Italian Court Convicts 3 Google Execs of Violating Privacy | Hacker News Reader

Italian Court Convicts 3 Google Execs of Violating Privacy

nytimes.com

47 pointsfrisco32 comments

The real idiocy in this ruling is that the judge stated in their closing remarks that google did not ask all parties for their consent. I'm not sure if the judge realizes that for google to know which people are visible in a video at the time of posting they'd have to have face recognition capabilities coupled with databases of private information that would amount to a privacy violation well in excess of the one they're being accused of now (and which, as far as I know are not currently technically feasible).

Simple safe harbor provisions for ISPs and user generated content sites are there for a reason, the students were punished and expelled from their school, as far as I can see the system works and this ruling is both wrong and superfluous.

There is a lot of pressure on Google in Italy, Mediaset (owned by Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi) has sued google and youtube for insane amounts of money.

In Italy it can be quite hard to distinguish between what is a private agenda and what is a quest for justice.

In this case 'the jury is out', but I'm suspicious of trumped up lawsuits that are followed within weeks by other lawsuits demanding damages in the hundreds of millions, especially if those lawsuits are brought on behalf of a media company owned by a senior government figure.

This is a political matter.

In every European nation, and even in the USA, if you make N televisions channels telling the same story about the poor boy victim of youtube you get more or less the same effect I bet.

The problem here is that all this is Berlusconi-driven. Guess what happens if everybody switch to youtube and internet instead to see what his ridiculous televisions are pushing? Loss of business.

The TV here is full of similar stuff about Facebook, for instance. They are doing an immense government-driven attempt to stop people using internet. Fortunately it's too late for them.

To make a parallel with USA, remember when enough communication convinced most americans that Iraq had mass destruction weapons? 90% of people don't think with their own heads. If the government and media are evil it's very hard to stop it.

This is not to defend Italy (I'm Italian btw). If we are under the this kind of control is our fault, but this youtube stuff is only the result, not the symptom IMHO.

Tsk. Why do web companies even worry about a problem like this? If it were me, I'd simply redirect all Italian web traffic from my site and onto a black page with a short explanation of the problem. And I'd make the switch at 1am. If my company were as popular as Google is, within a few short minutes there would be massive outrage such that politicians, journalists, judges, and police officers would be awoken from sleep. There would be huge protests in the streets the next morning or a day later. Governments would never make a screw-up that severe ever again.

In fact, in light of how this case was handled in Italy, if I were Google, I'd be doing that very thing right now until Italy changes their laws to make it crystal clear that Google should not be held accountable.

Collective punishment went out of fashion a long time ago, and besides, that's exactly what would play in to the hands of Berlusconi et al.

Google simply will appeal this and hopefully the appeal judge will be more sensible, if they're not the time for drastic measures may come but the fall out from that will be wildly unpredictable and it will hurt a lot of people that have nothing to do with this.

Actually, collective punishment is anything but out of fashion. Trade embargoes, for example, punish the whole population of countries instead of just the responsible people in the government.

I wished you were wrong about that :(

But in the case of a company duking it out with a government over the heads of the users 'out of fashion' was meant to be read as counter productive.

Trade embargoes are only a step removed from a blockage, which is considered an act of war.

I don't agree that such actions are too aggressive. In the era of South African apartheid, Western disinvestment campaigns played a role in eliminating the system, and they were supported by Mandela and the ANC.

Even individual organizations can have an impact. Mandela believes that the University of California's disinvestment of 3 billion dollars was particularly helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa

Not that things are that dire in Italy, but I think it's quite reasonable for Google to take public actions suspending the hosting or distribution of content in Italy. It's exactly what the court asked them to do -- stop distributing content unless they can ensure they have the permission of everyone involved.

If I look at Cuba I don't think much good came of it.

Such tools are best used with lots of caution.

That's a fair point. Sanctions seem to be relatively useless against despotism (North Korea, Cuba, Iraq).

However, South Africa was an advanced democratic capitalist state, and its stability depended on links with the Western capitalist system. Italy is probably even more vulnerable to such pressure.

Something vaguely along these lines would be a reasonable action. If local laws make the sensible operation of a legitimate website criminal, then the operators of that website would be smart to block all traffic from that country.

What's really amazing is reading the comments here (in Italian):

http://vitadigitale.corriere.it/2010/02/processo_vivi_down_g...

Most of them are aghast at the decision, but there is a reasonable number supporting the decision. Italy FAIL :-/

Don't blame the (ignorant?) people that are unable to read outside of their native tongue and that only get the state sponsored media, Berlusconi has an enormous amount of power, think of Rupert Murdoch as president or something to that effect and you get the picture.

I get the picture very much, having lived in Italy on and off over the past 15 years. You can say what you want about Berlusconi (and I regularly do), but you can't lay all the blame at his feet, either. Romano Prodi managed to beat him twice at the polls, despite all his media power. Those people are arguing for that decision with their own twisted logic and of their own volition.

I read those comments, and I would say they are all from people who don't even know what the web is, because if you know what the web is, you can't even think that this is reasonable. Don't forget that here in italy there are a lot of people who have no idea what the internet is and how it works.

Obviously they have some idea what the web is if they're posting comments on a website ;)

The comments at http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_yo... suggest otherwise.

On my own online journal, I appear to have picked up a few commenters who take a dim view of freedom.

http://journal.dedasys.com/2010/02/24/google-execs-convicted...

Between this and the Banned Books article on the homepage, I am "so" glad Google takes the stance it does on these issues. I can only hope it continues this way. Thank you Google.

Can you imagine the burden of opening a site a la facebook in a place like that? This is not a new approach, and that's the reason why you will never see a site like myspace/facebook/netlog/whatever... based in a privacy (with a distorted view of privacy) obsessed place like italy. Just sad.

I don't suppose it actually influenced the ruling, but there's been a big hullabaloo in Italy recently about a facebook group called something along the lines of "Let's use Retards for Target Practice".

Also, Google has responded:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/serious-threat-to-web...

I don't think it's an obsession with privacy - on the contrary, I wished Italy took privacy more seriously.

Italy is just a very old and backward country, with many people that simply don't have a clue about what is going on...

It is true that Italians don't care much about privacy but old and backward?

Italy is neither old (Italy was born as a state in 1861) nor backward. The problem is that our prime minister has a personal interest in shutting down as much as possible the web as a news/social service.

It is possible to argue that, as you said, "many people don't have a clue what is going on" but I believe it applies to most (all?) other countries as well.

I'm Italian as well. IMHO Italy is the most backward country I've ever been to.

And yes, old. The President of the Republic is 84, the Prime Minister is 73...

Italy is old. Here are some facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age

Of course old doesn't necessarily mean bad. Japan, Germany, and Austria are all up there too and seem to be doing better than Italy.

I'm Italian and I can tell you that things here are even worse. This is why I based my startup in London and now I'm relocating to another country.

To add something more to this piece of news: Google, with YouTube, is disturbing our televisions, owned or controlled by our prime minister Berlusconi, by competing with them and spreading news that are hidden or distorted in TV. This will not be the last attack Google faces from Italy.

News Corp. knows this very well. In the last year this government passed some laws clearly against their satellite offer, favouring the TV channels of our prime minister. Now it's the turn of Google.

> To add something more to this piece of news: Google, with YouTube, is disturbing our televisions, owned or controlled by our prime minister Berlusconi, by competing with them and spreading news that are hidden or distorted in TV. This will not be the last attack Google faces from Italy.

That's my take on it as well, I think these 'privacy concerns' are just a cheap way to use a disabled person to garner sympathy for the crusade against big bad google that is offering Italian consumers alternative video content that does not come from 'Papi'.

Berlusconi ought to be the one in the docket. But then he'll just pass another law that exempts him...

> I think these 'privacy concerns' are just a cheap way to use a disabled person to garner sympathy for the crusade against big bad google that is offering Italian consumers alternative video content that does not come from 'Papi'.

Exactly. The main concerns of the government right now about internet are YouTube and Facebook, because they are the main channels on which news spread.

Mediaset, the Berlusconi Company owning all his televisions also sued Google for copyright of content published on YouTube. Every television in the world is working with Google to remove this content or to profit from it. Berlusconi is the only one who attacks it to take it down.

This week there has also been a similar case on Facebook, for a stupid group on down children. The government is trying every now and then to find excuses to pass laws against internet freedom.

> Berlusconi ought to be the one in the docket. But then he'll just pass another law that exempts him...

The saddest thing about this is that it is true. He already passed 19 laws just to avoid jail, and he is about to pass another two...

Why are we taking for granted that it's always Berlusconi behind these facts? I want to remember you that everyone who has some power here is corrupted, so while it may be the case, it's not certain who made the decision here.

I don't want to defend Berlusconi here, but if we continue to blame him by default we will never see the truth.

I'm italian too and can easily understand why you decided not to base your business here (hope to do the same someday). I really don't like where the current events are leading the nation, silvio is only one of the nation's problems, and if the nation doesn't change its ways, well... italy is doomed.

p.s. doomed like in "doomed to became again a place known only for its cheap and not specialized labor"

The big difference between US and EU privacy laws and the corresponding personality rights is that, in most EU countries, every individual has the rights to their own image. You can't just go ahead, take their picture or video and make it publicly available without their consent. I guess most people see this as an important part of their privacy rights.

There are of course exceptions for public figures and events, and there's an interesting debate going on with lawsuit after lawsuit trying to balance freedom of the press with personality rights. At least in some cases it is hard to see how the benefit of the public seeing a politician in swim wear outweighs his or her rights to privacy.

This hasn't stopped sites Xing, StudiVZ or Hyves from becoming very popular sites and building successful businesses.

There's also an ongoing debate in Germany and other EU countries, to what extent UGC-sites are liable for their content and how much they should police it. Majority opinion: not liable, police some, react quickly to take-down notices (though your mileage may vary from court to court).

As for the case here, the main blame is clearly on the guys who shot and submitted the video. The question is whether Google has reacted appropriately to the take-down request and whether it has tried hard enough to keep the vid off of youtube (keeping an eye on the inevitable wave of re-uploads).

This is a informative article about the case

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/02/three_googl...

Here's the more complete article from the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25goo...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com