http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000092-264.html?tag=mncol;txt
I thought this story was interesting for a couple of reasons:
- The charge itself. If Google or any other host site is going to be held liable for every offensive, invasive, or just plain ignorant video, audio, or image-- the courts aren't going to have enough time to do anything else. Invasion of privacy seems like an odd conviction for this case. Defamation is always a popular claim in Internet matters, but even that isn't applicable. The only way Google would appear guilty--if you ask me--would be if they refused to remove the video from any of their host sites (and they didn't). It's also interesting that Italian courts can charge employees who work for the host company and convict and sentence them as individuals (in this case, the Chief Privacy Counsel, CLO, and CFO.)
- The repercussions of the conviction. While it was stated that Google will appeal this decision (and I'm sure they will successfully do so), it's also worthwhile to consider the outcome of the new potential legal precedence. In addition to the troubling possibility of web censorship, there could be other unforeseen consequences. In the article, law professor Jaqueline Lipton explains that holding these intermediary companies responsible--even in a foreign country--may eventually affect the consumers. Many aspects of social media are free to use, but they might not be in the future if Google or companies like it are ultimately held liable for uploaded user content--the costs and risks would be too high.
- The impossibility of a 100% policed host site. I'm definitely not an advocate of big corporations auspiciously dodging responsibility, but what are the odds that Google can effectively pre-screen every single item of uploaded content? Not only is that next to impossible, but I feel like it is a step in the wrong direction. Blaming Google Videos for hosting offensive content is one more way to pass the buck, allowing the legitimately guilty individual to get away with bad behavior. The video sounds awful, just like 1000s more that unfortunately exist on the web, and Google should definitely remove any offensive content that is brought to their attention. However, they shouldn't have to be responsible for someone else's vile behavior.
When I was around 13 years old, I sometimes hung out with this bad seed of a girl (an annoying friend of a friend.) Out of all of the sneaky and questionably illegal things she used to do, there was one offense in particular that really bothered me. After going to the movies, we would walk next door to the grocery store and get snacks for our sleepover. While we all picked out boxed candy and brownie mix, she would go straight to the aisle with the candy dispensers. The protocol for this option was supposed to be the following:
- Select an empty bag
- Fill it with the candy of your choice
- Take it to the cashier and pay like an honest f-ing person
Always above the law, this chick would take her hand, her purse--whatever she could fill--and steal the hell out of as much candy as she could. It's not like she was poor or starving or anything-- she lived in the nicest house I'd ever seen. She just liked showing off and being the "bad girl" in the group. Anyway, I saw it happen twice. The first time I was in disbelief; the second time, I had to ask her why she was doing something so blatantly wrong. Her answer has always stayed with me: "If they didn't want me to steal it, they shouldn't have made it so easy to steal."
I couldn't help but think of that infamous quote when I read about this Google story. Even though, theoretically, it is easy to post offensive or hurtful things online, why would you do it? If we really want to punish wrongdoing, I think it's much more important to focus on the actual criminal (i.e. the delinquent brat, not the grocery store.)
So, gang...when it comes to interactive social media and responsibility, who do you think should do the time for the cyber crime?
No comments:
Post a Comment