Google Assists In Arrest Of Indian Man

An anonymous reader writes "After a Google user posted a profane picture of the Hindu saint Shivaji, Indian authorities contacted Google to ask for his IP address. Google complied. He was arrested and is reported to have been beaten by a lathi and asked to use the same bowl to eat and to use in the toilet. Not surprisingly, Google is a keen to play this down as Yahoo is being hauled over the coals by US Congress for handing over IP addresses and emails to the Chinese Government which resulted in a Chinese democracy activist being jailed." Readers are noting that these are 2 unrelated cases — the latter is several months old.

Wow...

[CarAnalogy (1191053)]

I don't usually complain about badly written summaries, but this one made my head explode.

Re:Wow...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

You's didn't thinked the summary's quality were as good you had likening?

Re:Wow...

[ichthyoboy (1167379)]

Jar-Jar...is that you?

Even the Post Title

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

"Indian Man"

Something awkward and comic about this description. Curiously vague, while simultaneously exhibiting a misplaced precision.

Re:Even the Post Title

[mweather (1089505)]

No, they actually hate that. They prefer their tribe's name.

Re:Even the Post Title

[aliquis (678370)]

I can't understand why Google helped them, it's not like it was a big deal. Just like all the bullshit because of those Mohammed pictures over here in scandinavia, I mean who gives a fuck? It's just an imaginary fictional character anyway. Personally I'd be willing to draw 50 Mohammeds or Shivajis eating their own shit for each complaint on them. (Or Jesus for all I care, or may I say it _YOUR MOM_ to whoever reads this :D)

Who cares, it's just a picture, feel free to answer with imageshack links of your drawings of me.

Re:Even the Post Title

[Scrameustache (459504)]

who gives a fuck? It's just an imaginary fictional character anyway.

Who? Those who convince others to obey them for fear of that character.

If people start proving the character is impotent and most likely imaginary, then they'll lose their revenue stream! So: Let them eat shit!

Re:Wow...

[mikael (484)]

Even worse, one of Google's employees provided the IP address of the wrong user. So an innocent man was beaten, and punished for no crime.

I hope his compensation claims is successful and for a substantial amount of money - and that the sloppy Google employee is fired.

Re:Wow...

[omnipresentbob (858376)]

Wasn't a Google employee who supplied the wrong IP, it was an Airtel employee who gave the wrong name.

Re:Wow...

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

More importantly, he's a symbol of Hindu national resistance to Mogul dominance - and is thus a charged symbol of the tensions between Muslims and Hindu practitioners in India.

It might be somewhat analogous to someone posting an image defacing Abraham Lincoln (or Robert E. Lee) in the US, with a religious element to that gesture. (Of course, it would be protected as free speech here, but it could trigger a fight.)

Gnostech!

[ideonode (163753)]

Hindu saints have IP addresses?

Re:Gnostech!

[hansraj (458504)]

And while meditating their IP is 127.0.0.1 for "Truth lies within".

Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad things'

[PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258)]

Well, I'm glad that google abides by the law here in canada. Clearly their motto of 'do no evil' is region specific; on one hand, I applaud their help in stopping crime, on the other hand, I detest the violation of privacy.

I guess I'm safe so long as my government respects my rights (because google will only go as far as the government seems deem 'right')

Dont be evil

[Brain-Fu (1274756)]

The motto is not "do no evil," it is "don't be evil."

Not that it really matters, "evil" is a sloppy, ill-defined, and personally relativistic concept to begin with.

And of course, having an intent doesn't guarantee the ability to realize that intent, let alone to perpetually avoid any deviation.

And of course, loudly publishing such a motto doesn't actually mean that those at the top have any intention of living up to it. The perception of benevolence is what is really useful.

Sloppy Definition? maybe...

[Holi (250190)]

But, I would have to say, when you actions lead to someone being beaten, jailed, and forced to use the same dish to eat and shit, then you can be sure your action was evil.

What the hell is wrong with the world?

Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe...

[Sancho (17056)]

The problem is that the world can't agree on morality. The problem is that dictators (some of them democratically elected) don't believe in civil rights. The problem is that human beings abuse power (and even those who think that they never would tend to do so when given power.)

Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe...

[omeomi (675045)]

And the problem is that India and China are huge countries. Google and Yahoo don't want to take a chance of being banned in a country of that size, so they do whatever the governments of these countries want.

Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe...

[xSauronx (608805)]

lets play a game and replace "country[ies]" with "market[s]" to get a better idea of how google views India and China

Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe...

[Solandri (704621)]

And the problem is that India and China are huge countries. Google and Yahoo don't want to take a chance of being banned in a country of that size, so they do whatever the governments of these countries want.

That just begs the question. Do you believe civil rights and freedom would be promoted in India and China if Google and Yahoo were banned there? Need I point out that the government of China is working on a (government-controlled) search engine like Google and would like nothing more than for Google (and Yahoo and Wikipedia) to disappear from their neck of the Internet. This is pretty much the same issue that's been debated ever since Nixon normalized relations with China. Do you wait until a rogue country changes its political ideals to sufficiently match yours before you conduct business with them? Or do you partially compromise your ideals and conduct business with them in the hopes that it will accelerate those changes?

Google and Yahoo may be trying to walk a fine line between offering the citizens of those countries access to information, while simultaneously trying to avoid getting banned. That is, this is probably not a case of there being a clear evil choice (turn over the IP address) and a not-evil choice (don't turn over the IP address). If refusing to give the IP address would've gotten them banned from providing service, then turning over the IP address may in fact have been the lesser of two evils.

Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe...

[Martin Blank (154261)]

Did they have reason to believe that the man would have been treated this way? I don't know much about the conditions of jails in most other parts of the world. I suspect that jails in, say, Belgium are fairly clean and suspects' rights are generally respected. I believe that Egyptian jails are probably pretty dirty and it's dangerous to be a suspect. These are, however, based on very limited knowledge, and I have no idea of the conditions for a jail in India. It's even possible that the conditions vary significantly based on the region, with some clean and respectful and others slums that should be torn down and the local police drawn up on charges.

Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe...

[wattrlz (1162603)]

Did they have reason to believe that the man would have been treated this way? I don't know much about the conditions of jails in most other parts of the world. I suspect that jails in, say, Belgium are fairly clean and suspects' rights are generally respected

"...Alain Grignard, an OCSE prisons specialist who has evaluated Guantanamo on several occasions, including earlier this year, has concluded that Guantanamo's facilities and cultural sensitivity to Muslims is superior to that found in Belgian jails...."
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/clive_stafford_smith/2006/06/cultural_sensitivity_guantanam.html [guardian.co.uk]

See? They should have Googled it.

Re:Dont be evil

[bryanp (160522)]

.The motto is not "do no evil," it is "don't be evil.

Apparently they need to change it to

Do no evil*

*void where prohibited by law or the financial interests of our stockholders

Re:Dont be evil

[by Anonymous Coward]

I don't exactly see Google trumpeting the damn thing. ... Google, as best as I can tell, has it on two of their pages. How is that "trumpeting it loudly"..?

I worked at Google for several years. It is a BIG thing internally. Arguments and debates break out amongst engineers about certain features of software or actions of the company. The people in the company really do care about the idea of doing good and avoiding evil. The problem is that there is a big grey area and they acknowledge that in their debates. Censoring results for Google China was a HUGE debate within the company and they sincerely cared about the issue. They weren't just ignoring the evil of censorship, they eventually came to the decision that the Chinese users would still be able to access google.com to get their uncensored results if they were searching sensitive topics, but if they were just doing mundane searches having a locally served and maintained google.cn would provide those users with a better experience and better search. This way they could follow the laws of the local country, help those people get better information for a large percentage of searches and they would still be able to access the uncensored version of google.com like they had been able to all along. They do care about being good. They want to help people. They also want to make money. Yes, as time goes on, I think they are slipping and getting shady, but a large group of people in the company sincerely care about this aspect of the Google culture.

Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

I applaud their help in stopping crime

Crime? You sure you want to word it that way?

What this man was convicted of may have been a crime in his country, but in the United States, Europe, Canada and most other places in the free world what he did would be protected under freedom of speech.

He was arrested for nothing more than saying something like "Fuck George Bush" or "Hillary Clinton is a stupid cunt licker" or "Barack Obama can go fuck himself" or "John McCain is an asshole." (There, equal opportunity. :)

Tastelss? Perhaps. Illegal? Not where I live.

Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin

[Noexit (107629)]

Homeboy ought to move to where you live. However, as he lives where he lives, the laws of where he lives were enforced, not the laws where you live. That, unfortunately, is the Way Things Are.

Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin

[Main Gauche (881147)]

Approximately 99.99% of Slashdotters can describe the Prime Directive, and how it works in a land of make believe.

A significantly lower percentage sees how it would apply in current-era Earth.

Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin

[D-Cypell (446534)]

the last occasion of note was some play about Jesus being gay that upset Mary Whitehouse (not the porn star, the other one) back in the 70s.

I am fairly certain that there were people trying to invoke these laws when they showed 'Jerry Spring - The opera' on BBC, which had similar content.

it's no place of Google's to assist in the application of unjust law.

It is no place for Google to make judgements on which laws are unjust and which aren't, it is not their responsibility. The only option open to them is not to do business in countries where *they* (asterisked because, 'who are *they* exactly?') believe the laws to be unjust. If they choose to operate in India they must follow the local laws and regulations. If they operate in a country, and then refuse to obey the laws in that country then their directors risk punishment under the local laws.

The real culprit in this case is the Indian government themselves, who consider it acceptable to treat their citizens this way.

Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin

[Locutus (9039)]

Having said that, you're right - it's no place of Google's to assist in the application of unjust law.

so businesses don't have to obey laws outside of the country they're from? Cool, I'm incorporating and gonna start stomping on all those MS OOXML idiots around the world who voted for it.

Like it or not, this is a story about the laws of India and not about Google going anything "evil". See how long the thread lasts if it were about Google not pulling out of India because of this incident. What makes me sick is how many think this is a Google issue and not an Indian human rights issue.

LoB

Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin

[Applekid (993327)]

I applaud their help in stopping crime...

Juicy tidbits from TFA:

22-year-old IT professional Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid. His crime was writing in an orkut community named "I hate Sonia Gandhi." Sonia Gandhi is a prominent politician in India . . . he created a profile and then posted content in vulgar language about Sonia Gandhi in the community.

. . . If he's convicted, he can be imprisoned for up to five years and may have to pay a fine up to Rs one lakh.

Still applaud that? This isn't Google catching a thief or embezzler or rapist. This is Google turning in someone who said something that someone else who is powerful doesn't like.

Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin

[c6gunner (950153)]

A moral person (and at it's core, Google is simply a group of individual people working for a common cause) must refuse to cooperate with authorities when asked to do something unjust. "I was just following orders," is not and should not be justification for doing something immoral. Ever.

You're given the choice: "Shoot this dog, or we kill your entire family".

What do you do?

Stop pretending that right and wrong are so easily definable. In order to make the right decision, it's important to weight the positive and negative effects of your actions. EVERYTHING you do leads to some negative results. Driving your car to work increases violence in the middle east. Eating meat results in the killing of animals and the inefficient use of arable land. Eating soya and tofu leads to rain forests being burned to create plantations. BREATHING releases greenhouse gases!

Life is a series of trade-offs - the best we can do is to try and minimize our negative impact, while maximizing the positive.

compliance, not judges

[caffeinemessiah (918089)]

What happened to this man is despicable. However, we need to remember that Google is a company, not a judge in a court of law. It is not their place to decide if a court-issued subpoena is "worth" complying with or not, especially not in a democratic country (eat trolls, eat!). The big question is if they were responding to a court order in the first place, or the lean of some jackass in the government.

Re:compliance, not judges

[bryanp (160522)]

If they're not going to try and make a judgement call about what is evil then they should drop their (now obviously) hypocritical slogan.

Re:compliance, not judges

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Evil is relative, and Google is a multinational company.

Actually, Evil isn't relative - it's subjective. Totally different. The former implies that there is a single standard of evil which is the same for all people but which varies based upon circumstances. The truth however is that Evil is defined differently for each person.

In other words, it's a stupid, disingenuous slogan, and Google should drop it for that reason alone. But given that Google is originally a US company, founded by Norteamericanos and with a slogan written in English, then I postulate that it can reasonably be measured by the standards of the USA - and one of our basic cultural values is the right to believe (and say!) whatever you want. By that measurement, this action is evil and since you can only be judged by your actions, then Google is evil.

It's quite possible that in China, the government would consider Google "evil" for not helping them to censor their people into submission.

I have a similar issue at home; we have a cat named "Evil Kitty". Actually, where they had her before they first named her that (she has a sister named "Good" who was more friendly in the past) they tried to rename her Tibet, but I thought that was a stupid name for a cat, and she is evil to the mice so it's back to Evil. However, what the people of China believe due to large-scale brainwashing is really not that interesting to the subject of Evil, because of its very subjectivity. The very fact of the cultural brainwashing that instructs the Chinese to do as they are told is Evil by our standards in the Western world, where we value individuality and choice.

Re:compliance, not judges

[FishWithAHammer (957772)]

Are you so trapped in an idealistic, geek fantasy world that you don't realize that a company slogan is not legally binding?

Of course it's not legally binding. It is, however, morally binding.

Do you not understand that when a company goes public, it is responsible to its shareholders, not to its slogan?

I realize it. I also don't care. Hypocrisy is bad.

So if they changed their slogan to "Make more money!" and continued ratting out foreigners to their governments, you'd be perfectly happy?

I wouldn't, but at least they'd be honest about it.

Re:compliance, not judges

[RiotingPacifist (1228016)]

Flamebait is posting something that you *know* will start a fight.

No its not,you cock munching faggot!!!11(e^i6pi())

Mixup

[hansraj (458504)]

The summary mixes up two different stories. The first (techcrunch.com) link points to a story involving a guy posting "obscene" comments about Sonia Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi, while the later link (techgoss.com) points to the story that appears in the summary (involving Shivaji). Sonia Gandhi [wikipedia.org] is an Italian born Indian politician and the leader of the ruling Congress Party. Shivaji [wikipedia.org] was a ruler of Maratha Empire.

Also, the Shivaji story involves a goof up by the telecom provider Airtel that provided the details of the wrong person (not using the IP in question) whereas in the other story the ISP provided the details of the actual person involved. In both stories Google revealed the IP used by the "culprit".

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

[OglinTatas (710589)]

US Telecoms are demanding immunity for assisting unlawful federal wiretaps.

Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

[adpsimpson (956630)]

This really gets to me.

Of all the British citizens sent to Guatanamo Bay, those sent back to Britain to handle have been released with no charges. There is very good evidence to say that many, if not most, held there are entirely innocent. None have yet received any form of trial, with some having been held for 6 years.

On top of this, the PATRIOT act (which has everything to do with undermining the constitution and nothing to do with true patriotism) now makes it possible to send US citizens to Gitmo.

On top of this, nearly all US phone companies are implicated in spying on US citizens illegally, allowing the FBI/CIA etc who-knows-what access to every phone call handled.

On top of this, the president wants to grant these telecoms retroactive immunity from prosecution, since he asked them to do it.

And on top of all this, Americans have the nerve to get their knickers in a twist when another American company Obeys the laws of a country in which they do business?

By all means campaign to change the attitudes of those in power in repressive countries. Please, do. But remember Google was (presumably) obeying a court order.

One big difference

[quanticle (843097)]

India is a Democracy. China is not.

Shivaji was a warrior not a saint.

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Shivaji was a Hindu king of Maharashtra who fought the (last powerful) Mogul emperor Aurangzeb and gave him run for his money. He is greatly revered by most desi patriots. But no desi calls him a saint!

Worthless!

[Dread_ed (260158)]

This story is worthless without said profane pictures. Otherwise how can I acurately judge whether or not this person deserves to eat his own excrement. I need pictures dammit!! (Preferrably linked through Google images for the sake of almighty Irony.)

Here you go

[hansraj (458504)]

Google cache of the "offending" image [google.com]

The pictures are sort of an anti-climax. The caption on Shivaji's picture (LODU) would translate to "dickhead" or "dick" probably. Amazing that this thing even caused rioting in Pune but then I suppose people from Maharashtra (ok maybe not all) seem to be as crazy about Shivaji as muslims are about their prophet!

India is to blame

[esocid (946821)]

For having an outrageous law like the one this man was arrested for. Google owned or ran the site in question so they had to comply with the local law. I'm not saying I like it, but the blame should be shifted to India for having a law on the books that allows them to toss anyone in jail for posting in "vulgar language" about some politician. Democracy my ass.

NO.

[xant (99438)]

Google is to blame for complying with an oppressive, anti-human-rights law, just like Yahoo is. They've stood up to the American government, I'm baffled why they wouldn't stand up to the Indian government, but it makes them no less in the wrong. There are standards for human rights, no company should obey laws that violate human rights just to operate in the country where they are violated. India SHOULD be punished for having this law on the books, and the punishment should take the form of Google's refusal to obey its laws. If the Indian government tries a reprisal against Google, then the punishment should take the form of Google ceasing to do business there.

The only argument you can make against this is that it would hurt Google's bottom line, and that's no argument at all.

asked?

[Paradise Pete (33184)]

and asked to use the same bowl to eat and to use in the toilet.

He was asked? Does that mean it was optional? I don't know about this guy, but I'd lean towards "No."

Google gave IP address. Police bungled it

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Looks like, Google provided the IP address of someone who posted derogatory images of Shivaji to the Indian authorities. They contacted the ISP and they fingered a wrong party. May be they fingered the current holder of that IP address instead of the user at the time of posting.

They got the wrong party and roughly treated the arrested man. The idea is to send the message loud and clear, "we will get the IP address and catch you and mess you up. May this time we messed up the wrong guy, but next time, watch out." That is the logic of the Indian police who think this will reduce such incidents in the future. But what trips them up is that a savvy criminal will know how to hide his tracks, and it will always be the wrong guy who gets nabbed. But it allows the police to pretend they did something. (You might argue defacing Shivaji's picture is not criminal. But given the reaction you typically get from Muslims for defacing images of Mohammad, this reaction by the desis is quite tame. And this is a different argument anyway, nothing concerning Google)

If google had not promised anonymity to Orkut users, then it can't be held accountable. There are bigger villains in the story, the desi police, incompetent desi ISP, desi politics and the desi population in general that accepts this all.

Saint Shivaji?

[Moridineas (213502)]

I hadn't heard Shivaji referred to as a saint before, somewhat interesting usage of the term.

Shivaji is an interesting character. Perhaps best known for killing one of his Mughal enemies with a concealed weapon called a tiger's claw. Also well known as a defender of Hinduism who fought long and hard against the Muslim-ruled Mughal empire.

Beaten and imprisoned based on an IP address...

[RandoX (828285)]

This is why I refuse to be an exit node.

be specific

[poot_rootbeer (188613)]

There seem to be three separate and distinct issues being conflated here:

1. India has laws that make it a crime to post "vulgar content"
2. Google provided information to Indian police in conformance with the law
3. Indian police are alleged to have badly mistreated a suspect

Be outraged about #1 and #3 if you wish, but I see no malfeasance inherent in Google's actions #2.

Re:Hypocrites

[hansraj (458504)]

Hah! If real Indians lived in that continent you wouldn't have been able to even come close. All we would have needed to do was to add a few more spices to our favorite curry and gas you all invaders.

PS: The British managed to stay that long in India because they very cleverly stole all our spices and exported them out of the country!