Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger 386
An anonymous reader alerts us to a story out of Israel in which Google (its Israeli subsidiary) gave up the IP address of a Blogger user without being compelled to do so by a court. A preliminary ruling was issued in which a court indicated that the slander the blogger was accused of probably rose to the level of a criminal violation. Google Israel then made a deal with the plaintiffs, local city councilmen whom the blogger had been attacking for a year. Google disclosed the IP address only to the court, which posted a message (Google says the anonymous blogger got it) inviting him/her to contest the ruling anonymously. When no response was received within 3 days, Google turned over the IP address to the plaintiffs' lawyers.
What the hell... (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the comments so far (among the 1st 15) make it seem like Google is slipping into the hells. It very well could be that MOD/Israel contacted Google USA out of cursory moves, but already planned to use the IP collected whether or NOT GUSA assented, and probably had plans to SAY GUSA cooperated.
Of course, the US State Department and other agencies might WELCOME this, as another ruse/means of getting 'merkuns to RELAX their expectations of privacy over security.
Any more informed or better opinions to follow those prior to my own (slanted) assumptions here?
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Interesting)
So What? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not necessarily bad (read before flaming me)... (Score:3, Interesting)
Circumstances are important in judging the morality of an action by most standards (unless you've been reading Kant - in which case I'm sorry).
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Interesting)
i believe that slander, libel, defamation, etc are... perhaps outdated concepts. it is probably better for people to check their sources rather than pretend that it is safe to assume what you hear is true. i personally believe that the freedom to lie should not be restricted, even though lying is certainly a bad thing. this is partially because of how awkward cases for slander and libel and defamation can be.
many people, such as yourself, might define 'freedom of speech' differently from how i define it for myself -- and the law certainly has a different view of it than i do. but that's my opinion, and i think that absolute freedom of communication would work. (specifically, i mean allowing consenting parties to communicate whatever they want, not absolute freedom of speech which might be considered to include yelling into an unsuspecting person's ear)
or, to put it another way, if a mere pseudonym is slandering me, i might just ask, "why trust this person?". if people can learn how easy it is to be lied to, then they might learn to check their references, and slandering will become much more difficult. (of course, i do have significant doubts that people will learn to do this... but if people are sheltered from simple communication, then they might never learn.)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Before we go down this road, it would be helpful to know a little more about relevant laws in Israel. The article indicates that the judge made it clear to Google that it seemed to be a case of criminal activity. Google "took the hint" and provided the information. Without knowing what the law in Israel says about disclosing this type of information during this stage of a court case, it's difficult for us to comment on it.
So, can anybody in Israel with legal knowledge comment?
Re:Genocide. (Score:2, Interesting)
And, ya know, the "refugee" problem could be solved right-quick if the other Arab countries gave a damn about the plight of said refugees. Israel is about the size of New Jersey, and shrinking, because of continued - wasted - concessions. Any one of those larger Arab countries in the region could spare enough land to give the refugees a place to live. But, according to Arab logic, it's better to keep these people as refugees, placing international pressure on Israel to keep bending over backward - maybe they'll eventually create a mobius strip? - creating generation after generation of Arabs hostile to the mere existence of Israel, than to actually fix the problem.
This is far from a wholesale endorsement of Israel; they're not perfect, either. But, a quick question - in which country would you rather live: Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria? You're less likely to have your lifeless body dragged through the streets, while your murderers dance around with your blood literally on their hands, in Israel than in any of the other countries.
And, no, I'm not Jewish.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, it seems plenty of people can act as armchair lawyers, and assume that the Israeli laws are the same as the US. Most likely, their not. We need better information.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which actually makes sense for them if we assume that they are in business for the money and that if users as a whole leave then they will lose ad revenue, but an individual alone has little effect on their balance sheet. Is Google in only for the money? I don't know... but most businesses are because they are composed of many different individuals each one having different ideas about ethics, thus causing the business as a whole to act on more-or-less universally accepted goals, and this is usually profit as most if not all people on the planet prefer having their pockets full of money rather than air. Is running a business solely on profit bad or good? Well, I think it's better to take other ethical issues into consideration when doing business and not just count your success by your balance sheet's totals.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think there would even be the consideration of something like this in the U.S. (not sure about other countries).
Re:Seems like the right thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Now it seems likely that this was going to happen eventually, but why the rush? This blogger had been at it for an entire *year* already, and suddenly it becomes a 72-hour emergency? That makes no sense. Why not wait for the mandate and do the thing that is *technically* correct -- morally and legally unquestionable? Were there terms to the settlement that are undisclosed? Was there money involved? We will probably never know. The whole thing just looks bad, bad bad... I hope some heads roll at Google, because they screwed this one up in a big way.