This seems like an interesting topic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm
QuoteAn Italian court has convicted three Google executives in a trial over a video showing an autistic teenager being bullied.
The Google employees were accused of breaking Italian law by allowing the video to be posted online.
Judge Oscar Magi absolved the three of defamation but convicted them of privacy violations.
The UK's former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said the case gave privacy laws a "bad name".
The three employees, Peter Fleischer, David Drummond and George De Los Reyes, received suspended six-month sentences, while a fourth defendant, product manager Arvind Desikan, was acquitted.
David Drummond, chief legal officer at Google and one of those convicted, said he was "outraged" by the decision.
'Ridiculous case'
"I intend to vigorously appeal this dangerous ruling. It sets a chilling precedent," he said.
"If individuals like myself and my Google colleagues who had nothing to do with the harassing incident, its filming or its uploading onto Google Video can be held criminally liable solely by virtue of our position at Google, every employee of any internet hosting service faces similar liability," he added.
Peter Fleischer, privacy counsel at Google, questioned how many internet platforms would be able to continue if the decision held.
"I realise I am just a pawn in a large battle of forces, but I remain confident that today's ruling will be over-turned on appeal," he said.
Richard Thomas, the UK's former information commissioner and consultant to privacy law firm Hunton & Williams, said the case was "ridiculous".
"It is like prosecuting the post office for hate mail that is sent in the post," he told BBC News.
"I can't imagine anything similar happening in this country. The case wasn't brought by the Italian equivalent of the information commissioner but by criminal prosecutors and we don't know their motives.
"I find it worrying that the chief privacy officer who had nothing to do with the video has been found guilty. It is unrealistic to expect firms to monitor everything that goes online."
Seeking consent
The verdict is likely to have ramifications for content providers around the globe.
Google said at the trial that pre-screening all YouTube content was impossible.
The video at the centre of the case was posted on Google Video in 2006 shortly before the firm acquired YouTube.
Prosecutors argued that Google broke Italian privacy law by not seeking the consent of all the parties involved before allowing it to go online.
Google's lawyers said that the video was removed as soon as it was brought to its attention and that the firm also provided information on who posted it.
As a result four students were expelled from their school in Turin, northern Italy.
Good outcome. The Italian legal system needs to be thoroughly discredited.
Typical eyetalians. Over reacting.
Try to google your way out of this one, scumbags.
I think its fair to say that Italians shouldn't be allowed to use the interwebs.
Thank goodness Italian prosecutors aren't wasting their time on the mafia, but are going after the *real* criminals. ;)
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 24, 2010, 02:29:32 PM
I think its fair to say that Italians shouldn't be allowed to use the interwebs.
Or courts.
I don't see why this is more ridiculous than, for example, rulings against peer to peer sites.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 24, 2010, 03:17:31 PM
I don't see why this is more ridiculous than, for example, rulings against peer to peer sites.
You don't?
Nopes. Both were hosting content deemed bad, without the knowledge or permission of the principal actors involved. Well, most P2P sites don't even do that. They merely point at it.
The "it's impossible to screen all content" argument is equally suitable for both.
Quote from: DGuller on February 24, 2010, 01:51:35 PM
Good outcome. The Italian legal system needs to be thoroughly discredited.
What are you talking about? It's been thoroughly discredited for years.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 24, 2010, 04:01:34 PM
Nopes. Both were hosting content deemed bad, without the knowledge or permission of the principal actors involved. Well, most P2P sites don't even do that. They merely point at it.
The "it's impossible to screen all content" argument is equally suitable for both.
"Content deemed bad" is not a legal term. P2P sites are about protection of intellectual property, not "content deemed bad".
You would have a better luck comparing this to China - both China and Italy seem to have retarded laws that do not allow people to post content that does not infringe IP rights of other people, but that the government "deems bad". Anyone who praises google for standing up to China but damns them for this, is an idiot and a hypocrite.
I was going to say something but, I don't know enough to make a very good contribution and would likely embarrass myself. So I'm letting Marty do that for me.
Someone asked me the other day about European countries I would live in (assuming the means etc). I named some countries but pointedly left Italy off the list. This story is a trivial but useful illustration why - the political culture of the country is just broken on a fundamental level. Italy is a lovely place to visit, but I would never want to subject myself to its jurisdiction for any significant length of time if I could avoid it.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2010, 05:06:57 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 24, 2010, 04:01:34 PM
Nopes. Both were hosting content deemed bad, without the knowledge or permission of the principal actors involved. Well, most P2P sites don't even do that. They merely point at it.
The "it's impossible to screen all content" argument is equally suitable for both.
"Content deemed bad" is not a legal term. P2P sites are about protection of intellectual property, not "content deemed bad".
You would have a better luck comparing this to China - both China and Italy seem to have retarded laws that do not allow people to post content that does not infringe IP rights of other people, but that the government "deems bad". Anyone who praises google for standing up to China but damns them for this, is an idiot and a hypocrite.
It is a legal term after a judge decides it is. Which is exactly what happened here.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 24, 2010, 06:31:25 PM
It is a legal term after a judge decides it is. Which is exactly what happened here.
Actually, it isn't exactly what happened here at all, but you knew that.
Quote from: Martinus on February 24, 2010, 05:06:57 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 24, 2010, 04:01:34 PM
Nopes. Both were hosting content deemed bad, without the knowledge or permission of the principal actors involved. Well, most P2P sites don't even do that. They merely point at it.
The "it's impossible to screen all content" argument is equally suitable for both.
"Content deemed bad" is not a legal term. P2P sites are about protection of intellectual property, not "content deemed bad".
You would have a better luck comparing this to China - both China and Italy seem to have retarded laws that do not allow people to post content that does not infringe IP rights of other people, but that the government "deems bad". Anyone who praises google for standing up to China but damns them for this, is an idiot and a hypocrite.
The Fighting Polack comes out swinging!
Damn, crazy ruling.
Is 'cockjuggling faggot' a legal term?
Quote from: Neil on February 24, 2010, 09:37:30 PM
Is 'cockjuggling faggot' a legal term?
Only in Texas.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 24, 2010, 10:08:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 24, 2010, 09:37:30 PM
Is 'cockjuggling faggot' a legal term?
Only in Texas.
I thought it was a requirement for elected office in Texas. Though I concede that it may not be a
legal requirement.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 24, 2010, 05:56:25 PM
Someone asked me the other day about European countries I would live in (assuming the means etc). I named some countries but pointedly left Italy off the list. This story is a trivial but useful illustration why - the political culture of the country is just broken on a fundamental level. Italy is a lovely place to visit, but I would never want to subject myself to its jurisdiction for any significant length of time if I could avoid it.
Tell that one to American students convicted of murder.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 24, 2010, 02:29:32 PM
I think its fair to say that Italians shouldn't be allowed to use the interwebs.
Hey! :mad:
On topic: a stupid ruling by an italian court is normal practice, sadly. [troll]just ask Berlusconi about italian justice[/troll] :P
L.