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."
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
No kidding. [freesklyarov.org]
48 hours is plenty hasty... (Score:5, Interesting)
... to remove something like that.
I know this is my opinion on how hasty one ought be, but its not like Google was condoning the act or promoting the video. It seems that they were not immediately aware, and once made aware, moved quickly to make things right.
Whats the problem here? Do we all have a duty to right the wrongs of others in nanoseconds if those wrongs are somehow involved in our own publicly accessible properties? What about offensive graffiti? What about belligerent racism on a myspace comments section?
What if Italy has had a terrorist in its borders for more than 24 hours? Ought we hold them accountable for harboring terrorism due to lack of rapid response?
Che cazzo, Italia.
Modern conception of jurisdiction all screwed up (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, this sort of prosecution is likely to be immensely counterproductive. What kind of businessperson would want to travel to Italy when they prosecute individuals for supervisory responsibility of departments that have made a diligent, good faith effort to comply with the local laws from 10,000 miles away?
In addition, the modern conception of legal jurisdiction is all screwed up. Traditionally, jurisdiction comes with the territory. Physical presence in the jurisdiction is required when an essential part of the crime is committed. That is why, for example, states cannot force companies who do not have a physical presence in their state to collect sales tax on online purchases for them. The idea that you can prosecute somebody for an ordinary crime when all the relevant actions occurred outside your physical jurisdiction is a very bad precedent.
So rather than arresting visiting Google executives, if Italy feels so strongly about this, why not just shut down Google's local operations (if any), or create a national firewall and filter Google at the border? Or require ISPs to filter their entries from local DNS servers? Or threaten to do so unless Google pays some civil fine?
Re:Fun for trolls? (Score:1, Interesting)
That's actually a pretty simple case. German law clearly states, in what cases it applies to actions performed in other countries. Nazi propaganda isn't one of them.
Here's a scary thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
What if I'm an anti-Chinese blogger that catches the ire of someone in the Chinese government... Worse, what if my words cause economic harm to China--bad for them but great for my blog... They put out an arrest warrant for me for "defaming"... Now, while I wouldn't fear extradition from the US over my freedom of speech, does this mean that I'm in danger of being extradited to China should I travel to a country that has a liberal extradition treaty with China? Sure sounds like it...
I agree with another poster--it's time for some basic "global laws." It's too bad the UN is too gridlocked and useless to prevent situations like these from happening...
Re:Here's a scary thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's too bad those global laws, if enacted, would likely go the other way (since they're going to be written by politicians) -- you wouldn't be protected from extradition to China; rather, you'd be forbidden from criticizing China on the Internet, and the US would be required to extradite you.
Re:Your Corporate Travel Lawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
The US *DOES* suffer from businesses that avoid our borders due to the patriot act alone. Most businesses are not excited about opening all their data to our government on merit of it crossing a U.S. boundary alone.
It makes you wonder how much data enters "the U.S." without ever being near it. Would make for a good conspiracy theory, minus the made up stuff.
both are problematic (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because various countries are sovereign states doesn't mean it's inappropriate to criticize them if they're run by hard-right authoritarians (or hard-left authoritarians, for that matter).
that's still government censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
A huge proportion of censorship of, for example, literary works, was done by elected governments---Ireland's government, which has been democratic since its independence, is pretty notorious for their treatment of James Joyce's works, for example. That doesn't make it not government censorship.
Re:Guessing how this is going to turn out... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoever uploaded the video, I would think would be the provider of the content, while having Google as providing a service that allows it's users to share their videos.
No. I disagree strongly here. Providing 'generic webspace' or even 'video hosting' should qualify as provider of a service, but something like youtube or google video is, in my opinion, clearly a different case.
Youtube and Google Video are branded sites that they have COMPLETE control and discretion over. They decide how it looks, what they'll accept, they decide what advertising is on the site, it is THEIR site. Not yours.
While a given video itself might be yours, they aren't merely hosting it for you. They are providing the end-to-end user experience in a branded manner that they exercise total control over.
Users are given a complete google or youtube branded site that is managed and controlled by them. They allow you to upload videos -- but they decide what they accept, what it looks like, how users use it, everything.
When you visit my site, you have no idea who is providing me the service, unless I decide to put their name up there or something or you go digging at the technical level. With Youtube or Google Video ... its their site, not mine. I can upload them my video, and they may or may not choose to accept it and publish it or not.
Saying they are a 'service provider' instead of a 'content provider' is as ridiculous as an art magazine that publishes photos sent in by readers claiming that they aren't responsible for any child pornography in their last issue because they just provide a publishing 'service'. That might hold if readers were publishing their own magazines, and they were just printing what the readers submitted... but if the photos are published in their trademarked google magazine, then they are responsible for the content.
Re:Really? (Score:1, Interesting)
It's about time Americans realised that the rest of the world is comprised of sovereign states not subject to their jurisdiction.
O rly? [wikipedia.org]
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, I agree with you 100% about the 'American' attitude..
Having said that, I am struck by this, FTFA:
"It is believed to be the first criminal sanction ever pursued against a privacy professional for his company's actions.
The video that sparked the investigation was captured in a Turin classroom. Four high school boys were recorded taunting a young man with Down syndrome, ultimately hitting the 17-year-old with a tissue box. One of the boys uploaded the footage to Google Video's Italian site on September 8, 2006.
According to Google, more than 200,000 videos are uploaded to Google Video each day. Under EU legislation incorporated into Italian law in 2003, Internet service providers are not responsible for monitoring third-party content on their sites, but are required to remove content considered offensive if they receive a complaint about it. Between November 6 and 7, 2006, Google received two separate requests for the removal of the video-one from a user, and one from the Italian Interior Ministry, the authority responsible for investigating Internet-related crimes. Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving the requests.[*&*]
Nonetheless, Milan public prosecutor Francesco Cajani decided that by allowing the 191-second clip onto its site, Google executives were in breach of Italian penal code. "
*&* "Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving the requests." "Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving the requests." vv
Peter Fleischer was on his way into the University of Milan for a speaking engagement January 23, 2008 [emphasis mine] when five law enforcement officials with summonses surrounded him. According to Fleischer, the officers had been waiting for him, but ultimately allowed him to deliver his talk before taking him to a deposition before the public prosecutor.
Is it too hard to believe (without more info) that he 'believed*' that this was dealt with, or not an issue?
[*yes, if you have a 'clue', you will check this shite out beforehand...but...]
This just smells of vendetta to me; maybe I am uninformed and 'just don't know any better'...Is there more to this story than the info we being fed?(I have no clue..just asking)
They allowed him to give his talk, but only after 'arresting' him. WTF?
I think that more info is needed here. There seems to be a lot of pieces missing, and I noticed my 'knee-jerk' reactions getting the best of me here...Good Bye for now!
*&* "Google removed the video on November 7, 2006, within 24 hours of receiving the requests."