Google execs convicted of privacy violations

[Clinton]

An Italian court finds Google guilty of privacy violations by not screening videos before they go on youtube.

Three Google executives have been convicted of privacy violations for allowing a video of an autistic boy being abused to be posted online.

The convicted men were Google's senior vice president and chief legal officer David Drummond, former chief financial officer George Reyes and global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer.

Reminds me, I've been meaning to do the privacy page for these forums.

You guys go easy on me and don't post any stuff that's going to get me into trouble!

[tke71709]

So ridiculous...

How are companies expected to monitor each and every comment posted. Google's defence was that they took the video down when they received a complaint about it, the court said that commentors had asked for it to be taken down prior to anyone e-mailing in a complaint so it should have been done then.

[Clinton]

I agree. But then if the video was of me with my pants down I might feel differently, particularly if friends and colleagues got a chance to download the video before youtube acted. I'd be peeved that it even got to the stage where people were commenting.

[ClaytonL]

It sounds to me that youtube reacted as soon as they were notified through the proper channels. I don't see how anyone could hold them at fault.

[Clinton]

That's the problem with international business, you make enough money and you'll find you've run foul of the law somewhere or the other

The smell of compensation does powerful things.

[JJMcClure]

What's the next step in the PC mad world... everyone who could ever be prosecuted for UGC takes down their site rather than have to invest the resources to prevent it happening..plus.. that's a huge judgement call, much better to receive a complaint from a 3rd party and then act, which is what they did. I don't want Google acting on my behalf and deciding where the line is thanks.

Are we witnessing the writing on the wall for Web 2.0?

[Clinton]

Google replies here - their "European Public Policy Blog". (How many blogs do these guys maintain?!)

In late 2006, students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police....We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. ...But we are deeply troubled by this conviction for another equally important reason. It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built.

So the story is not over.

I suspect the UGC model is just going to continue. And the odd opportunist or lobbyist will take a big UGC company to court for a bit of compensation or publicity.

There's big money at stake and the Googles of this world are going to weigh up the cost of the occasional legal challenge vs the profits from just letting their UGC model continue. I suspect they'll prefer to rake in the millions and take the rare $500 rap on the knuckles.

So, no, I don't see any writing on the wall except the big print saying "Sue someone".

[JJMcClure]

So, no, I don't see any writing on the wall except the big print saying "Sue someone".

Yeah, the pertinent question here really is why does Berlusconi have it in for Google (and aren't you glad you're not the judge who had to hand down that decision).

[Clinton]

Of course, he owns the media in Italy. Not sure if he owns any part of the judiciary.

But talking about ownership it does scare me just what Google owns and how long those tentacles are.

[Clinton]

This is getting really interesting. About three years ago, Viacom sued YouTube for copyright infringement. Now documents filed in the court include damning evidence that 80% of YouTube content is pirated, that Google executives knew this before they bought the company and some were aghast at changing Google's policies to allow the purchase of this "pirate" site. Or in the exec's actually words to Brin, "is changing a policy to increase traffic knowing beforehand that we'll profit from illegal downloads how we want to conduct our business? Is this Googley?"

Highlights

- Prior to sale, one of Youtube founders emailed the other one to say, "Stop putting up pirated content in your own name"
- Chen, a co-founder twice wrote that "80 percent of user traffic depended on pirated videos. He opposed removing infringing videos on the ground that 'if you remove the potential copyright infringements... site traffic and virality will drop to maybe 20 percent of what it is."
- "YouTube's founders hoped to build a massive user base as quickly as possible and then sell the site. "Our dirty little secret... is that we actually just want to sell out quickly," said Karim at one point. In an e-mail, Chen talked about “concentrat[ing] all of our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil.”"

Google says, ""We are confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree"

BrettTabke, webmasterworld's founder, puts one point well

a) their biz model was to make money off the sale of the site
b) they enhanced their value by increasing page views with highly desireable pirated content
c) founders were directly involved in posting pirated copyrighted material

Hmmm, does that model look familiar?