Supreme Court has put the final point to the story that has seen Google in the eye of the then uploaded a video to Google Video: a history has been going on for years, which had begun so problematic for the Mountain View group and eventually ended with a happy ending from many points of view.
The case exploded in 2006 : a video uploaded on the repository Google portrayed the violence committed against a disabled boy by some classmates. Gruesome images, relative to a scene which took place at a school in Turin. The video has been online for a few weeks, picking up 5500 views, until he was removed as a result of specific signaling. But the fire was already kindled: Google had been singled out for not immediately removing the video and the complaint immediately brought to the fore a new sling of responsibility.
Against Google was erected a castle accusations signed by ‘ association Vividown : Video adversely fact primarily a personal injury to the victim of the abuse, but the case was developed with clearly also to areas further and linked to a more general need to regulate a new scope and delicate as that of the online video repository in which the user is to upload content and to become protagonist of the same.
The sentence
From investigations
passed to the process and I came out in the wrong way: sentenced David Carl Drummond , former chairman of the board of directors and statutory Google Italy, George De Los Reyes , a former member of the board of Google Italy and Peter Fleischer , responsible for Google privacy policy for Europe. The ruling deals 6 months imprisonment with suspended sentence (the request by the prosecution was equal to 6-12 months). Acquitted Arvind Desikan, initially involved in the investigation.
News: Google executives convicted in the case Vividown 3
The movie brought in 2006 on Google Video, subsequently blocked with its complaint, led to the conviction of three leaders of the group for breach of the Privacy Act. Acquittal, however, as on libel
Although the Italian Privacy Law came into effect, Google would operate in its full respect. By analyzing in detail the facts and the law, it is clear that the responsibility for the damage caused to the boy and allìassociazione Vivi Down are attributable to those who have made lìatto of bullying, to those who filmed and who uploaded the video on the Internet, while Google Video has operated in full compliance with its legal obligations. Even the European Guarantors have expressed this in the recent opinion on social networks, specifically requiring that lìutente to seek the consent of the subject portrayed.
How can I verify a priori all uploaded content? Even with an extensive and continuous work you could pass the test the amount of material that pours daily users on servers in the group. The principle and the concrete must therefore be in the same direction: is not a credible judgment discharging any liability on the service , which becomes simply an instrument in the hands of those who should answer directly to their actions.
But the problem
, born specifically within a Google service, it automatically becomes a general case that endangers the Web more Italian that is not the only protagonists of the crime: if the principle is stated in the judgment, then any service offering space for content users see on their destiny like a sword of Damocles is not acceptable for the construction of a business.
News: Google , “serious danger for the Web in Italy”
Google uses words of fire against the judgment of conviction against its own people involved in the case Vividown: “Serious threat to the web in Italy.” In the post promises a sensational appeal against that judgment sets a precedent
appellate decision reverses the fortunes of the proceedings: “lack of evidence”. Google is thus relieved from any liability and the thing that is once again time for the special case (as per law), as well as for the general case (avoiding to state a principle that would have been extremely dangerous for the ‘evolution of the market in Italy).
The appeal ended in December 2012 , for almost six years since the beginning of the whole process.
News: Case Vivi Down, acquitted the three Google executives
acquitted the three Google executives involved in the “case Vivi Down,” more than six years after dall’upload movie with abuse of an autistic boy.
The case is closed
Today’s ruling closes the circle: on appeal is upheld , there is scope for a further reopening of the case and the case must therefore be on file confirming the non-liability of the provider.
Declares a Google spokesperson: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has confirmed the innocence of our colleagues. Again, our thoughts turn to the boy and his family. Today’s decision is also important because it confirms an important legal principle. “
important words: the first thought is turned to the boy a victim of abuse of his companions and his family, which he quickly understood the role of Google in the story and were noticeably absent from the accusation, the second thought that goes instead to the projection the case has had on public opinion, noting that Google’s victory was a victory of the network in our country.
Into the meantime, however, many things have changed. It is useful to review what happened as evidence of the importance that the trial was in any event regardless of the specific case and the final judgment.
The path
The war between Google and Vividown yes highlighted the importance of not attributing too much to the provider responsible for the content uploaded by users, but at the same time has also allowed us to reflect and shed light on the issue. The empowerment of users about how loaded the network, in fact, it is a cultural thing that requires disclosure and education, should be taken as a pedagogical path that deletes the idea of ??the “Wild West telematics” that too many people are afraid on the Web
At the same time, although the provider is cleared, it is also nailed to a sort of responsibility “ethic” objective such that it is necessary to at least demonstrate that they have done everything possible to avoid that a case such as this one can happen again . Since then, in fact, fact Google has significantly improved its ability to analyze the reports from the community, has accelerated the rate of reaction in the presence of videos so dangerous and has optimized the service provided to users. Today a case such as the School of Turin could not possibly happen again, because if at any time anyone could upload a similar case at the same time anyone could announce its inappropriateness (the same Vividown is involved in the monitoring system) and Google would the best and most effective ways to intervene within a few hours.
The path of the case and its disclosure permitted short of develop a greater awareness of all parties involved : Google has improved the service (also matured, however, with the shift from Google Video to YouTube) the user has absorbed a greater sense of responsibility and the company has realized as instances of this kind are not only harmful. Thanks to the video, in fact, it was possible to become aware of what happened within the walls of a school, thus protecting the victim from further abuse. The importance of user generated content is also this, and the maturation of a new web-based knowledge enables action on limiting the disclosure of the content rather than on the need for their a priori censorship.
If it is importantthe landing point of the whole procedure, with a sacred absolution for the three Google executives involved, it is even more important than the path along which has pitted the process. Among the first instance and the Supreme Court there was not only the evolution of a criminal trial, but also the maturation of an entire country . Because it is through mistakes that a company has a duty to grow.
Read also
YouTube Rewind 2013, a year in video
Xbox One, there is also an app for YouTube
The comments in the app Google+ YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment