that Facebook did when Jack Thompson was going to take them to court for the whole "Hit him in the head with an Atari" group. The Site provides a service, it has it's own laws that it enforces and I'm sure complies to the laws set out by the country of origins as well as international laws. But it is in no way liable for the actions of it's community. I don't see how they even found a connection to these four employees and the video in the first place... Italian law system: Well we've run out of people to convict for things, look in the stupid drawer... Well, well, well... seems we have that Google video thing from 3 years ago Let's choose some random foreigners to chase up about this... Google: What the fuck? | |
a bunch of punk italians made a dick-headed video and the platform is the blame? why not convict the camera manufacturer for enabling the video to happen in the first place? why not sue the store that sold the camera to the punk? where does the line end? this is a completely unfair decision, that Google (with all the millions it thankfully has) will be sure to appeal. maybe they might take it the highest european courts as well | |
What did the charges result in towards the Google employees? Was it a fine or worse? This is an extremely illogical judgement. I wonder whether the judge and jury are a bit out of touch seeing as they don't seem to grasp how Google cannot screen every single video uploaded to their site. | |
People should take this seriously, groups that represent the music and film industry have plans for pushing through laws that allow them to sue for the same reasons. It would be death of the internet and freedom for sure. | |
Exactly. We all have a right to freedom, and we all have a right to "the pursuit of happiness." When you use your freedom to impede others in their pursuit of happiness, you get punished. No one has the right to bully another person, or inflict mental and physical trauma on a person. In extreme cases like that one, criminal charges are more than justified. | |
... It doesnt even begin to make sence. So what, if I kill someone, film it and put it on youtube they take the fall? hmm... This could work in my favour.... | |
This. I have to assume that the guy wasn't a complete idiot. He is a judge after all. So what kind of case was represented to him so that he decided that this would in any shape and form be reasonable. I'm guessing that at some point the defence would have brought up the point that these people were no more responsible for the video than any random guy from the street. | |
Bollocks. They can't be charged for user uploaded material unless they do nothing to remove it once they are aware of it. (Well, they CAN be charged, as proven, but it's just so insanely dumb ... And pointless as well.) | |
I'm with everyone else - this ruling makes no sense whatsoever. I'd be interested in whatever ridiculous excuse the judge/jury has for this decision. | |
And while they're at it, cut service to Italy to show them that Google isn't happy with the decision. That's what I would do. | |
Googlers? That's what their called? Huh, I did not know that. I just assumed that Google called them "employees". | |
Don't you guys just love the world? I know I do... | |
So, suing a company for something that goes up on a service they host is bad and all, but does anyone else notice the actual, far more serious, issue here? They didn't press charges against the company - they pressed charges against the employees. Employees who, if the Google blog is to be believed*, were not in any way connected to the video. Were they the people in charge of Google video, by some chance? Because that might actually make a small amount of sense. But if they are actually entirely unconnected to the video, then that's the worst example of burying the lead I've ever seen. *The reason I question the blog is that it seems so unbelievable that these employees actually had no connection to the case beyond being random Google employees. They have to be connected to the case in some way, and not including that information puts my BS detector on high alert. | |
Yet another folly of the technologically retarded. | |
hmmm...we keep bankrupting our country and we need to get money somehow...LETS SUE A MAJOR GLOBAL CORPORATION! FLAWLESS | |
| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Special Attack
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Italian Court Convicts Google Employees Over Google Video
An Italian court has convicted three Google employees of violating privacy laws over a clip uploaded to Google Video. The only problem? The employees in question had nothing to do with it.
In 2006, Italian youth who were students at a school in the city of Turin made the boneheaded decision to film a video of themselves harassing and bullying an autistic classmate. Then, they made an even more boneheaded decision to upload said video to Google Video - I don't know, maybe they wanted to be internet-famous or something.
According to the official Google blog, the company worked quickly to remove the "reprehensible" video once it had been contacted by the Italian police, and cooperated with law enforcement in order to identify the person responsible for uploading it. The uploader and several of her classmates involved in the incident were tried and sentenced to 10 months of community service by a Turin court - which is where the story ends, right?
Wrong. A Milan prosecutor decided to bring charges against four Google employees (one of which is no longer at the company) over said video. The quartet was charged with criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code, despite Google's claims that none of the four ever had any connection to the video whatsoever: "To be clear, none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video. They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video's existence until after it was removed."
Even so, earlier today a Milan judge convicted 3 of the 4 defendants (including the one who left the company in 2008) on the grounds that they had failed to comply with the privacy code; all four were acquitted on grounds of criminal defamation. This decision is troubling, writes Google's Matt Sucherman, VP and Deputy General Counsel for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, because of the ramifications it has for "the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built."
The ruling essentially means that providers and hosting platforms like Google, Flickr, and Facebook are criminally liable for anything that may be uploaded onto their networks by any user whatsoever, argues Sucherman. Should hosting services be responsible for policing every single file that comes to them beforehand (especially with something as massive as Google), or is it enough to swiftly comply when asked to remove something?
"The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy," writes Sucherman.
"If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them - every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video - then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear."
It's a bit of a melodramatic conclusion to the blog post in question, but there's no denying that the man has a point. Arguing that hosting providers are responsible for what is posted to their networks is one thing - arguing that they're criminally liable is another thing entirely.
I don't think anyone would disagree that the video in question was probably pretty horrible, but should the blame for that fall on the shoulders of the service that hosted it, or the people who made and uploaded it in the first place?
On a lighter note: You guys have no idea how hard it was to not make an A-Team joke through this whole piece.
Permalink