Ridiculous Criminal Trial Of Google Execs Begins In Italy

from the bad-news-all-around dept

Tue, Feb 3rd 2009 7:58am — Mike Masnick

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

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:15am

Jail
The Italian government put this exec in the slammer (custody) over a crime he didn't even commit. I pray to the high heavens that the judge/jury (I don't know how it works in Italy) in this case doesn't find him guilty. If he ends up with prison time, I say Google needs to declare war on Italy. I think the Google army could take them. We don't need the US Military.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny, 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:28am

Simple...
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?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:33am

"Ridiculous Criminal Trial Of ...." there aren't many blogs thatcan boast this sort of expert legal opinion in the laws of any country in the world.

"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 thread ]
Matt, 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:36am

Google
Agreed. There's no case here, but Google is not an ISP. That is why they're not protected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ydoC, 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:45am

Re:
Troll or moron, I can never quite dell the difference these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:47am

Re:
Maybe you can provide counter evidence that states Italy is correct in their criminal prosecution. Maybe you could even explain why the Italian government had decided to ignore their own safe harbors law. Or maybe why Google's Global Privacy Counsel (not the guy in charge of Youtube) was arrested and is now charged.

--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 thread ]
chris (profile), 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:02am

Re: Re:
Troll or moron, I can never quite dell the difference these days.

there's a difference?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darren, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:05am

google should cut off all services to italy until they release their executive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Psynister, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:09am

Re: Re:
While all trolls are morons, not all morons are trolls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:16am

Re:
I agree. Could you imagine the uprising that would occur if YouTube, and Google search were suddenly gone from Italy, and replaced with a banner saying that due to the illegal holding of their executive, all google services are temporarily unavailable in Italy, and then post the personal phone numbers to the judge, prosecutor, and high ranking government officials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Headbhang, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:19am

Re: Jail
Whoo, boy, I'd actually quite enjoy to see them pass a guily veredict and watch Google's reaction to it. No more G-anything to Italy. *Italians* would become Google Army in a heartbeat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:20am

Re: Re: Re:
Trolls do it intentionally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:23am

Re: Re:
That's actually an interesting point there, though. What if Google's being sued because the kids were identifiable? European privacy laws make little to no sense to me as it is, and it would make sense for why they'd charge Google's Privacy exec.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:24am

Re: Re:
Forget Gmail, which would have even more impact I'd wager.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:30am

Re: Google
Google is not an ISP

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 thread ]
Jozinger, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:36am

Stay out of Italy
Just when one thinks it is safe to travel to Italy, now these dolts prove otherwise. Good food, great people and crazy politicians. Now, Italy has gone from a second world nation to a third world nation. Their actions are because of creed and jealousy. Their actions are not different from the African pirates except the pirates are honest.
"Tis a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:40am

Re: Re:
"After Google posted"? Google employs Turin high school teenagers?

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 thread ]
jozinger, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:42am

Re: Re: Google
You are an idiot. I realize that there are different laws in different countries, but Italy has returned to their fascist and sane people should stay the hell out of that country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Burda, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:43am

Stare Decis
The legal world works much differently than the Tech world. The tech world works quickly and does not always base new decisions on previous decisions.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:46am

Re: Google
Unless there's a legal interpretation I'm not aware of, the type of service they provide is irrelevant. They provide a service (in this case hosting of videos), so section 512 of the DMCA states that they are protected as long as they take relevant action when they are made aware of the offending content.

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 thread ]
Hulser, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:48am

Re: Re: Re:
Also, depending on how you define "Internet service provider," Google may not qualify, despite providing a service on the Internet.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:49am

Re: Re:
If this case does go all the way to a jail sentence, I imagine that a lot of internet companies would remove Italian offices, in the same way that a lot of online poker sites pulled out of the US when they started attacking executives. There's very few online businesses worth going to jail for, especially something you cannot control the legality of while you're running it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:51am

Re: Re: Google
I think the safe harbor laws should apply to both ISPs and content providers

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 thread ]
Hulser, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:09am

Re: Re: Re: Google
Would you care to give a reason why you disagree with my post rather than just making an ad hominem attack? What exactly in my post contradicts your statement that "Italy has returned to their fascist [sic]"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:11am

Re: Re: Google
"section 512 of the DMCA states" is a US law not Italian so it has NO bearing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:14am

Re:
common sense says you probably know sod all about Italian law (and most other nationality of laws).

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 thread ]
Hulser, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:15am

Re: Re: Re: Google
Right off the question is whether we're talking about "Internet service" providers or Internet "service prodiders."

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 thread ]
Mike (profile), 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:16am

Re: Google
Agreed. There's no case here, but Google is not an ISP. That is why they're not protected.

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 thread ]
Benito Mussolini, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:27am

Fake It
Cheaper to buy off the taunted kid and have him say it was all a big bad joke and a terrible misunderstanding. That would probably affect the case resulting in a smaller offense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Google
As I said, just my opinion. I disagree that any website necessarily qualifies as a Service provider and, furthermore, that being a service provider in one sense doesn't mean having immunity across the board. For example, if I were to commit libel in one of the comments here, no one could sue techDirt because they're providing the service of hosting my comment; I'm providing the content. Contrawise, if they wrote a post which was defamatory they could be sued, because it's their content being provided.

As I said, IANAL and it's just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:34am

I agree with the other posts. Google needs to declare war. Google probably has more power than the country of Italy, might as well flex it. Between the huge amounts of investment funds spent on data centers in countries around the world, to the lobby groups, lawyers, and customer base, Google would have very little trouble smothering Italy in pressure. Hell, put a small blurb about the subject on the main page of Google and a link to the email of the judge as well as government websites. That should cripple their web/email systems in about 35 seconds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Urza, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:36am

Re:
Does it matter what he knows about Italian law? If there's a nation where murder isn't legal, does that mean we shouldn't care when people get killed there?

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 thread ]
Xiera, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:54am

Re: Re:
Then the Italian government would use that as an excuse to go after Google for denial of service... because, you know, that's a legitimate reason for criminal charges, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:56am

Italy is really make a name for itself. No whenever I think of Italian "law" I'm going to laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Google
The US laws define it as any provider of a service online.

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 thread ]
Xiera, 3 Feb 2009 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re: Google
Actually, Hulser's post reflected a good degree of intelligence, unlike your follow-up.

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 thread ]
Xiera, 3 Feb 2009 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: Re: Google
Though the term 'Internet Service Provider' is easily misinterpreted (and should probably be renamed for clarity), I am pretty sure it's understood to refer to companies that "provide Internet service".

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 thread ]
zcat, 3 Feb 2009 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: Re: Google
Just to nitpick, Google do have google tech talks which are google-created content. But those generally don't feature Intellectually disabled kids getting beaten up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 3 Feb 2009 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Google
Why don't you read the whole comment before you post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re:
Apparently you missed the point that just because Masnick couldn't craft a law that makes sense doesn't imply that it is impossible.

The fact you don't care what the law says means you are arrogant as well as ignorant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SilverSliver99, 3 Feb 2009 @ 12:58pm

What will happen
Here's what will ultimately happen. The guy will get let go but Google will have to pay a fine. Just like what keeps happening to Microsoft. The European nations will just keep fining and suing our larger tech companies for large amounts over small things in order to get free cash.

It will be kind of ironic that Google will get shook down by a country known for the mafia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
usd6, 4 Feb 2009 @ 2:48am

Duty
I think there are responsible for many, first of all is the production of films, upload, and even including the .... Click the Browse Google uncensored on the dissemination of this should also have a responsibility, right? Thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stefano Quintarelli, 4 Feb 2009 @ 5:39am

the case is not that clear
I am the past president of Italy's ISPs association.

[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 thread ]
SilverSliver99, 4 Feb 2009 @ 7:22am

This may be somewhat true stefano. But google is a US based company not a European based. In illegal commerce there has to be someone who actually traffics something into and out fo countries. Google does not traffic, the you tube clip is stored in the US on their servers. It is people who actually downloaded/uploaded the movie that moved the information into and out of Italian borders. For example, in the kingdom of Bhutan Tobacco is illegal. If I bring a pack of cigarrettes into there is it my fault or Marlboro's (Altria) fault that I did? Obviously it's my fault. I think google is the same scenario.

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 thread ]
Mike (profile), 4 Feb 2009 @ 2:05pm

Re: the case is not that clear
Definition of ISP is very clear and definitely Google is not an ISP. (BTW, it requires registering to the local FCC equivalent).

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 thread ]