Google Privacy Counsel Facing Criminal Charges 242
ProfJonathan writes "According to a story in the IAPP's Privacy Advisor, Google's Paris-based global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, is facing criminal charges in Italy for defamation based upon a user's posting of a video to Google Video. Mr. Fleischer was on his way to the University of Milan for a speaking engagement when he was met by Italian law enforcement officials. As with the 1997 case of Compuserve's Felix Somm and the 2006 arrest in Texas of BetOnSportsUK's CEO during a layover on a trip to Costa Rica, this case once again highlights the risks faced by executives and employees of online companies whose activities may be legal and protected in their own countries, but illegal elsewhere in the world. Troubling, and worth watching."
Re:Really? (Score:3, Informative)
That case set a positive precedent. Dmitri and Elcomsoft were exonerated.
If anything it will be more difficult for this type of thing to be tried in the U.S. because of that case.
Re:Your Corporate Travel Lawyer (Score:1, Informative)
The US is one of the worst offenders in this area, particularly in relation to internet gambling companies.
Re:Anyone got a link tot his video? (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to know what the content is without watching the video, FTFA:
The charges follow a two-year investigation by Italian authorities into footage uploaded onto Google Video that showed a disabled teen being disparaged by peers.
Re:hmph (Score:5, Informative)
What actions? Some idiots uploaded a illegal video, the Italian Interior Minister sent Google a complain about it, and Google removed the video less than 24 hours after the complain. Well within the EU law.
Even someone is acting "badly" is the Italian prosecutor, which is clear trying to "fight" foreign/big companies for self/government publicity.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
The case you are referencing is entirely different. Carruthers and Kaplan attempted to open and advertise direct routes for Americans to circumvent U.S. law. Further more, both made statements publicly that they were aware of the illegality of their actions.
Carruthers was hung out to dry by his own cronies and Kaplan muscled by his own as well because his past criminal activities were drawing heat to a fast growing online company.
Neither the Elcomsoft or the Google case share anything in common with the case you referenced.
Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (Score:4, Informative)
To ensure you don't split that hair you are worried about not splitting, it's not your definition they'll be using.
The definition I know of is: "operators of electronic communications networks and services". In other words, if you provide a service, such as YouTube. You are an ISP.
Re:Modern conception of jurisdiction all screwed u (Score:3, Informative)
These kinds of criminal prosecutions are a uniquely Italian phenomenon, and I'm not surprised at all. One case I remember off the top of my head was Frank Williams, *owner* of the Williams F1 team faced criminal charges in the death of Ayrton Senna at Imola.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article1055305.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (Score:3, Informative)
but I can see why some countries don't accept freedom of speech as an absolute value and want to put some restrictions on it (hate speech being an example).
Why should some countries put restrictions on freedom of speech? As soon as you put restrictions on freedom of speech you start down the path where you will end up being something like china. Hate speech should be perfectly legal, I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Who gets to decide what "hate speech" is, you can define "hate speech" as anything, really. I could say that you saying your opinion on this matter is hate speech if I really wanted to.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The real facts from the source (Score:3, Informative)
It *is* wrong to use your car to hit people.
It *is* censorship to take away the video.
Regardless of the legality of the original act, it is censorship to remove the video.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Informative)
In this case, the legal rights of a minor has been infringed, in many ways this crosses international borders as the privacy rights of minors are protected pretty well universally. Whilst it may be very expensive for google to review every video uploaded and have a dramatic affect upon profit margins, that is no excuse to break the law. So some one else uploads it, but google makes money by selling views of it via advertising, basically google and in turn it's executives are screwed.
Any other old world hard copy publishing house would be bound by the same laws, being digital is no escape. Google are the publisher they are at fault, they made the money, now someone must pay the penalty. Easy answer is, if your going to be a google video or you tube executive make sure you charge enough to pay for the fines and/or periods of imprisonment, funnily enough that is probably already true.