Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences
from the legal-world-gone-mad dept
This is just downright ridiculous. We see all sorts of jaw-dropping legal rulings around here, but I still can't fathom how Italian law allowed the following case to be decided in this manner. As you may recall, a couple years ago, Italian prosecutors filed criminal charges against four Google execs. What was the crime? Apparently, some kids had taunted another boy with Down's Syndrome, and filmed the whole episode. In the video, the kids apparently threw a tissue box at the boy. They then uploaded the video to YouTube, along with the countless other videos uploaded to the site. Nearly a year ago, YouTube noted that 20 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute. To think that Google should automatically have knowledge of what's included in every video uploaded to YouTube is ludicrous.But it's even more ridiculous when you realize the full story. Within hours of Google being alerted to the problems with the video, the video came down. In other words, the company acted promptly when questions about the video were raised. But, even more importantly, the video itself was used as evidence to punish the taunting teens. Now imagine if they hadn't been able to upload the video. Then the kids likely would have gotten away with the taunting, without anyone knowing about it. Why would you ever want to blame Google for providing a tool that allows stupid people to give proof of their own illegal activities? And even then, rather than filing a suit against Google the company, Italian prosecutors chose to file the lawsuit against four execs at the company, most of whom had nothing to do with the company's Italian operations.
You might think that a judge would toss this sort of lawsuit out really quickly, but that didn't happen, and now, amazingly, the court has found three of the four execs to be guilty and given them six month suspended jail sentences. I vaguely remember reading that "first time offenders" given prison sentences in Italy of three years or less get suspended sentences, so the suspended sentence part isn't surprising. But, of course, given how many videos are uploaded, it seems likely that there will be second, third and further offenses of this nature as well. It seems like Italy has just suggested Google block all access to YouTube, while also increasing the liability for pretty much any other company to operate there or have any foreign execs visit the country.
Honestly, I can't see how anyone would make a ruling in this manner and think that it makes sense. As I said when the case first came up, you would think that suing the execs of the company that made the tissue box would make more sense than suing Google's execs. Why not charge the execs of the company that made the camera that was used to film the incident? It's hard to hear about this ruling and not consider the Italian legal system to be a joke.
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: criminal charges, italy, liability, online video, youtube
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They certainly can't be expected to process every video manually and still maintain a profit and if a countrys legal system can be either that stupid, biased or corrupt to make a ruling such as this, then it would probably cost them more money to continue to operate there.
I wonder how the citizens of Italy would feel with no access to YouTube at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if the video contained, say, the slaughter of an American hostage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're going on about "They complained" and "2 months". Remember a complaint/accusation is not enough. Google have to investigate. They have millions upon millions of videos that have complaints. Of course it took a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Speech
> of an American hostage?
In America, we have this thing called the 1st Amendment which would prohibit the government from banning such a video, even if it contained the depiction of an American hostage being killed.
The government certainly couldn't criminally charge executives of the hosting company, put them on trial and convict them, for what is protected speech in the USA.
We thankfully haven't reached the point (as Europe has) where merely hurting someone's feelings or offending them can get you thrown in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
Yes. So? You seem to think the moment you make money, the 1st Amendment suddenly doesn't apply.
> any tv station would not show it for fear of censorship laws
Broadcast television stations have indeed shown such things before and no one has gotten in trouble.
It's true that the Supreme Court gives the FCC the power to regulate "decency" on broadcast television, but that doesn't apply to the internet. The Court has held that the only reason regulation of even broadcast TV is constitutional is because the airwaves are public property. The FCC has no legal authority to regulate the content of any communication medium that doesn't use the public airwaves (cable TV, the internet, telephones, etc.) .
And even so, the penalties for violating the FCC broadcast TV decency rules is merely a civil administrative fine. The government certainly doesn't have the power to throw people in prison for being indecent on television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speech
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55816-2003Oct20?language=printer
Being realistic, what would happen to you if you violated that ban? I am not being sarcastic, just asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
Nothing.
By the way, have you had a tax audit lately?
Not planning to fly anywhere, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
She was not jailed or prosecuted, but this is not what I would define 'nothing'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
Coincidence.
I'm sure the US gov't had nothing to do with that in any way, shape or form. Nope. Couldn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/a-glimpse-of-the-iraq-war-that-cost-a-militar y-contractor-her-job/
Her employer, Maytag Aircraft, fired her and her husband, David Landry, from their jobs in Kuwait, explaining that the U.S. military had expressed “very specific concerns’ about the incident. (the incident being the picture)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
Well, that's obviously just a lie because the US Constitution doesn't allow that kind of behavior. So it never happened. Period. And don't try to tell me otherwise because I'm a good citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
Nope. They refused to let the media in to photograph them, but if someone had managed to sneak a picture anyway and then published it, they couldn't have been arrested or prosecuted for it.
There's a difference between putting up security that makes it impossible for a reporter to take a picture of something and criminally prosecuting someone for publishing information the government doesn't like.
See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
From NYT:
Her employer, Maytag Aircraft, fired her and her husband, David Landry, from their jobs in Kuwait, explaining that the U.S. military had expressed “very specific concerns’ about the incident. (the incident being the picture)
I really appreciate how you defend your principles and yes, nobody was prosecuted. Maybe she would have liked to be prosecuted and given a chance to defend herself instead of losing her job on the spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
This was the action of a private employer, not the government. Any private employer can fire you for any reason they like, so long as it's not based on membership in a protected class (race, religion, gender, etc.)
No one ever said there are not consequences to doing something people don't like. Too many people these days seem to think "free speech" means "I can say whatever I want and suffer no negative consequences whatsoever". That's certainly not the case. If you work for a military contractor, it's not exactly wise to do something that's going to piss off the military if you want to keep your job.
However, that's not censorship. Only the government can legally censor in this country, and as you noted, the government never came after her at all. Why? Because they couldn't. Not without running afoul of the 1st Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
The action of a government contractor acting on behalf of the government. That makes the government involved in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
> government. That makes the government involved in my book.
But it's not your book that counts. 1st Amendment law is defined by the Supreme Court's book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
Nor yours.
1st Amendment law is defined by the Supreme Court's book.
I'd go even further and say that applies to all constitutional law, not just the 1st Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
> be constitutional too because the government wouldn't be doing
> the actual killing directly. Yeah, I see how that works.
WTF? I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Murder is illegal no matter who does it. Murder certainly does not become constitutional because it's done by proxy.
Analogies are apparently not your strong point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
Correct. And that applies to other acts that would otherwise be unconstitutional as well (despite your apparent belief to the contrary). Imposing those acts by proxy (extraordinary rendition, contractors, etc.) does not make them constitutional.
Analogies are apparently not your strong point.
Recognizing the difference between an analogy and an example is apparently not yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
> would otherwise be unconstitutional as well
> despite your apparent belief to the contrary).
You're comparing two completely different things: one is an illegal criminal act no matter who does it, the other act is a non-criminal question of constitutional law, which is either legal or illegal depending on the person or entity who performs it.
Get back to me when you get that all sorted out and can hold an intelligent discussion on the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
And for good measure they fired the husband too(?!)
The government never came after her at all because a phone call is way simpler and faster.
When you have high principles and you don't want to respect them usually you don't violate them openly, you find ways around them.
But even if the phone call cannot be proven, the message is loud and clear for everybody to understand: when it comes to anything related to military operations the 1st Amendment simply does not apply. And this clearly not because of protecting the forces on the ground, which could find me sympathetic.
And if the message had not been clear enough, the prohibition to bring cell phones with cameras in military prisons (Abu Grahib, anybody?) enforced by Rumsfeld made it even clearer.
Nobody is perfect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
> the message is loud and clear for everybody to understand: when
> it comes to anything related to military operations the 1st Amendment
> simply does not apply
Well, the Supreme Court says otherwise [New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)] and personally I think their message is louder and clearer. If that picture had been taken by someone who didn't work for an employer that wanted to suck up to the Pentagon (which is most of America), nothing would have happened to them. If the photographer had been some college kid who managed to get a good vantage point with a telephoto lens, the Pentagon couldn't have done jack to him for taking and/or publishing the photo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
I leave it to you if the source is reliable or not.
As for the Supreme Court, words (also written by the Supreme Court) are less effective than facts when it comes to sending messages.
If your colleague is fired after shooting a photo maybe you would go to your principle and mention the jurisdiction, most people probably would prefer to keep their job.
I state so because actually that is what happened in reality.
BTW you would know your principle's answer: I didn't want to, I had to.
Kids are (luckily) not offered jobs where really bad things happen so your case is really hypothetic.
In real life, sources of information have been prohibited from reporting what really happens. Which does not come unexpected, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
Yes, the "Pentagon Papers" case, as it is commonly known. And while I would say that it was a good ruling, it dealt with direct government actions. What we're dealing with here are actions by proxy.
If that picture had been taken by someone who didn't work for an employer that wanted to suck up to the Pentagon (which is most of America), nothing would have happened to them.
I know of very few employers who could not be paid to terminate an employee for the right price. Certainly a form of punishment by proxy. And in this case for exercising free speech and without trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
The New York Times reported that the employer explained that it was because the U.S. military had expressed "very specific concerns" about the incident. Perhaps the NYT is lying? Talk about speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech
To the contrary, they did, by proxy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my mind, that response time would be a factor here. if Google was asked repeatedly over weeks or months, before finally dealing with this, then it does seem like that part of immunity should be dealing with issues such as this in a reasonable time frame.
Up till now, i've seen no clear information on just how long it actually took so I don't want to make a call without knowing more details. Anybody have info on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They should not be sent to jail for it, but it's pretty bad that this feature is missing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The video itself was up for two months, but Google was not alerted to the problems in the video until the end of those two months, at which point it took down the video within a matter of hours.
The prosecutors argue that Google should have known about the content of the video because there were some negative comments on the video -- assuming that Google execs read all of the comments on posted videos.
But Google was no officially alerted to the problem of the video until the video had been up for two months, and they responded by taking the video down within hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Regarding the point by the anonymous poster, fair enough, but I think having a checkbox saying 'this is urgent' would be abused to the point of being useless. Most likely if it is urgent, multiple people would flag it and Google can process these requests on that aggregate number (community standards?) rather than personal opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Italian Courts
For some years the bosses of the Williams F1 team couldn't go to Italy because the courts decided that they were somehow personally responsible for the death of Ayton Senna.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technological advancement in the vast rubberstamp market
Perhaps the Italians are, in a round about way, just letting us know that in five years, their very own technological advances will leapfrog Google's. Google will be required to watch and approve every video manually or else Italy would desire being disconnected from the whole of Google. After all, the rubberstamp market affects nearly 83% of Italian households, and is very far reaching effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technological advancement in the vast rubberstamp market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technological advancement in the vast rubberstamp market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technological advancement in the vast rubberstamp market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technological advancement in the vast rubberstamp market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technological advancement in the vast rubberstamp market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots of all sizes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots of all sizes
The video remained online for 2 months ignoring the complaints of decent people.
Asking that such videos are removed immediately makes Italians fascists?
What Italians (most of them) think is that it is mandatory that you provide a real identity when you upload a video.
So you are not tempted to upload videos that offend human dignity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
Okay the video was up for two months (you say, I honestly don't know how long) but remember, for every minute that passes in our world, 20 HOURS OF VIDEO ARE UPLOADED. And that was last year's reporting. There are millions upon millions of videos that people have flagged as abusive etc. All right, in an ideal world, two months is two months too long, but this isn't an ideal world. This is a company with finite resources, and it does take time to go through the "This video is abusive" reports.
Plus, its the four execs who were given (albeit suspended) jail time! They had NOTHING to do with the video. Once they became aware of the problem, they took it down. And yet, for doing the right thing, they're found guilty of "invasion of privacy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
I think not.
What the kids did was wrong, yes. They were also punished for their crimes using the very video the uploaded.
Now, just for argument's sake...let's say they had converted part of it to an animated gif and posted it on their MySpace page. Would that make the owners of MySpace responsible? What if they had of converted it to a flash video and embedded it on their home page? Would that have made the company who hosted the website responsible?
Logically speaking, the answer would be no. But with this ruling, it very well might.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
So the filters exist and they somehow work efficiently.
Therefore I must conclude that the sites are protected from some 'wrong things' but not from others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
If you are a decent person you do not have a button with 'notify inappropriate content' to make sure that the thing will be removed soon. So it will stay there for months.
On top of this note that Google makes money out of it.
I can agree with you that jail is too much, but do you think that this is how it should work? No control whatsoever?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
You mean like the Flag icon just below every video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
That is not clear enough. I am sure that if that had been clearer the video would not have remained there for 2 months. And nobody would have called the Police. And we wouldn't be discussing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
> makes Italians fascists?
No, putting people on trial and convicting them in criminal court for hurting someone's feelings (by proxy, no less) makes them fascists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
Communist governments would have done basically the same exact thing only without the 'tediousness' of a trial.
its not a human rights issue either... making fun of a kid with a disability is NOT on par with genocide, please stop your idiotic attempts to make it so. all you are doing is watering down the importance of actual human rights issues.
its kids being kids. the universe does not care about you and the universe does not believe in human rights nor your issues with making the world a nicer place. spank the brats that did it (however you would like to define "spank" in this case) and be done with it.
but please... quit applying political tags to this and start calling it what it really is...
-- stupidity on a grand canyon scale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
> not believe in human rights nor your issues with making the
> world a nicer place
You responded to me, but I'm not the person making those arguments. You seem to be confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
... or provide a free video hosting service,
or be an executive of a company that does anything with content,
or create content not pre-approved by Vatican dogmatists
or speak your mind
or have any hope of escaping tyranny in the 3rd millenium
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
Go remove the plate from your car now.
Cars can hurt, videos can hurt.
The gov't made rules to avoid that you drive drunk, hit and run away. Is that so unacceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
Go remove the plate from your car now.
Don't be ridiculous, nobody cares if they're tracked and surveilled!
By the way, what's your name, address and plate number?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
Comments are not complaints. They are comments, and they mean as close to nothing as words can get.
Sure, the content may be cruel. But Google didn't participate in the cruel behavior.
People upload their drinking videos all the time. Should Google execs be charged with public intoxication? The suggestion is equally ridiculous.
As for "proof of real identity," no thanks. Why?
1) Anonymity is important for free speech, especially when free speech is not guaranteed for the speaker. (Yes, in this we have decided our rules are better than places that do not offer such freedom.)
2) Privacy - if I have to "prove" my identity, all of my online activity can be tracked, even without "speaking." No thanks.
3) It's next to impossible to enforce. There are myriad technical methods to evade or falsify "identifying" information that it would be futile/stupid/unjustified to take action against individuals.
Take your government-approved communication and shove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
Are you suggesting that if you register a domain you lose your civil rights? That after registering a domain all your online activity can be tracked down?
If you buy something using a credit card you have to prove your identity to the online shop. Did that kill e-commerce or made you feel like you are not able to choose the goods or brand you like?
Are you stating that if you buy a book at Amazon all your online activity can be tracked down? So Amazon is an open violation of the Constitution? VISA must be too, I guess.
So take your government-approved e-commerce and shove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ongoing cultural influence of Italians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See it for what it is...
But what should you expect when the US graduates 10 lawyers for every engineer. Italians should be glad the engineers at Google are making the internet useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See it for what it is...
On another astonishing note, the family of the kid even dropped their requests during the trial but still prosecutors went on and got the court to emit a conviction verdict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See it for what it is...
> aimed at making a quick buck.
It was a criminal trial, not a civil lawsuit, genius. The defendants were found guilty and given suspended prison sentences. There were no "bucks" involved, quick or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: See it for what it is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: See it for what it is...
> Or is that "euros"?
Only the lawyers defending the Google execs. The prosecutors are government workers on salary. Not exactly billing thousands an hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: See it for what it is...
Not exactly working for free, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See it for what it is...
> > billing thousands an hour.
> Not exactly working for free, either.
As salaried employees they're gonna make their money whether they prosecute Google or not, which negates the original assertion that this is "just another ambulance-chasing lawsuit aimed at making a quick buck".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See it for what it is...
As a salaried employee myself, let me assure you that salaries are often tied to performance. In fact, employment itself can even be terminated for lack of such performance. I've never had the pleasure of working for an employer where my performance didn't matter, but then again, I've never worked for the government either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See it for what it is...
> are often tied to performance.
Not in a government prosecutor's office. That would be serious breach of legal ethics.
> I've never had the pleasure of working for an employer where
> my performance didn't matter
No one's saying performance doesn't matter. The point is, that as a government prosecutor, they're drawing the same salary no matter which case they're working. Prosecuting Google doesn't make them any more money than prosecuting a local pickpocket or murderer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See it for what it is...
Um, OK...
No one's saying performance doesn't matter.
Wait. Isn't that what you just got through saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite surprising
Btw, there was *NO* sign of this case or ruling whatsoever in the media, just as a simple indication of the state of things around here.
I hate this f***ed up country. There seems to be very little revolutionary signs, but while they get things rolling, we're going to swallow a lot more of this crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite surprising
( http://www.pcworld.it/notizia/119853/2010-02-24/Google-condannata-per-il-video-con-pestaggio-di-raga zzo-down.html just to mention one of the many I've read this morning)
The freaky part of that is the general consensus of the Internet-illiterate audience over the supposed Google wrongdoings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite surprising
The days of revolutions seem to be mostly over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Were the google execs at their trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Were the google execs at their trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Found guilty of violation of privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pffft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pffft
If Google is forced to review every single video uploaded then every single website that has any user generated content must do the same. Now, assuming that this wouldn't become corrupted like everything else, the crap would still be there. The guy getting hit in the nuts by a football, the bad dancing, the crappy singing, they would all still be there. The good stuff would be kicked out for being to violent, vulgar, or copyright infringing. All (seen heard or written) online content would turn into some dumbed down version of TV (and that's saying something).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pffft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: pffft
> can not protect themselves.
Why is it that people like you always have a knee-jerk reaction to demand regulation for everything you don't like? The government is not the end-all, be-all solution to all of life's problems. Nut up and deal with it yourself instead of running to Big Nanny Government every time someone hurts your feelings.
Regulating YouTube won't stop kids from picking on each other. Kids have been doing that since long before there was an internet and they'll keep on doing it no matter what regulations are passed. As long as kids are going to pick on each other, I think it's a good thing that they're stupid enough to videotape the evidence and post it online where the authorities have easy access to it without needing a warrant or anything else. This actually *helps* catch the culprits and punish them accordingly. Why it is that you politically-correct do-gooders don't get that is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
the fact that i find youtube on the whole, very banal and vapid, does not diminish the point. these kids that are the victims of bullying(and assault as that is what bullying is legally) need protection before it happens. and as adults with any kind of empathy or heart, if it's happened to you then you gotta know what i mean,we have to stop it. as i said in my second post cyber bullying is happening at an exponential rate. just check on line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
> would be like to have the world see you humiliated
I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant. However, my response would not be to try and impose government restrictions on the entire world just because my feelings got hurt.
> your ignorance is sparkling in it's humor, to say
> that it aint so bad that your pain can be seen by
> billions cause we caught them
Considering the fact that I didn't actually say that, you're really in no position to criticize others for ignorance.
> i will use facts learnt through knowledge
Wow. Just wow. All I can say is behold the irony.
> a father did not get the almost daily beatings
> he was giving his boy was why the,(funny and
> intelligent),kid was failing his classes.
That's just flat out incoherent and makes no linguistic sense. Is this another one of those facts you "learnt" through knowledge?
> the fact that i find youtube on the whole, very
> banal and vapid, does not diminish the point
Nor is your personal opinion of YouTube even remotely relevant to this issue. It doesn't suddenly become okay to regulate a perfectly legal business out of existence merely because you personally don't much care for its product.
> (and assault as that is what bullying is legally)
You need to re-famialiarize yourself with the law. Some instances of bullying are assaults, but not all. Not even most. And that cyber-bullying you've gone about? Not an assault at all.
> if it's happened to you
It did happen to me when I was a kid. I had my older brother teach me how to fight and I stood up for myself. That put an end to the bullying real quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
I only know because I was going to correct someone on it and decided to look it up first.
More info here. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
> but 'learnt' is an acceptable non-American spelling for 'learned',
> mostly in England.
I wasn't criticizing the spelling. I was commenting on the silliness of him using "facts learnt through knowledge". That makes no sense. If he has the knowledge already, he doesn't need to learn it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
Want a knee jerk reaction? Shut the hell up! If I had my way I'd lock asses like you up for the general purpose of perverting freedom!
Crap has happened to me and friends, and family. You know what SMART people do, they go after the offenders, not the medium used. If there are long lasting effects on the victim, either the victim needs to learn to be thick skinned or be a victim the rest of their lives. The world has NEVER been a fair place, and never will be. There will ALWAYS be bullies, and I personally LIKE the fact that Youtube helps us find the young ones, and gives us the means to help find and teach those bullies that what was done was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
As far as this issue goes, if your opinion is that Google is the reason that these children bullied another child, then I wonder what was the cause of the MILLIONS of documented and undocumented cases of bullying over the last hundred years. As a matter of fact, as someone who was bullied as a child, having a way of PROVING the bullying occurred (since the bullies are stupid enough to post the evidence themselves) would have been appreciated greatly, because all going to a parent does is increase the abuse from the bully in the long run.
So, between those two factors, I fail to see anything in your unintelligible diatribe that would lead me to believe you have any association AT ANY LEVEL with the 'mental health field'.
Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
The shift key on yours seems to be broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
Uh, "knowledge" *is* "facts learnt", isn't it?
Well, maybe not in your case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: pffft
If I ever saw a video on Youtube about my cousin (who is retarded) being picked on, I wouldn't go after Youtube, I'd go after the people who did it (with a vengeance). Blaming Youtube and insisting that the Internet be moderated is just sweeping the problem under a rug. This kind of mindset is a major problem today, it allows the problem to fester (it's why bullying is so bad today) while making everything look all pretty. This form of denial makes you just as much of a peace of filth as the kids doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
If not for the video, those kids would not have been called out, and they would not have been punished, and Italy would not have had to admit it has bullying. If you can sweep it under the rug, you can keep your outward appearance of purity.
Damn you Google! How dare you make governments realize children can be mean!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
Do you blame the Department of Transportation for speeding or car crashes? It's physically possible for them to prevent every single one of those, but it's exactly as unreasonable as what your asking of the entire Internet.
My point being, cyber bullying is the exact same thing as bullying. You ask why take the cyber out of bullying, I say, why add it in the first place. It's the same thing on a different medium. Pretending it's anything else is still taking the blame off of those truly responsible. It's a step that says to these bullies that it's OK, it's not their fault, they did it because of Youtube. And just because you drew the line at blaming the passer of the note doesn't mean anyone else will.
Do you ask that Mike censor my comments because I called you wrong? What if someone else found my comments to you offensive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: pffft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: pffft
I really doubt if anyone can tell you *anything*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pffft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's response
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/serious-threat-to-web-in-italy.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, Americans know best
I do not know if Italian law contains safe harbor provisions. I will leave that to the Italian legal system. But if there is no safe harbor concept, Google could very well be guilty. If there is a privacy requirement, that Google does not follow by definition of how they do business, that is too bad for Google. They can either change their policy, pull out of the country or accept the penalties for breaking Italian law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once again, Americans know best
Last I checked, Italy was a member of the EU. Also, last I checked the EU has safe habour laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once again, Americans know best
How dare they criticize me!
- Il Duce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sets precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they can make it difficult enough for Youtube, they'll either pull out, or give the Italian PM the control he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While I'm not trying to defend the guy at all, it must be noted that the vast circulation of the videos depicting the aggression he suffered gained him quite a lot of public attention and consensus between italians, as he was seen as the innocent victim of the lunacy of his political and social foes. His public figure immediately revamped on national polls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't seem to be real familiar with Italian politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to middle-age
Silvio Berlusconi, our Prime Minister, has the property of 3 TV channels out of 8, while direct controls 6 (the parliament has the control of the 3 state channels).
Internet (and YouTube as is mainstream representation) can be a new medium, quite free from the control of the restricted italian lobby.
Well, with these sentence I'm feeling we are going towards a Chinese model :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back to middle-age
Unfortunately, supposedly "free" governments all over the world are looking at what the Chinese are doing with great jealously and trying to figure out how to get away with doing the same things themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What part are we not hearing????
Little mikee m is notorious for telling us only the part of the story that furthers his agenda and nothing else, and even trying to deny that there is even more to the story than just his little agenda furthering piece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What part are we not hearing????
If you can provide evidence that the Google execs tried to hinder the police investigation, then post it. I'm open minded enough that it would probably change my entire opinion about this article. But remember, they didn't get convicted of hindering a police investigation, the got convicted of violating privacy laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What part are we not hearing????
Little mikee m is notorious about not posting the entire story, and only posting the parts that further his agenda, so everything he writes I question what more exists.
In this case I'm willing to bet there is more to the story that is being opening reported. And I doubt that it is political in nature too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What part are we not hearing????
Mike is known for not adding some information but I have found that it's mostly inconsequential things that other people make sound like they're important. For example, the video was posted for two months before it was taken down. This isn't important due to Google getting thousands of flags daily (maybe hourly). The important part, that was included, was that the video was taken down right after the Italian police contacted Google and Google helped the police find the people who posted it.
You wrote your post as an accusation. You made it sound like Mike knew something that he wasn't saying. From the sounds of this post I'm replying to, I'm right and it was an accusation. If you posted it as saying you think there may be more to it, then I wouldn't have said anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What part are we not hearing????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What part are we not hearing????
How can I know there is a huge conspiracy going on? The same way you know that there is more to this story and it isn't political..... I just KNOW.... See how well that works? Statistically I have proof, 84.6% of people surveyed think this is the whole story and Italy is full of carp.... Of course 76% of statistics are made up on the spot, so don't believe everything you read.
This story has gotten enough coverage on other mainstream media outlets that if there was 'more to the story' it would have been reported already (and you could go find it, if you knew how to do a google search).
Some people can be so obtuse..... It just makes my tinfoil hat steam....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What part are we not hearing????
You look pretty anonymous to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What part are we not hearing????
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What part are we not hearing????
Little BBC is notorious for telling us only the part of the story that furthers the BBC's agenda and nothing else, and even trying to deny that there is even more to the story than just the BBC's little agenda furthering piece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What part are we not hearing????
Little michee t is notorious for being stupid, so clearly he needs to prove that he is not a murderer!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What part are we not hearing????
And did those execs then rape and kill that poor kid?
Little mikee doesn't tell us if they did that or not, does he? Nooo. Little mikee m is notorious for telling us only the part of the story that furthers his agenda and nothing else, and even trying to deny that there is even more to the story than just his little agenda furthering piece.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incredible:
Who needs them anyway? Europe contributes nothing to the well being of the world. They can't even man and fund NATO properly. They are just a cop out and let other countries carry the load. They can be cut off. I can think of no products that I need from Europe. It really seems that the MPAA and the RIAA are working overtime bribing European officials. Man they must be getting rich!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The copyright industries are smiling today. For them, the Internet has always been acceptable collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politics...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politics...
I think it could use a little more of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not familiar with Italian politics, but this just looks ignorant or shady. (I can't decide which.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We need an apology from Earth, or God, or whoever is responsible for creating the air that bullies and pervs use to fuel and support their nefarious activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lawsuits Against God
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just back out of Italy
And as much as I like Italy, it would be very funny to see the hue and cry there if Google just pulled out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is unbelivable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Trial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berlusconi
I think it is time to tech the Italian voter a leason. Google should just block all access to all of it's services from Italy. The Italian voter will see what a barren wasteland the internet is without google's services and change their political views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sovereignty
I, Mr Sleazebag, realize that Google's winning exempts providers from virtually all complaints provided that they are reasonably responsive, so I register www.hotnudeitaliangirls.com and set up shop. I allow anyone to anonymously upload photos and video of hot nude italian girls (all I require is the user click a box indicating they have the legal right to upload the file). I then charge $20 a month to allow people to view my excellent collection of contributed porn.
Now Alice broke up with her boyfriend Bob, and Bob uploads those photos to my site. Unless Alice is willing to pay the $20 to check out my site she won't be able to establish that I have her photos, and therefore won't be able to make a well formed request that I remove the files, and I can continue to sell them with virtual impunity.
Anyone can plainly see a reasonable policy goal in requiring that user-generated content be moderated and that all interested parties grant approval for it to be published. Whether or not it is practical or cost-effective for a country to have such a low is another matter entirely.
Yes that would make YouTube illegal, and would make Google's behaviour criminal (whether or not the responded in 2 days or 2 months). Its called sovereignty, and its been an established legal principal for centuries.
PS. It is remarkable to me the degree to which American society has accepted things like YouTube. This opinion piece is consistent with the vast majority of other articles out there. No wonder many older individuals find Facebook/YouTube strange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sovereignty
I'm confused. You cite no sources and no evidence that people "find Facebook/YouTube strange." You just state it as fact.
I'm sure some people do find it strange. But history is replete with people finding new things strange. We recently wrote about people who complained about the waltz when it first became popular.
Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean you legislate it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sovereignty
However, I don't think your example actually demonstrates a need for pre-screening content. You are right that Alice would need to pay the $20 to prove the website had photos of her, but how would pre-screening content help? On what criteria do you a suggest a website filter images? As far as I can tell, two things would need to happen during the screening process: check the image for appropriate content, and gain permission of "all interested parties", to borrow your phrasing.
Checking the image for illegal or inappropriate content would less important on a porn site, but the important questions of "illegal according to whom?" and "what should we regard as offensive?" still remain. Should a website administrator be required to respect all laws of all nations? In this case, porn could probably not legally exist, but even for more conservative sites, the burden of keeping up with the laws of their home country is more than enough to keep them busy. It's simply not practical, and would effectively force all websites to either prohibit user-generated content, or be at a very high risk of being sued. Not to mention that any content screening would have be done by actual people who would then have the final say on whether or not you are allowed your free speech (these people would surely be required to air on the side of caution and reject anything even remotely questionable).
"Anyone can plainly see a reasonable policy goal in requiring that user-generated content be moderated and that all interested parties grant approval for it to be published."
While reasonable in theory, how do you implement this online? In this case, assuming we define "all interested parties" as being who ever the "hot nude Italian girl" is in the photo being submitted, how can you reliably confirm the identity of the party granting approval? Any sort of electronic signature or ID can be forged or copied easily since it would be digital, and Bob in your example could easily have had access to Alice's physical identification (state ID, credit cards. etc) to make faxes or copies. As the site administrator, you really have no way of knowing for sure whether you've just received legitimate proof of identity, or the forgeries of a scorned boyfriend.
As a side-note, if you consider the rising trend of identity theft in the physical world, despite the best efforts of banks, police, and government to prevent it, it's hard to see how you could expect to prevent identity theft online.
I simply don't see how you can implement a content screening system that actually prevents dishonest and unscrupulous people from doing dishonest and unscrupulous things and with the intent of posting it online. The only reasonable method would be simply to have no one post anything online. It may be a country's sovereign right to enact a law that attempts to do this, but that doesn't make it make practical or effective.
P.S. I wonder why you are surprised that the "American society has accepted things like YouTube". I'm interested to know what the "things like YouTube" are that you refer to. Personally, I've found YouTube is an excellent source of instructional videos (with topics from cooking to racquetball to learning guitar), music videos, and original content (I've seen many independent animations and a few documentaries on the site). It's a way to experience and share video content that would have otherwise never been seen ( see: Randy Pausch's incredibly moving final lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo ).I'd hate to see such a magnificent resource be denied to Italians because of some insensitive teenage bullies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sovereignty
There is a world of difference between a scorned boyfriend, and a scorned boyfriend who is committing perjury by forging documents and IDs. Force a person to even check a check box "I agree under the penalty of perjury that I did not lie on this form", and see the form responses drop by 99%, even if you were asking about blue and yellow M&Ms.
Secondly, about your link to instructional videos on YouTube - yes, it is great. And if I make one on Costa Rica rain forests, I won't mind paying 5$ or 10$ entry fee to make it public to the world (which Google could perhaps use to check that it contains no X rated content). It isn't a question of conforming to all laws of all nations - simply a question of conforming to a 17 point inspection that is published, and is the reason for the entry fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sovereignty
Now Alice broke up with her boyfriend Bob, and Bob shares those photos with some of his buddies. Unless Alice is granted the right to search people's houses at will, she won't be able to establish that they have nude photos of her, and therefore won't be able to make a well formed request that they hand them over and they can continue to view them with virtual impunity.
Anyone can plainly see a reasonable policy goal in permitting Alice to search people's houses for such content at any time so that all interested parties can grant approval for it to be viewed.
Sound about right?
PS. It is remarkable to me the degree to which American society has accepted things like YouTube.
PS. It is remarkable to me the degree to which Italian society accepted things like fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
There are so many times when decisions like this just don't make any logical sense, until you look at them from the POV of corruption and vested interest. Then they make perfect sense.
And in this sense, the US makes Italy look like an amateur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
What he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a different perspective to it
I have written about earlier how this problem is coming, though I obviously underestimated the problem myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a different perspective to it
Let me get this straight: You think that if someone assaults someone with some object, then whoever made that object as well as the owner of the property of wherever that crime took place should be criminally responsible for it.
Wow. Just wow. And you even put that on your blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is a different perspective to it
If I make a video of you (that I consider funny, but you consider offensive) against your wishes, and I post it. Then, the video does two things: (i) makes money for me (I know, its not a lot), and (ii) embarrasses/irks you.
Then, you have to the right to sue (i) me - for making the video, if you can reach me, (ii) Google - for providing the platform for dissemination of the video and not listening to your complaints, if you can show that you made an attempt, or there is reasonable cause they should have acted on their own.
If one misses the analogy, a natural question would be why not sue the camera maker (Sony) as well. But, that misses the point that for Sony, there was no mechanism to stop the usage of the camera once it was SOLD with the limited warranty to the user. The computer maker and the video editing software owner have similar "lack of power" defenses - the active video sharing service does not.
Now, the situation isn't that different from a murder, in which case the gun makers are rarely sued for MAKING the gun, but the stores are sometimes for selling to a person who should not have been able to buy the gun. A simple Google search for "gun seller sued" shows up interesting cases.
In short, (i) a continuing involvement in the process, (ii) a power to have been able to STOP the problem are the most distinguishing characteristics of who can be found culpable. Monetary exchange (however little) further reinforces the accomplice liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There is a different perspective to it
No, I think I got it pretty spot on.
Let me provide an example.
You already did. Have you forgotten already (or maybe you're just trying to)? I think we got your point from the first one.
providing the platform for dissemination of the video and not listening to your complaints
So you're claiming that Google ignored complaints about this video? Wow (again). I guess that if you can't make your case legitimately then it's time to just start lying, huh? If you're going to do that then talking or listening to you is a waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a different perspective to it
Either way, you didn't address any of the points I make. (Remember, just saying "wow" isn't really an argument).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a different perspective to it
Ohh, so do I!
Here's my website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a different perspective to it
Actually, I think pointing out that you're lying is a pretty good point to address. Of course, I can see how you would like to believe otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There is a different perspective to it
So?
Then, you have to the right to sue (i) me - for making the video, if you can reach me, (ii) Google - for providing the platform for dissemination of the video and not listening to your complaints, if you can show that you made an attempt, or there is reasonable cause they should have acted on their own.
Neither of those things are true. "Irking" someone is not illegal. Providing the platform for irking others is not illegal.
Why do you think it should be?
In short, (i) a continuing involvement in the process, (ii) a power to have been able to STOP the problem are the most distinguishing characteristics of who can be found culpable. Monetary exchange (however little) further reinforces the accomplice liability.
As our safe harbor laws have made clear, this is not the case, nor should it be, in most situations. Why do you argue otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unfair decision
In this incident, the Google already removed the video from you tube and they provided the information of the up loader to the authorities. Actually, the Italian authorities should thank to them instead of suing them.
I found the one thing that wrongly done by Google. They took nearly two months to remove the video. We do not know why they took so long to remove the video. Only Google will know the answer. Even they delay to remove; these 3 employees should not receive that kind of jail term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unfair decision
Yes, we do. It was because they weren't notified for "nearly two months". After they were notified it was down in a matter of hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dignity
The same dignity that you seem deny when you do not like medical facilities for all persons.
Freedom not stands for to make every thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dignity
See how that works? You don't know me, I don't know you and yet, I just attempted to insult you. However, if you choose to ignore me and the insult, no harm done.
Tell you what. Let sure the makers of the roads for allowing your corrupt government officials to go to the office and ruin your economy. Makes about as much sense as finding Google guilty.
Seriously, grow up. Hold those accountable that did the action. Flailing about and looking for more to blame is childish.
You want Italy to be part of the world? Then insist your government act like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet Google does nothing wrong and they face jail time for no good reason. The whole corporate veil is a scam, only designed to protect evil corporations that intentionally conduct atrocities. But corporations that do nothing wrong are not protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pull out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Italy you cannot publish a video or a picture of a kid without the parents' consent.
This law adds bureaucracy that is probably unbearable to an american, but it also protects the children and children in Italy are sacred (and often spoiled).
Google created an ecosystem where you can violate this law without being liable.
To an american Italian laws could sound like a terrible limitation of free expression, but the law really was meant to protect the citizens. Another interesting aspect of this law is that you cannot keep a database of other people's data without their consent, so a positive aspect of this law is that Italians receive very seldom phone calls with commercial offers because you can oblige a company to remove your name and data from their database within 30 days, including your phone number.
A few more bits of information to understand the italian culture:
In the US freedom is more than a value, I would dare to say it is a religion while in Italy human dignity is considered a value more important than freedom. As every generalization, this statement cannot be precise, but if you know a bit both countries the cultural difference on this point is IMHO evident.
More than 80% of Italians honestly trust the police (Carabinieri), so most italians don't see the Police as people helping the Gov't to control the citizens, but rather as people doing a difficult job and protecting the people.
I don't know anybody, also far left, stating that in Italy you cannot freely and publicly express your dissent.
Actually dissenting with the Gov't in some places is as common as talking about the weather (this was equally true of the previous Gov't when Berlusconi was not in charge).
Media are an issue, especially most TV channels being too close to the Gov't in every sense, but that is, IMHO a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In Italy you cannot publish a video or a picture of a kid without the parents' consent.
This law adds bureaucracy that is probably unbearable to an american, but it also protects the children and children in Italy are sacred (and often spoiled).
Sure, but then place the liability on THOSE WHO UPLOADED THE VIDEO. Not the tool used.
Google created an ecosystem where you can violate this law without being liable.
No, the user should still be liable. Not Google.
To an american Italian laws could sound like a terrible limitation of free expression, but the law really was meant to protect the citizens.
Again, that's got nothing to do with it. The problem is that you blamed the wrong party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The logical conclusion would be that in Italy Google should accept to oblige users to provide their identity before they can upload videos.
Until then Google is indeed not breaking the law directly, but offering an ecosystem where respecting the law is not mandatory.
It's as if in your town you had a special place, managed by foreigners, where educated adults could teach 15 years old boys the difference between Beaujolais and Bordeaux.
Wine can be culture, and a place like that in Europe would be allowed and maybe recommended. Probably parents would take once in a while their kids there, obviously not exaggerating. I would.
In the US the place would be shut down within days and if you could prove that the owner knew what was going on in there he would probably go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The owner of the place would go to jail, also if he personally never served directly the wine.
He would be HELD RESPONSIBLE because it's HIS PLACE and if in your place the laws are broken you go to jail.
Actually the parents would go to jail if ever they let their kids age 15 even taste a little bit of wine at home during a dinner. Actually the parents would be sentenced exactly 6 months, just like Google's executives. Funny coincidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if you have no knowledge of it, huh?
Wow. I bet there are a lot of people rotting in Italian prisons who did nothing wrong beyond owning property then too, huh?
Somehow, I think you're full of it.
Actually the parents would be sentenced exactly 6 months, just like Google's executives.
No, not just like Google. The parents in your example were aware of the action and gave their permission. Google did neither and to claim they did is being untruthful or, as I said, full of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now that's Fascism ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]