Google Executives Face Jail Time for Italian Video

By Saul Hansell
Google

Four executives of Google begin trial Tuesday in Milan on criminal charges of defamation and privacy violation in regard to a video posted on Google’s Italian site.

The case involves a three-minute cellphone video, posted in 2006 to Google Video, in which four youths in Turin tease a boy with Down syndrome. After an Italian advocacy group complained that the video was objectionable, Google quickly removed it from the site. Prosecutors argue that the video should not have been published at all.

The four executives charged were not involved directly in handling video from Italy. They include David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president and chief legal officer; George Reyes, its former chief financial officer; and Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel, according to a Google spokesman. The fourth executive worked at Google Video in London, the spokesman said, declining to identify him.

It is rare for Internet company executives to face personal criminal charges and possibly jail time for the actions of their companies.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time an individual has been criminally charged for violation of data protection laws that occurred by the company he or she works for,” said Trevor Hughes, the executive director of the International Association of Privacy Professionals, which wrote about the case in its newsletter Monday. “This suggests that privacy is going to be more of a battleground.”

The case also raises again the question of whether Internet companies that allow users to submit content should screen items before they are published. This issue has mainly come up in the United States with regard to copyrighted music and video, and United States copyright law is meant to protect online services from liability if they respond to complaints quickly.

There are similar provisions in Europe, including Italian law. But there are questions about whether there are exceptions for young people and certain private information.

If the court holds that Google should have prevented the publication of the video simply because the subject didn’t authorize it, it could have very broad implications. In Europe, the subject of a photograph or video typically has the right to say how the image is used. But so far, charges haven’t been brought against user-generated content sites for hosting pictures posted without permission of the subjects.

In a statement, Google said the prosecution is misdirected:

As we have repeatedly made clear, our hearts go out to the victim and his family. We are pleased that as a result of our cooperation the bullies in the video have been identified and punished. We feel that bringing this case to court is totally wrong. It’s akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters sent in the post. What’s more, seeking to hold neutral platforms liable for content posted on them is a direct attack on a free, open Internet. We will continue to vigorously defend our employees in this prosecution.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

RKA February 2, 2009 · 8:43 pm

Where else but in Social and Leftist Italy of all places that we see this? It has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with moral convictions!?!?!

Daniel Tunkelang February 2, 2009 · 10:45 pm

I’m hardly a Google fan boy (see my blog – //thenoisychannel.com/ ), but here I agree with them wholeheartedly. I thought there was widespread international agreement on the “safe harbor” principle that neutral carriers are not liable for user-generated content, as long as they respond to complaints in a timely manner. I hope Google succeeds in its vigorous defense.

Bruce Wells February 2, 2009 · 11:29 pm

The post office analogy is exactly correct. You can not penalize the postman for the content he carries. YouTube is slightly different in that everyone can see the content, but we can not expect the carrier to open and judge every video that is posted. The original poster should be liable for content they post. Is a building owner liable for graffiti sprayed on their building?

I love Italy, but this case should be thrown out, the sooner the better.

Michael February 3, 2009 · 12:15 am

What absolute rubbish.

Sid February 3, 2009 · 12:37 am

Oh man…I totally agree to this statement:

“It’s akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters sent in the post”

It’s pathetic and wrong to punish the innocent…hope the court realizes that…

SHP February 3, 2009 · 4:15 am

This sort of ridiculousness is yet more evidence of the complete dysfunction of the Italian state. The mob controls openly and notoriously controls garbage collection in Naples, the twice-elected PM shutters courts that want to indict him on corruption charges, but prosecutors decide to attack Google on an absurd charge that makes no sense. In case we needed yet more evidence that Italy is decisively not in the first world (we do not), this is it. Why is this joke a member of the G8?

ATRIX WOLFE February 3, 2009 · 4:17 am

Damn, people can really be mean. Obviously, this doesn’t seem to be a matter for the criminal court, but in a civil setting it seems like the victim might have a pretty good case of some sort.

MTW February 3, 2009 · 4:47 am

I find Google’s claims of neutrality, since they indirectly profit from users’ posts, somewhat overstated. Their potential gain from videos posted on their site carries with it both risk and responsibility. In this case, it seems their lack of responsibility created significant risk which they are now bearing in court. I imagine it will be a small line item payed for out of their other gains, however painful it is for the well-payed defendants.

I also find their analogy to the mail service off the mark as they are not a public utility or providing a public service, but a for-profit company; the mail media type is mostly printed and private, versus video and public; and the interrelationships between sender, deliverer, and receiver differ on many levels.

Google already has stringent guidelines and sophisticated methods for protecting copyrights of interested parties. Surely they can develop similar techniques to protect the rights of individuals and groups. It would only make their for-profit services that much more valuable to all.

Alex February 3, 2009 · 5:00 am

This has all to do with the kids who teased the boy and the location in which this happened. What damage did the Internet or open platforms do to this boy?
Where is the proof of injury, except in the teasing that these kids Italian kids were doing? If a platform is neutral and moreover part of a free and open internet, the main checks on privacy should be the authors of videos and only in worst case scenarios, the platforms which host the viewing.

Steve Elkind February 3, 2009 · 5:12 am

leftist italy,
headed by one of the world’s foremost marxist, communist ideologues,
silvio berlusconi

Tarun Patel February 3, 2009 · 5:15 am

Content sharing has its own pros and cons. The people “indirectly” involved in such kind of activities should now be tortured.

Also this statement should be considered and Google should be praised: “We are pleased that as a result of our cooperation the bullies in the video have been identified and punished”.

Tarun

Dave February 3, 2009 · 5:22 am

I certainly hope that Google prevails in this misguided prosecution. But this is Italy — things don’t really work the way they’re supposed to here and oftentimes reason, logic and good judgment are subjugated by other things like politics, the interests of the elite and an unforgiving bureaucracy that has a life of its own . . .

dsimons February 3, 2009 · 5:25 am

Corporate versus private: guess who has more clout? Google can pre-emptively block entire swaths of content from being accessed in China, but becomes a great defender of the “neutral carrier” principle when it involves the single individual.
It is clearly an overly-onerous burden to expect Google to examine each single video posting – why would the company ever want to assume a similar obligation? It’s an impracticable business model – unless of course we’re talking about its ability to comb through each and every one of our e-mails to place targeted advertising.
Perhaps there’s as-yet-to-be-discovered market in product placement for bullies and Google is missing the boat here.

shekhar February 3, 2009 · 5:41 am

internet as a medium is neutral and google provides services and not the recordings posted on its one of many owned websites… its would be crazy like to sue Warner bros if somebody tries to jump and fly like spiderman

lkd711 February 3, 2009 · 5:44 am

Here again, Google gets it wrong. They are NOT like the mail carrier delivering hate mail, unless the content of the hate mail being delivered is opened and available for viewing to the entire world identifying the target and the recipient. Surely the difference gives rise to some form of duty on the part of Google to ‘first, do no harm’. Google likes to think of itself as an organization that doesn’t do evil things, but it cannot avoid the fact that it makes money off of the free reign that it gives to others to do so.

Sarah February 3, 2009 · 6:53 am

RKA, are you familiar with Italy? It is anything but Leftist, with media mogul Berlusconi as prime minister and the right-wing ex-Fascist party and northern separatist party in the his coalition! This has everything to do with trying to cut down on freedom of the press, which is what Berlusconi is all about. It’s looking pretty scary these days in Italy in terms of rights. If Google doesn’t win, it will be a big blow to the free, open Internet, but to people living in Italy especially.

Bill February 3, 2009 · 7:14 am

If they were prosecuted for letting porn slip through, we wouldn’t be suffering the tirade about socialists and leftists.

Anyway, it’s a pity that there is anyone that can’t grasp the bottom line that the exposure eventually caused decentcy to prevail.

Daniele from Italy February 3, 2009 · 7:20 am

@RKA

“Social and Leftist Italy” ??

Check your sources:
Italy is runned by a right-wing government, Prime Minister is infamous laissez-faire capitalist Silvio Berlusconi.

bart February 3, 2009 · 7:22 am

the bullies might neverf have been caught or convicted without the google post.

Eugene (Bill) Johson February 3, 2009 · 7:24 am

This is a very important case. The internet bulletin board is at stake. I do not want to lose the only truly free medium that exists for the masses. If this case is decided incorrectly, it will be the first in a series of cages on information freedom and internet freedom.

The internet is the great equalizer – no longer do the rich and powerful monopolize the ability to influence public opinion – with the internet, the public can weigh-in, and point out when power is being deceitful.

We all need to pay attention to this case!!

MJ February 3, 2009 · 7:24 am

Googles analogy is wrong. Their example would only apply to a private e-mail being carried by their service, in the same way a letter is carried by a postman, to a single recipient.

A better analogy would be; they distribute a free hand-out global newspaper/TV-station, letting anyone publish under the protective veil of anonymity, completely ignoring editorial responsibility of vetting the content and denying any accountability.

I am curious to know if the perpetrators would have uploaded the material if it was their own personal site where they would be known and accountable?

Googles motto of “Don’t be evil” need to be revised. They no longer live up to it and need to realise they are accountable for their actions. “You either die a hero or see yourself live long enough to become the villain.” (The Dark Night)

Please don’t argue this is matter of free speech! I personally disagree with what a lot of people say but I will fight to the death to protect their right to say it.

Ellemer February 3, 2009 · 7:25 am

“It’s akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters sent in the post.”

Not really, the letters’ content is targeted to the receiver, usually one person.
In this case, Google Video is more like a newspaper which would publish anything without review (hate speech letters, personal information, slander, whatever) for the broad public.
Which is utter nonsense, right? Newspapers are tightly regulated everywhere for a reason and the editors can be held accountable for the content.

Google lawyers fail again.

june February 3, 2009 · 7:44 am

I support the Google managers,

My initial reaction is that the Italian kids where mean to bother a Downs syndrome person. My next reaction is that the Google managers did not have any direct authority in choosing to publish the video on Italian Google. That if Google stopped the video in a timely manner, whats the problem? The problem is that Italy sees an opprotunity to exercise their European Union power in a time of economic unease. Italy will not win and get a lot of petty
attention. The only good thing about this wrongfully prosecuted case by the Italians is that maybe some attention will be brought to the problem of “hate crimes”, by Italian youth on developmentally disabled children.

Bunch-o-sickos hurting the Downs kid for no good reason.

June

DKH February 3, 2009 · 7:48 am

RKA, You must be joking but I fail to see the humor. Italy today can hardly be described as “Leftist,” with the current resurgence of Catholicism and the harsh backlash against immigrants. And by “Social” you surely have your scare-words mixed up. Perhaps you mean “socialist,” and in spite of that term’s blanket use by Sarah Palin and other intellectual midgets to describe anything that doesn’t conform to their and presumably your views of the world, you are a few generations too late to the game on that one.

SL February 3, 2009 · 7:57 am

Google’s statement: “It’s akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters sent in the post.” Well, not really. Mail is private, to be viewed only by the sender and the recipient – mail carriers, senders and recipients all accept this fact. Videos published on the internet are public – that’s an important distinction. Google is a ‘neutral’ platform for very public material viewable by anyone and everyone, so I think that entitles them to a little responsibility regarding the appropriateness of the content. Although I don’t think Google executives should be prosecuted in this particular case, there’s a fine line between censorship and moderation that ‘neutral’ content platforms must be masters at negotiating.