Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Privacy Counsel Facing Criminal Charges

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the stay-on-the-plane dept.

Privacy 242

ProfJonathan writes "According to a story in the IAPP's Privacy Advisor, Google's Paris-based global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, is facing criminal charges in Italy for defamation based upon a user's posting of a video to Google Video. Mr. Fleischer was on his way to the University of Milan for a speaking engagement when he was met by Italian law enforcement officials. As with the 1997 case of Compuserve's Felix Somm and the 2006 arrest in Texas of BetOnSportsUK's CEO during a layover on a trip to Costa Rica, this case once again highlights the risks faced by executives and employees of online companies whose activities may be legal and protected in their own countries, but illegal elsewhere in the world. Troubling, and worth watching."

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (5, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702203)

No kidding. [freesklyarov.org]

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702279)

That case set a positive precedent. Dmitri and Elcomsoft were exonerated.

If anything it will be more difficult for this type of thing to be tried in the U.S. because of that case.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702753)

Really? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Really? (3, Informative)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702995)

The case you are referencing is entirely different. Carruthers and Kaplan attempted to open and advertise direct routes for Americans to circumvent U.S. law. Further more, both made statements publicly that they were aware of the illegality of their actions.

Carruthers was hung out to dry by his own cronies and Kaplan muscled by his own as well because his past criminal activities were drawing heat to a fast growing online company.

Neither the Elcomsoft or the Google case share anything in common with the case you referenced.

Re:Really? (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703281)

I should add that as a result of the Elcomsoft case the government hinged its case against Carruthers on the use of telephones.

For a conviction of this sort the infringement must be proven 'willful.' Apparently dialing a country code is sufficient evidence whereas sending an email is not.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

quarterbuck (1268694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703429)

What next ? Playboy employees getting jailed in $MIDDLE_EASTERN_COMPANY ? What about anyone who uploaded racy pictures of themselves on the internet ? After all this could corrupt the morally pious people in the rest of the world!! Bahrain is a common stop over on flights to Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Thailand etc. - So would you consider it fair for vacationing Americans to get arrested on flights through the country ?
Not that I think Bahrain will ever do it - Whenever I stopped there, I found the airport employees to be friendly and ready to help (even if not exactly the best informed), But they do have laws on the books if they ever needed to arrest anyone in USA.

Re:Really? (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703467)

If the American in question had directly targeted Bahrainian(?) citizens for the distribution of restricted content then yes, I would expect them to get arrested.

If the American in question did not target Bahrain for distribution, then there is no infraction.

That is the difference between these cases.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702355)

But we already knew about the criminal charges [slashdot.org]

So here's the story...

1. Italy announces criminal charges against Google exec.
2. Google exec goes to Italy.
3. Google exec gets arrested.

I'm not sure who is stupider, the Italian prosecutor for bringing this case, or the guy who went to a country where there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702441)

I wouldn't call it stupidity. Google has a martyr now.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703303)

I'm not sure who is stupider, the Italian prosecutor for bringing this case, or the guy who went to a country where there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

The latter.

It's about time Americans realised that the rest of the world is comprised of sovereign states not subject to their jurisdiction. I consider this a bit of a trivial case, but there are much more extreme manifestations of this attitude, such as rendition and detention without charge.

It's not an acceptable excuse to say "it's OK for us to do it because we're the Good Guys", because much of the world has good reason to doubt that.

Re:Really? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703399)

It's about time Americans realised that the rest of the world is comprised of sovereign states not subject to their jurisdiction.

Nothing a few daisy-cutters or bunker-busters won't fix

Re:Really? (1)

KudyardRipling (1063612) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703479)

You mean with the yellow and black pinwheels on the case?

Re:Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703723)

Guess, you're right. Something like that will be necessary if 9/11 couldn't manage it.

both are problematic (2, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703551)

Just because various countries are sovereign states doesn't mean it's inappropriate to criticize them if they're run by hard-right authoritarians (or hard-left authoritarians, for that matter).

Re:Really? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703685)

So you'd much rather the US use it's economic strength to break countries who do this? The US can live without Italy, can Italy say the same of the US?

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703745)

It's about time Americans realised that the rest of the world is comprised of sovereign states not subject to their jurisdiction.

O rly? [wikipedia.org]

Guessing how this is going to turn out... (4, Funny)

ctaylor (160829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702311)

Dear Polizia,
You're a bunch of idiots.

Thanks,
-The Internet

Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (5, Insightful)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702517)

The Polizia were just following the orders of a local prosecutor who decided he's going to split hairs on Google's legal status. Apparently "Internet Service Providers" are not responsible for what third parties post on their sites, but "Internet Content Providers" are. While most believe Google qualifies as an ISP (instead of an ICP) under the EU and Italian safe harbor laws, this local prosecutor doesn't.

Basically an asshole Italian prosecutor trying to pull off a high-profile publicity stunt to get him the name recognition to jump to a higher elected office. This is like Elliott Spitzer, the crusading Attorney General of New York who parlayed a number of high-profile prosecutions into a successful bid to become Governor... then pissed it all away, but that's another story.

The prosecutor's an asshole, and if there is justice in the world, he'll end up disgraced and out of a job instead of benefitting from wasting everyone's time to aggrandize himself.

Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (2, Insightful)

auric_dude (610172) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702767)

So far Francesco Cajani has 5,150 citations when searched for via Google. How many he will have by the time this thread ends?

Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (3, Insightful)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702989)

Not to split hair, but I don't think Google is providing Internet access to local users, which is my definition of an ISP. Rather, it's storing content (videos) on Google Video. That would qualify them in my book as an ICP.

Does that justify a lawsuit and an arrest? I disagree with the law on content providers but I can see why some countries don't accept freedom of speech as an absolute value and want to put some restrictions on it (hate speech being an example).

Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (2, Funny)

Lysdestic (1191833) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703107)

Google is another fucking Insane Clown Posse?

I thought that band finally vanished.

Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (3, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703171)

To ensure you don't split that hair you are worried about not splitting, it's not your definition they'll be using.

The definition I know of is: "operators of electronic communications networks and services". In other words, if you provide a service, such as YouTube. You are an ISP.

Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (1)

credd144az (1078167) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703285)

Whoever uploaded the video, I would think would be the provider of the content, while having Google as providing a service that allows it's users to share their videos.

Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (2, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703677)

Whoever uploaded the video, I would think would be the provider of the content, while having Google as providing a service that allows it's users to share their videos.

No. I disagree strongly here. Providing 'generic webspace' or even 'video hosting' should qualify as provider of a service, but something like youtube or google video is, in my opinion, clearly a different case.

Youtube and Google Video are branded sites that they have COMPLETE control and discretion over. They decide how it looks, what they'll accept, they decide what advertising is on the site, it is THEIR site. Not yours.

While a given video itself might be yours, they aren't merely hosting it for you. They are providing the end-to-end user experience in a branded manner that they exercise total control over.

Users are given a complete google or youtube branded site that is managed and controlled by them. They allow you to upload videos -- but they decide what they accept, what it looks like, how users use it, everything.

When you visit my site, you have no idea who is providing me the service, unless I decide to put their name up there or something or you go digging at the technical level. With Youtube or Google Video ... its their site, not mine. I can upload them my video, and they may or may not choose to accept it and publish it or not.

Saying they are a 'service provider' instead of a 'content provider' is as ridiculous as an art magazine that publishes photos sent in by readers claiming that they aren't responsible for any child pornography in their last issue because they just provide a publishing 'service'. That might hold if readers were publishing their own magazines, and they were just printing what the readers submitted... but if the photos are published in their trademarked google magazine, then they are responsible for the content.

Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703555)

While most believe Google qualifies as an ISP

You're crazy if you think that.

Your Corporate Travel Lawyer (4, Insightful)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702329)

It sucks for those that get arrested, but eventually things will get to the point where people/companies avoid travel to countries with such restrictive laws. That in turn will cut down on business deals and partnerships, etc. The countries will pay for these laws economically.

(On a similar note, the US is probably going to suffer based on the increasing issues with travel in the "Post 911 World.")

Re:Your Corporate Travel Lawyer (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702399)

The US is one of the worst offenders in this area, particularly in relation to internet gambling companies.

Re:Your Corporate Travel Lawyer (2, Interesting)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702887)

The US *DOES* suffer from businesses that avoid our borders due to the patriot act alone. Most businesses are not excited about opening all their data to our government on merit of it crossing a U.S. boundary alone.

It makes you wonder how much data enters "the U.S." without ever being near it. Would make for a good conspiracy theory, minus the made up stuff.

Re:Your Corporate Travel Lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703003)

Solution: Call boss, have .it ISP users blocked for 1-3 hours.

It's not blackmail when you have every right to deny a whole country access to your servers. Just because you're used by everyone and taken for granted doesn't mean you can't use that for your favor.

Sure, it could be morally questionable, but statements like "Fine, lets see how your country likes it that we denied them access because you have crappy laws for internet content and decide to arrest our employees." would potentially force the government to look at it at a different light.

Google is a privilege, not a right. They abused the privilege, now they lose it. They will have to decide if they want to face the wraith of their citizens, or to change the law. (Third choice would be to order all italian ISPs to block google, as the Google imposed block would be temporary)

Re:Your Corporate Travel Lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703533)

Let me know when that's going to happen so I can dump their stock first, ok?

hmph (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702383)

Google has had one of the most successful marketing campaigns I've ever seen in the United States, demonstrated by the fact that their public image is completely dissociated from their actions.

Kudos to the Italian government for having the courage to try to tackle one of the most corrupt, terrifying organizations I've ever witnessed.

Re:hmph (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702489)

It is interesting how the first comment posted that dares to be critical of google is immediately voted down as a "troll." Has Slashdot come to the point where individuals are no longer capable of expressing their opinions without their comments becoming 'invisible?'

Re:hmph (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702663)

/. has been at that point for quite a while... where have you been?

Re:hmph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702697)

I've been on freenet, where people can write things without them being suppressed.

Re:hmph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702737)

So you've been downloading CP huh?

Re:hmph (1)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702901)

You can't download chunky peanut butter, but you can die to it!

Re:hmph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702927)

Yeah, you caught me. The only information which is suppressed in the entire world is child porn.

Re:hmph (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702741)

Because the criticism has nothing to do with the topic; it was posted purely because of somebody's personal crusade against google. If the poster had actually pointed out something google did wrong in regards to the case we're discussing, it would probably be informative.

In a discussion about IBM patents, for instance, a post bitching about IBM selling equipment to Germany before WWII is a troll. A post bitching about IBM not creating significant new technological advances is on topic, and might be informative or insightful.

Re:hmph (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702997)

Oh yeah, and the American companies that sold the oil with which Germany bombed London, they were really working in the interest of free commerce. And green energy. And puppies.

The bottom line is, every inch of trust you give a corporation, they will exploit. As soon as the words "I don't care how you do it, just do it" are uttered, it all goes to shit. Italy's prosecution of Google, regardless of which grounds it's on, sends a clear message, however obfuscated in its medium, that Google is accountable to laws and the intentions behind the laws.

Re:hmph (1)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703239)

I don't see what point you are trying to make here. Yes, corporations do whatever they can to make profits. They would be quickly destroyed by their competitors should they do anything else. Of course Google is also a pretty large corporation, so they also do things some may find to be pretty bad.

This however, is in no way tied to the article being discussed. What we have here is a country arresting a citizen of another country, because one of a few hundred thousand posts to a service that person is partially in charge of monitoring did not agree with the laws of that country. It should not mater whether the site was google.com, or foobarvideos.com. They could have a dead puppy division for all I care, and this article would still be just as relevant.

Should this progress much further, all it will do is piss off Google, and pissing off Google is not something you should be very anxious to do in this day and age.

Re:hmph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703387)

"Should this progress much further, all it will do is piss off Google, and pissing off Google is not something you should be very anxious to do in this day and age."

Listen to yourself. They've already got you afraid of retribution by their hands.

Yes, the governmental actions in the case are stupid. Yes, Google didn't do anything wrong in the case being discussed. Does this mean that I disagree with the notion that Google should be held accountable to any law at all? Absolutely not. Even if I disagree with most applications of the law, and the one in question, Google has just about reached the bottom of the "people I think should be prosecuted for anything whatsoever so as to curtail their power and image of infallibility."

Re:hmph (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702963)

What actions? Some idiots uploaded a illegal video, the Italian Interior Minister sent Google a complain about it, and Google removed the video less than 24 hours after the complain. Well within the EU law.

Even someone is acting "badly" is the Italian prosecutor, which is clear trying to "fight" foreign/big companies for self/government publicity.

Re:hmph (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703165)

Well, first, the notion that Google should be accountable to laws demanding censorship is ridiculous. I can think of no instance in which somebody's access to information is inherently harmful, but I can think of dozens in which abridging that access is - when the government is capable of legislating censorship, for instance, you have a whole new host of problems, as information pertaining to government corruption can be suppressed. It is no different from the king being brothers with the man who owns the newspapers.

As for which of Google's actions are reprehensible, well, the actions reprehensible in this case are their continued folding to censorship. In a wider sense, though, their privacy policies are absolutely appalling, as if they're almost positioning themselves to be in complete, monopolistic control of the world's informational and technological infrastructure. Microsoft 2.0.

Re:hmph (0, Flamebait)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703355)

You know, when the government is elected by public vote (like the Italian) those laws aren't "government censorship", their the "society censorship". People chose what is and isn't right to display publicly. You can be supportive of a full disclosure (including CP and etc), but most people isn't, and the majority rules.

If Google folds to democratic laws, their complying to the people wishes. If they fold to dictatorship laws, well, first their a company not a resistance organization. Second, I bet it's way more effective to soften than dictatorship to offer a semi-caped Google than no Google at all.

that's still government censorship (2, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703575)

A huge proportion of censorship of, for example, literary works, was done by elected governments---Ireland's government, which has been democratic since its independence, is pretty notorious for their treatment of James Joyce's works, for example. That doesn't make it not government censorship.

Re:hmph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703591)

You know, when the government is elected by public vote (like the Italian) those laws aren't "government censorship", their the "society censorship". People chose what is and isn't right to display publicly. You can be supportive of a full disclosure (including CP and etc), but most people isn't, and the majority rules.

If Google folds to democratic laws, their complying to the people wishes. If they fold to dictatorship laws, well, first their a company not a resistance organization. Second, I bet it's way more effective to soften than dictatorship to offer a semi-caped Google than no Google at all.

they're.

Re:hmph (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703417)

Has Slashdot come to the point where individuals are no longer capable of expressing their opinions without their comments becoming 'invisible?'

Yes, long ago. This is where the moderation system breaks down - it is just too easy to flag a post as Troll when all it means is "I disagree".

Re:hmph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702613)

Of course, I should be clear - the notion that Google can be prosecuted rightfully for this specific offense is ridiculous - carriers are never responsible for the content their infrastructure holds. My position, rather, is that of recommending that Google faces as many legal threats as possible, regardless of the context, in light of the behavior they've demonstrated in the past (inching slowly towards world domination? Google AI, anybody? Was I the only one who watched "Colossus?")

Re:hmph (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703083)

Domination? They have the most used search engine and video sharing websites, but nothing else. If you stop using them, how can they dominate you?

The Bildberg Group seems much more interesting as a "dominating" society than Google. At least they try to be somewhat secretive about their meetings.

Re:hmph (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703313)

The Bildberg Group

The who? I suppose that's part of the problem...

Re:hmph (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703409)

The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of politics, business and banking. (...) Jonathan Duffy, writing in BBC News Online Magazine states "No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted... In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg."

I don't wear a tinfoil hat, but if I did it would be so much cooler to fear those guys :P

Re:hmph (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703499)

The Bildberg group is currently fulfilling the "illuminati" niche in the conspiratorialist's ecosystem.

Re:hmph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703711)

If a group of leaders of industry and government are meeting together in secret for an extended period of time every year, you would be foolish to believe that they're doing so in your best interest. To disregard conspiracy theories as pseudoscientific or groundless conjecture is to ignore both the existence of conspiracies in all forms of government throughout history and the mounting pile of evidence that the United States government is corrupt and paving the way towards global domination. Let's not forget for a second that we hold all the nuclear weapons, the NSA wiretaps every internet transaction, and that we have been perpetually in war since World War Two.

It is not a valid way to discredit an argument, to call somebody a conspiracy theorist. It is, in fact, inherently an ad hominem fallacy. If you're going to discredit an argument, you point out either a misinterpretation of the evidence or a fallacy in the argument itself - and if you're going to try to cite the 'debunking' of conspiracy theories that so often occurs, well, as a rule of thumb, I've found most of those to be funded by government sources (or, worse yet, the Hearst empire) and supported by extraordinarily flimsy reasoning with little accordance to reality. Of course, that's just my experience...

Re:hmph (1)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703231)

>Kudos to the Italian government for having the courage to try to tackle one of the most corrupt, terrifying organizations I've ever witnessed.

I'm so confused. I thought Google was God and that Obama was His Prophet?

Fun for trolls? (1)

Ardaen (1099611) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702387)

So does this mean if I post an offensive comment in Italian that Slashdot's lawyers can't goto Italy anymore?

Re:Fun for trolls? (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702509)

And if a white supremist group posts a pro-Hitler video do Google employees face arrest while vacationing during Oktoberfest? Isn't there a common-carrier protection recognized internationally? There was an Ebay case a few years back that dealt with Germany and a non-German selling Nazi paraphenalia.

Re:Fun for trolls? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702679)

That's actually a pretty simple case. German law clearly states, in what cases it applies to actions performed in other countries. Nazi propaganda isn't one of them.

Re:Fun for trolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702715)

You will need to do it on a bigger website than Slashdot. Try to do it on Wikipedia while Jimbo is in an unfriendly country. Send a notice to the country's local media to ensure that law enforcement is aware.

The ultimate solution! (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702405)

What we need is one world government, run by me of course, so that all laws are unified and global and do not respect exclusively-religious morals.

Re:The ultimate solution! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702469)

You're right! Thank god somebody with some courage will finally tackle the evils of drug use, free thought on the internet, abortion, infidelity, corporate infiltration by hackers...what else, uh, music! I think everybody's had enough of that goddamn music.

Re:The ultimate solution! (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703335)

I, for one, bow before my new erroneus overlord.

Woe be unto him, he who does not swear to erroneus!

Re:The ultimate solution! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703577)

I am glad you appreciate my leadership... now send me all your money ... for, uh, my campaign.

48 hours is plenty hasty... (4, Interesting)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702427)

... to remove something like that.

I know this is my opinion on how hasty one ought be, but its not like Google was condoning the act or promoting the video. It seems that they were not immediately aware, and once made aware, moved quickly to make things right.

Whats the problem here? Do we all have a duty to right the wrongs of others in nanoseconds if those wrongs are somehow involved in our own publicly accessible properties? What about offensive graffiti? What about belligerent racism on a myspace comments section?

What if Italy has had a terrorist in its borders for more than 24 hours? Ought we hold them accountable for harboring terrorism due to lack of rapid response?

Che cazzo, Italia.

Re:48 hours is plenty hasty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702627)

It's hard for google to say they couldn't do it faster, as all they would need to do is hire more people to respond to requests. Since they are massively profitable it would be hard for them to claim they couldn't.

Re:48 hours is plenty hasty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702911)

> It's hard for google to say they couldn't do it faster, as all they would need to do is hire more people to respond to requests

Nonsense. Did you see the example cited: "What if Italy has had a terrorist in its borders for more than 24 hours?" The same could be said about Italy, couldn't it?

Re:48 hours is plenty hasty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703361)

Actually it can't be said to be the same. Italy runs a deficit. Google is one of the most profitable companies on earth.

Re:48 hours is plenty hasty... (2, Insightful)

mindstormpt (728974) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703675)

Ought we hold them accountable for harboring terrorism due to lack of rapid response?

That's a really stupid analogy! The answer is no, it's not like you're the arbiter of terrorism, or like your notions or laws on terrorism apply to another sovereign state.

Other than that, yes, his arrest was stupid.

Hmm... (0, Flamebait)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702463)

What other group of people use the technique of massively affecting innocent people's lives in order to fuel their (mostly unrelated) cause?

Time for Global Law (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702477)

Since the Internet's reach is global, and the communications and transactions that take place on it are global, it only makes sense that a global legal jurisdiction needs to be set up to deal with such issues.

This law regime needs to trump national laws.

Its establishment would require negotiation of appropriate universal standards. It is interesting to speculate whether this would have to tend toward the least restricting and punitive law or the most. I suspect that "the least" or some average of the rules in powerful and sane and democratic states is the only thing that might work.

I'm only saying what makes sense. Not what is likely to happen any time soon.

Net architecture is politics.

Re:Time for Global Law (2, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702577)

That's cute.

Its establishment would require negotiation of appropriate universal standards. It is interesting to speculate whether this would have to tend toward the least restricting and punitive law or the most.

This alone makes the idea futile. To give the law any point you would need to err on the side of the most restrictive, because for any one law you could have the least restrictive be "no law at all" and thus your efforts are pointless.

Which means your laws would effectively be dictated by china and the repressive regimes of the middle east.

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702759)

This is what treaties are for.

Since much of the current internet value is based in relatively open western nations, now would be a good time to legally restrict internet connectivity to nations that don't adhere to the treaty... scorched earth, basically.

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703119)

Problem is, the UN and other international bodies have been long on the side of reducing the influence of first-world nations in the name of ending discrimination against poorer, third-world nations. Hence things like putting Iran on the Human Rights Commission.

Should any international law come in to play, what you would likely see is the US would opt out of it. EU might go along and all of the Third World would sign on. I'd guess Russia would also not sign on. This pretty much makes a mockery of any such law or treaty.

Today, because of the basic lawlessness of the Internet I can openly advertise for a hitman. Buy illegal drugs and use them to drug unsuspecting partygoers. Use stolen credit card numbers to buy services and some goods online. And there isn't a thing anyone can do to stop me, unless I basically call up the local police and beg to be arrested. Which is what most of the "Internet criminals" have ended up doing if they were caught.

I am wondering exactly how hard it is to purchase handguns and have them imported... I suspect it is a lot easier than places that have attempted to ban them would like.

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703277)

Only if we can restrict the US from breeding oxygen unless they sign the Kioto Protocol.

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702609)

What will happen when an individual country decides to withdraw and begins detaining expatriates within its borders?

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703009)

the other countries break them out by force. Once anyone involved in detaining individuals outside of jurisdiction knows that they have a 50% of getting a bullet in the head from some special forces, you'll soon see a complete inability of governments to actually get anyone to detain people for them. Especially when the people doing the detaining are not soldiers, but ordinary police officers and prison warders - these people did not sign up for the risk of being placed in genuine danger of their lives.

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703463)

Especially when the people doing the detaining are not soldiers, but ordinary police officers and prison warders - these people did not sign up for the risk of being placed in genuine danger of their lives.

Last I checked, that was what Police do, put their lives on the line. I'd have to think about it a bit more with regards to prison warders.

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702657)

See, I think just the opposite. Something like what you say is likely to happen soon, and it makes NO sense.

WIPO Re:Time for Global Law (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702915)

That's how you get organizations like WIPO. Are you sure that's a good idea?

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702933)

The rest of you just need to declare the U.S. as your sovereign then petition for statehood.

I'm all for it! Bring the us back into U.S. Then er can rape and pillage ourselves instead of everyone else!

If we do get "global law" based on plurality vote (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702979)

... It's likely to be Sharia law.

At the moment the various factions of Islam apparently total to more than essentially any other coalition with a common/compatible idea of what "the law" should require and prohibit.

(Granted there are disagreements on details among the factions - some of them major. But there are also great swaths of common ground.)

Re:Time for Global Law (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703333)

We handled this sort of thing already with Maritime laws. In this case, the ocean is a lot like the Internet, I think. We need a set of treaties that work the same way towards what is and is not acceptable on something that is by its very nature so cross border.

Anyone got a link tot his video? (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702503)

anyone?

Re:Anyone got a link tot his video? (4, Informative)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702605)

If you want to know what the content is without watching the video, FTFA:

The charges follow a two-year investigation by Italian authorities into footage uploaded onto Google Video that showed a disabled teen being disparaged by peers.

destroying evidence (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702855)

Obviously, said video was uploaded to preserve evidence against those disparaging the teen. Google is so mean, they took away the evidence that poor teen needed to prosecute his tormentors.

Re:Anyone got a link tot his video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702873)

More from TFA:

Four high school boys were recorded taunting a young man with Down syndrome, ultimately hitting the 17-year-old with a tissue box.

What I'd be interested in knowing is what sort of punishments were meted out the the four offenders? Anything at all? Or does the outrage only extend to Google?

Re:Anyone got a link tot his video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26702959)

"By peers"? So it was a cripple fight?

Re:Anyone got a link tot his video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703755)

Usually i don't like things like that, but this video now has to be posted again for everybody to see it again and again and again. The parents just deserve it.

Modern conception of jurisdiction all screwed up (4, Interesting)

butlerm (3112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702545)

First of all, this sort of prosecution is likely to be immensely counterproductive. What kind of businessperson would want to travel to Italy when they prosecute individuals for supervisory responsibility of departments that have made a diligent, good faith effort to comply with the local laws from 10,000 miles away?

In addition, the modern conception of legal jurisdiction is all screwed up. Traditionally, jurisdiction comes with the territory. Physical presence in the jurisdiction is required when an essential part of the crime is committed. That is why, for example, states cannot force companies who do not have a physical presence in their state to collect sales tax on online purchases for them. The idea that you can prosecute somebody for an ordinary crime when all the relevant actions occurred outside your physical jurisdiction is a very bad precedent.

So rather than arresting visiting Google executives, if Italy feels so strongly about this, why not just shut down Google's local operations (if any), or create a national firewall and filter Google at the border? Or require ISPs to filter their entries from local DNS servers? Or threaten to do so unless Google pays some civil fine?

Re:Modern conception of jurisdiction all screwed u (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703749)

The idea that you can prosecute somebody for an ordinary crime when all the relevant actions occurred outside your physical jurisdiction is a very bad precedent.

The video was uploaded inside Italy.
Therefore, not "all the relevant actions occurred outside [Italy's] physical jurisdiction"

Or did I miss something between the summary, the article, and your post?

Easy Fix (0, Troll)

HaeMaker (221642) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702689)

Cut Italy off the Internet. Anyone going to miss them? Anyone?

Re:Easy Fix (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702781)

Hey, it's fucking Google, just imagine the sheer bandwidth they could launch at Italy from... how many different countries?!

Re:Easy Fix (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703481)

Just a small, tiny hidden window on all their served pages, that are all directed at Italian Government sites. If you though a slashdot DOS was bad, just wait until a GoogleDOS.

Here's a scary thought... (2, Interesting)

BUL2294 (1081735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702731)

What if I'm an anti-Chinese blogger that catches the ire of someone in the Chinese government... Worse, what if my words cause economic harm to China--bad for them but great for my blog... They put out an arrest warrant for me for "defaming"... Now, while I wouldn't fear extradition from the US over my freedom of speech, does this mean that I'm in danger of being extradited to China should I travel to a country that has a liberal extradition treaty with China? Sure sounds like it...

I agree with another poster--it's time for some basic "global laws." It's too bad the UN is too gridlocked and useless to prevent situations like these from happening...

Re:Here's a scary thought... (3, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26702837)

I agree with another poster--it's time for some basic "global laws."

It's too bad those global laws, if enacted, would likely go the other way (since they're going to be written by politicians) -- you wouldn't be protected from extradition to China; rather, you'd be forbidden from criticizing China on the Internet, and the US would be required to extradite you.

Re:Here's a scary thought... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703089)

If that would give chinese authorities jurisdiction over US citizens making statements on US soil, that will suck.

Re:Here's a scary thought... (1)

KudyardRipling (1063612) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703751)

This may happen as part of blackmail by China against the USA vis-a-vis government and trade debt. Or PLA thugs posing as cooks from the local takeout may beat the offender to a pulp or worse.

firsT.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703053)

so there ar!3 people tops responsibility racist? How is that *BSD 0wned. beyond the scope of

You insensItive Clod! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26703141)

How should Google respond? (4, Insightful)

Photo_Nut (676334) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703389)

If I were Google, I would respond to this by immediately removing access to Google Video and Youtube from all Italian IP addresses, citing the trial. If I were Google and I was vindictive, I would also remove access to Google.com Google Maps (iPhone users are probably influential in Italy) and GMail.

It would be the over-reacting response to this over-reacting lawsuit which would cause a crisis far greater than necessary, but it would show the world how ridiculous the response would need to be to prevent such lawsuits. I mean - GMail - you can insult someone from there, right? Google.com - you can search insults from there, right?

So to be cautious, they'd just have to turn off those services while this lawsuit was pending.

Plan to counter (2, Funny)

GoodNicksAreTaken (1140859) | more than 5 years ago | (#26703635)

All he needs is a marker. Visit the prosecutor. Write "Peter Fleischer is a poopie head" on his desk. File a counter suit over the defamatory content written on his desk.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>