Ridiculous Criminal Trial Of Google Execs Begins In Italy
from the bad-news-all-around dept
eWeek has a report noting that the ridiculous criminal trial of four Google executives in Italy is starting this week, with the surprise news that one of the execs in question, Google's Global Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer, is expected to appear. The eWeek report oddly credits the news of the trial to the International Association of Privacy Professionals, claiming they broke the story on Monday -- but plenty of folks have been covering this story for many months. The only bit of news is that the trial has begun, and that Fleischer made the mistake of traveling to Italy to give a talk at the University of Milan, where he was taken into custody.The trial, however, makes a mockery of just about any bit of common sense out there -- on so many different levels. First of all, as described when the charges were first released, the issue was a video that was uploaded to Google of some kids taunting a disabled boy. The video was up for about two days before Google was made aware of it -- at which point it was immediately taken down. So why are random Google execs being tried for criminal charges? I can't figure it out at all. First, Italy actually does have a law that protects internet service providers from liability for the actions of their users. That's good... but for some bizarre reason, it doesn't count Google as a service provider.
Even so, there's absolutely no fathomable reason for why anyone would think that Google's execs should be charged with anything. Google, the company, had no proactive role in uploading the videos. The execs in question had absolutely nothing to do with the video at all. Google was actually proactive in removing the video as soon as it became aware of it. And, most ridiculous of all, the video itself was actually useful as evidence to charge the kids who taunted the disabled boy. By charging the Google execs under criminal statutes, all prosecutors are doing is making sure that in the future, no such evidence exists. As we noted when this story first came out, the kids in question apparently hit the disabled boy with a packet of tissues as well. It would seem like the tissue company is much more responsible for what happened than Google. So why aren't we seeing charges filed against the tissue company execs?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, italy, liability, video, youtube
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple...
I'll bet because that tissue company isn't one of the biggest tech companies on the planet and worth a few godzillion dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The trial, however, makes a mockery of just about any bit of common sense out there.." common sense says you probably know sod all about Italian law (and most other nationality of laws).
"So why are random Google execs...." 'random' is a label for someting you don't understand.
"I can't figure it out at all." Maybe you should put that at the bottom of all your posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
there's a difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
--Not related to the reply
Direct quote from Eweek:
"Italian officials charge Google Global Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer with criminal charges of defamation and failure to exercise control over personal data two years after Google posted a video depicting fellow students harassing a student with Down syndrome."
"After Google posted"? Google employs Turin high school teenagers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, depending on how you define "Internet service provider," Google may not qualify, despite providing a service on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know what Mike's definition of ISP is, but if you were to say that it means an entity which provides a service via the Internet rather than an entity which provides Internet service, then what you're saying is that anything that uses TCP/IP -- including all web sites, chat services, newsgroups, etc -- are "ISPs". But if this were the case, the term ISP would be all but useless. Google is no more and ISP that TechDirt is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I had the same question. Google didn't post anything. Imagine how silly this would sound if the story was about a phone call instead of a video posted on the Internet...
"Italian officials charge AT&T's Global Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer with criminal charges of defamation and failure to exercise control over personal data two years after AT&T made a harassing phone call to student with Down syndrome."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently you missed the point that this is about *basic common sense* not what Italian law says.
I don't care what the law says. You could not craft a law under which this trial made common sense. That was the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact you don't care what the law says means you are arrogant as well as ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter what the law is. He's not saying it's not legal, he's saying the law doesn't make sense. It's perfectly legal for me to file a lawsuit against AT&T for your comment. It doesn't make sense though - I don't know if you use AT&T, I certainly don't use AT&T, and AT&T didn't post the comment, you did. And your comment doesn't contain anything worth suing over. But it's still perfectly legal for me to try to sue them for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
I have to agree here. Google provides content/services via the Internet. They do not provide Internet service therefore they are not an Internet Service Provider.
Here's a quote from one of the linked articles...
"Unlike Italian Internet service providers, who are not responsible for posted content, content providers like Google can be held liable for delivered materials."
Whether you agree with the Italian laws or the trial, based on this statement, it seems clear that at least the prosecuters do see a legal difference between an ISP and a content provider. Personally I think the safe harbor laws should apply to both ISPs and content providers, but if the Italian laws make the distinction, I can at least see why the trial is proceding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
Even if your response was based on emotion rather than detached observation, you're wrong. Hulser is not defending the Italian government, he is saying how they might be interpreting the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
I disagree, but I also disagree with the definition of "Internet service provider" and "content provider" here. IANAL, especially not in Italy, so this is only meaningful if you care about my opinion.
Right off the question is whether we're talking about "Internet service" providers or Internet "service prodiders." It's a slight but inportant distinction, because in the first case you're only talking about companies that provide Internet service (ie, a connection to the web), and in the second you're talking about anyone who "provides service" on the Internet. Google doesn't connect me to the web, but it does provide the services of web search and email and video hosting (among others), so I'd call that an Internet service provider. (For what it's worth, it seems like US law agrees with me.)
A content provider, in my opinion, would instead be something akin to a content creator. In general, nothing that Google serves us (be it in search or on YouTube) are created by Google. Not even the ads they serve up are created by Google (possibly with a few exceptions). In this case, the content providers, the ones who provided content, were the boys in question (or whoever it was that actually posted the video). And when Google was notified that the content they were hosting was offensive, they ceased providing their service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
See my other post about this, but the term Internet Service Provider flat out does not refer to Internet "service prodiders". It just doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
As I said, IANAL and it's just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
A 'content provider' is the one who provides the content for your consumption. This means youtube, google, and techdirt are content providers, even if they do not own the content. The content of this post is provided via techdirt and so techdirt is its 'content provider'. I may be the owner of the text (actually, I don't know this, as I haven't read any of techdirt's license agreements), but I am not providing you with the content directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
The reason they're not protected in this case is that Italian law (AFAIK) doesn't have safe harbor provisions in the same way as US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
The US laws define it as any provider of a service online. That makes very good sense, because the purpose of the law is to distinguish a platform from a user. So, I see no reason why it shouldn't apply here as well. Again, no matter what the law says, common sense should make it clear that Google should have no liability for what its users do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
By "it", are you referring to Google or the term "Internet Service Provider"? If the former, then that makes sense. Google is a provider of an online service and (I believe) should fall under the safe harbor provisions of the DCMA. But if you mean to say that US law defines an ISP as "any provider of a service online", I'd be quite surprised. Not that all US laws make sense, but why would they take a common technical term and redefine or overly broaden it? Also, exactly what part of US law makes this definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stay out of Italy
"Tis a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stare Decis
The legal world makes decisions based on Stare Decis. To be able to determine the extent of the law, it must litigate. At times, this can claim some innocent victims. But the fact is, the legal world does not know if they are guilty or innocent until questions have been litigated.
It is not a perfect system.
Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What will happen
It will be kind of ironic that Google will get shook down by a country known for the mafia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the case is not that clear
[little excerpt from my blog]
Definition of ISP is very clear and definitely Google is not an ISP. (BTW, it requires registering to the local FCC equivalent).
There is a european law (ecommerce directive) which excludes responsibility for "mere conduits".
Is YT a "mere conduit" ? this remains to be seen.
the charges are "diffamazione aggravata e di
trattamento illecito di dati a fini di profitto", sorry, I don't know a legal translation for this.
the sanction is up to 3 years and up to 1032 Euros (that was 2M lire before switching to Euros)
the offenses contained in the video where aimed at the disbled kid and Google (Youtube) helped increasing its visibility, therefore deriving "editorial responsibilities", according to the prosecutors. this is in accordance with the forthcoming european Audio Visual Directive.[...]
as I explain in greater detail in my blog, knowing the facts, the case is not that obvious, and Google may well be found having responsbilities, and that could have well happened in Italy or any other european country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the case is not that clear
Then it's a bad definition. The *reason* behind such safe harbors is to protect platform providers from being accused of the actions of their users.
The law obviously has failed in that regard, and now a party that had NOTHING to do with the video is getting threatened with jailtime.
That makes no sense, whatsoever.
knowing the facts, the case is not that obvious, and Google may well be found having responsbilities
The facts are clear, but you have yet to explain WHY it makes even the slightest bit of sense to blame Google execs for the actions of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my opinion if I was a google exec I would ignore the court someones, and send them a postcard with my middle finger. I would also ignore any fines imposed. There's no way the US is going to let Italy extradite anyone. I wouldn't even take the risk of being imprisoned over this BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]