7 ms·
Google Denies Requests To Remove Videos of Police Brutality
- grandalf 15y agoThank you Google! BTW justin.tv saves broadcasts in real time, so I recommend it if you're worried that the police will confiscate the phone, etc.
- guelo 15y agoI believe Livestream, Ustream and Qik also do this.
- moultano 15y agoBut Google's record is spotty. Just this month, it handed over a WikiLeaks volunteer's Gmail data to the U.S. government, which used an old and controversial law to request it without a warrant from a judge. Google is pushing for updated laws ... This seems like an absurdly high standard if obeying the law and pushing for updated laws isn't enough.
- nextparadigms 15y agoGoogle actually fought so they don't have to give the data of that Wikileaks guy, but I think they had no choice in the end.
- jhancock 15y agoWhat do you mean "had no choice"? They ran out of appeals? The gov sent in storm troopers and held a gun to someone's head?
- jxi 15y agoIs that really what's needed for you to be satisfied with Google's decision? You need there to be violence to prove that what they did was enough?
- jhancock 15y agoNo...I simply asked to what extent they dug in their heels. The first question I posed in this regard was did they exhaust their legal, non-violent appeals process. The second question was referring to a metaphoric gun; questioning if the gov used extremely unfair measures to produce the results they wanted. I was looking for someone that had more extensive knowledge on this event to provide details. I don't have them.
- nkassis 15y agoWell if they were given the choice between giving the relevant data or getting their entire data center raided, I'd pick option one.
- burgerbrain 15y agoThey had the choice to say "No, fuck you. We're not giving it to you. In fact, one of our interns accidentally just the entire relevant harddrives." No, they just ran out of choices that didn't actually demand anything of themselves.
- boscomutunga 15y agoYes, there is little they could do since its the government we are speaking about here.
- rickmb 15y agoHave we collectively forgotten the time when journalists went to jail rather than reveal their sources, and publishers didn't waiver in their support? However understandable Google's position may be, fighting the law is not an "absurdly high standard". Sometimes it's simply the right thing to do. This "obey the law, obey the government" attitude is a post-9/11 thing we really need to get over.
- jxi 15y agoOk, sure. Google can do better in the "making the world a better place" area, but at what cost. It costs money and time to deal with things like this and quite frankly I'd rather they spent that on continuing to create great products.
- learc83 15y agoGoogle is a publicly traded company, their first duty is to their share holders. If a reporter chooses goes to jail that's up to him, it's his decision to make. It's not Google's money to throw away.
- 16BitTons 15y ago>Google is a publicly traded company, their first duty is to their share holders. I'm a shareholder. It's not much, but it does imply a tiny bit of ownership. And so, as a shareholder, I want Google to be totally righteous even at the risk of going bankrupt.
- cobrausn 15y agoThat's easy to say when you only have a small amount of money invested in ownership. If you had a lot more riding on this, you might take the opposite position. Not saying your current one isn't correct, but still...
- asto 15y agoTheir responsibility is towards shareholders with voting rights. As far as I know, the voting rights are skewed in favour of Brin and Page. If you don't have a significant voting right, you are a mute spectator at best and if you don't like what they're doing, all you can do is GTFO.
- spodek 15y ago"an absurdly high standard if obeying the law and pushing for updated laws isn't enough" The law, in case of disputes, doesn't work that you just obey one rule. Different people interpret them differently and often multiple rules apply. Also, laws and their interpretations change over time. Just because one branch of the government claims the law says you have to do X doesn't mean that's the only interpretation of the law or the only law that applies. That's why a different branch of the government interprets laws than enforces them, at least in the U.S. When the executive branch tries to circumvent the judicial, you can bet they don't think the judicial branch would agree on their interpretation.
- jberryman 15y agoDoes anyone know if what they're talking about a National Security Letter? I would guess not, since those come with a gag order.
- famousactress 15y agoThe addition of "(This Time)" in the article's title is just short of outrageous, if I'm not misunderstanding. It seems to me there's nothing indicating Google has ever taken down videos of police brutality at the govt's requests.. but rather, has complied with many other types of legal requests from the US?
- thret 15y agoFWIW I trust Google's "don't be evil" policy over the US government.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- famousactress 15y agoOh, interesting. They've quietly removed that bit from the title. I guess I'm not alone in finding it awful, then. [Edit: For anyone confused, the title of the article (RWW, and HN) was originally "Google Denies Requests To Remove Videos of Police Brutality (This time)". It's been updated sometime since yesterday evening without explanation.]
- yanw 15y agoLet's compare Google's stats with the rest of the industry .. Oh, wait! we can't! because no one else publishes a transparency report. You can't knock Google for complying with the law and not devoting resources to fruitlessly fight every court order and removal request when the goal of their transparency effort is to highlight the problems with that law and try and change it. They're doing something unique and are trying to fix the larger problem yet some people still give them shit for it.
- jxi 15y agoReally, everyone should be following Google's example and yet they get so much flak for trying to do the right thing in the comments of this post alone.
- CodeMage 15y agoRight, because they're beyond criticism for being better than the rest of the companies. Let's not go to extremes, how about that?
- jayfuerstenberg 15y agoGood on them! I was disappointed when Google quickly complied with last year's request by the Japanese government to take down the sengoku38 videos (leaked video evidence of a Chinese fishing vessel trespassing into Japanese waters and ramming a Japanese Coast Guard vessel twice). After that DVDs of the original video were anonymously left in a box for anyone to pick up and watch at home. I suppose even if Google is eventually forced to comply, the original poster has some options to get the truth out.
- jayfuerstenberg 15y agoHere is the video reposted to Youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ugZ1bjaH0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ugZ1bjaH0 ) for those interested.
- verroq 15y ago>leaked video evidence of a Chinese fishing vessel trespassing into Japanese waters and ramming a Japanese Coast Guard vessel twice The Senkaku Islands are a disputed territory and from the video, you could easily say the Japanese coast guard boat cut in front of the Chinese boat, thus causing the collision. Let's lets not forget the 2008 incident where a Japanese coast guard rammed a Taiwanese fishing ship and Japan had to pay compensation as a result. I don't see why you must take sides when the matter is murkier than it is, probably due to your own political bias but I digress. In summary: a title of 2010 "Senkaku boat collision incident" should be appropriate. There is no need to simplify it if you can't keep a neutral point of view because it detracts from your main point.
- jayfuerstenberg 15y agoSorry, I have no intention of taking sides. I only highlight the sengoku38 event as one where Google didn't stand its ground, and how impressed I am that at least this time they are refusing to take down the police brutality video.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- thowaway001 15y agoGoogle having a spotty record, does not take away from the fact that its good for the public to know what is going on, and Google is helping do that. It is hard for me to beleave a company can be completly good or bad.
- rdtsc 15y agoSo which videos were removed again?
- schwit 15y agoI would like to know what videos were requested be removed.
- jQueryIsAwesome 15y agoIf they release the links to the public those videos would gain more popularity and it may look like an attack to the US police.
- khafra 15y agoIt would be fantastic if the police learned that abusing their power gets them recorded on video, and trying to suppress the video gets the video even more publicity. But it'd be nice if other companies weren't making Google look so unusual for its basic decency.
- chadmalik 15y agoEven better, we need to not be dependent on profit-seeking corporations for the free dissemination of critical information like videos of police brutality. p.s. good on Google for this action.
- ceejayoz 15y agoI think that'd be a good precedent to set. "If you make a bullshit takedown request, we'll promote the video you're trying to suppress."
- skcin7 15y agoI agree. I really like the Google transparency report but I would like to know WHO/WHAT government officials/organizations requested to remove WHAT links and what their basis for removal is. However, I am still glad that the transparency report exists at all.
- freemarketteddy 15y agoThis makes me want to work for Google!!
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- onosendai 15y agoI think it's more than a little sad that it's suddenly news the fact that a corporation did the right thing.