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.

Mixup

[hansraj]

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".

Shivaji was a warrior not a saint.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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!

Re:compliance, not judges

[roystgnr]

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!).

Actually, a "troll" is usually defined as someone who posts something inflammatory to elicit responses; the people who respond (like myself right now) are just called "suckers".

At least I'm in good company. Somewhere, up in heaven, Harriet Tubman is flipping you off.

Saint Shivaji?

[Moridineas]

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.

Re:compliance, not judges

[drinkypoo]

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:India is slowly losing my respect

[hesiod]

8/10: Good troll, but you need more froth around the mouth area.

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

[aproposofwhat]

No - what he did was more akin to insulting Jesus or the Holly Sprite or Dog - still not illegal, but likely to upset a whole bunch more people than insulting an idiot, a power-crazed feminist, a genuinely sensible guy or a nice old geezer who's much maligned (there - equal opportunity again).

Here in the UK, we still have blasphemy laws, but the state has given up enforcing them - 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.

Some Hindus take their religion just as seriously as fundies of all sorts, and the BJP and their ilk are pretty influential in India - given the religious tensions still active there following the great British botch that was Partition, it's unsurprising to me that sensitivities are easily pricked.

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

Re:Mixup

[unikuser]

Interesing thing about Shivaji's case which happened in August 2007 was that, they arrested wrong person the first time [techtree.com] (Airtel local ISP mixed up ip info. he he). And that guy sued Airtel for screwing him for months in jail. Second time, they might have got the right person.

Re:Wow...

[Martin Blank]

The TechGoss article linked mentions a compensation demand of 20 crore rupees, which I think equals 200 million rupees, and according to XE, that works out to about US$4.7 million. Whether he actually gets that is yet to be determined, of course.

Here you go

[hansraj]

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!

Re:Wow...

[omnipresentbob]

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

Re:Dont be evil

[joelwyland]

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

I know it's a small distinction, but the motto actually is "Do good. Don't be evil." The idea isn't just a restriction, it gives the direction to actively benefit people and reinforces it with a restriction.

Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe...

[joelwyland]

Google, as an American company, should respect that.

Google started in the US, but it is an international company. The majority of its traffic comes from outside the US. They want to be able to work in other countries and to do that you have to obey their laws. When you travel abroad, you have to obey the laws of your destination country, why should Google be any different?

Re:Wow...

[Lemmy Caution]

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.)

Why would somebody do this?

[the brown guy]

assuming that the Shivaji referenced in the article is the same one on Wikipedia, he seems like a nice guy.
Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia section on his religious views. Remember he is (portentially) a Hindu saint, but seems to be more of a Hindu king.

Chhatrapati Shivaji was a devout Hindu and he respected all religions within the region. Shivaji had great respect for Warkari saints like Tukaram and Sufi Muslim pir Shaikh Yacub Baba Avaliya of Konkan .[5]. He also visited Mouni Maharaj temple and Samadhi at Patgaon (Bhudargad Taluka near to Gargoti) in Kolhapur district. Shahaji had donated a huge piece of land to Shaha-Sharif Durga of Ahmednagar. Shivaji allowed his subjects freedom of religion and opposed forced conversion. The first thing Shivaji did after a conquest was to promulgate protection of mosques and Muslim tombs. One-third of his army was Muslim, as were many of his commanders: his most trusted general in all his campaigns was Haider Ali Kohari; Darya Sarang was chief of armoury; Ibrahim Khan and Daulat Khan were prominent in the navy; and Siddi Ibrahim was chief of artillery. Shivaji had respect for the Sufi tradition of Islam.[6] Shivaji used to pray at the mausoleum of the great Sufi Muslim saint Baba Sharifuddin. He also visited the abode of another great Sufi saint, Shaikh Yacub of the Konkan, and sought his blessings. He called Hazrat Baba of Ratnagiri bahut thorwale bhau, meaning "great elder brother". Kafi Khan, the Mughal historian and Bernier, a French traveler, spoke highly of his religious policy. He also brought back converts like Netaji Palkar & Bajaji in to Hinduism. He prohibited slavery in his kingdom. Shivaji applied a humane and liberal policy to the women of his state.[6] There are many instances in folklore, which describes Shivaji's respect for women, irrespective of their religion, nationality, or creed. Shivaji's sentiments of inclusivity and tolerance of other religions can be seen in an admonishing letter to Aurangzeb, in which he wrote: "Verily, Islam and Hinduism are terms of contrast. They are used by the true Divine Painter for blending the colours and filling in the outlines. If it is a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted in remembrance of him. If it is a temple, the bells are rung in yearning for him alone."[6][7][8]

The point of this long post is that I can't see why anybody would do this? Unless they were trying to increase tensions between hindus and muslims, because I am *assuming* that he is muslim. And as a Sikh from India, I think that the religious issues between Sikhs and Hindus/Muslims aren't as serious as they used to be.....This is just weird. If a Muslim wanted to piss off Hindus, it would make sense to have a controversial picture or w/e of a major hindu god or godess.

Re:Even the Post Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify Shivaji was a king in the western part of India ruling during the 17th century. He is neither a saint nor a god but is revered in the western state of Maharashtra for fighting the Muslim rulers.
But I agree with the other parts of your comment .. :)

Re:Dont be evil

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be pissy if you want, but you're wrong. The above description of the stance on China and the desire to help them (as well as make money) was the management position on the subject. I know that's hard for you to understand because it's a strange place on the inside. Granted, the longer they are public the more traditional the company is becoming, but people throughout the whole structure of the company take pride in how much they can help people.

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

[quarterbuck]

The description of the story is really messed up.
The one case where someone insulted Sivaji has nothing to do with Google. It has to do with Airtel, a phone company in India.
The other case is one where someone slandered a politician - The story does not say what the actual insult/slander was, but the cops did not prosecute just for criticizing -- the owner of the discussion group was left alone. There was a much better written story [slashdot.org], but the editors picked the wrong one.

Re:Even the Post Title

[cayenne8]

"It's the same reason why the term 'Nigger' is unacceptable even though it's just a mispronunciation of the Spanish word for Black: it's associated with horrible historic brutality that the vast majority of us (you excluded, apparently) acknowledge as wrong."

Well, I dunno. I think if you're a public person, or public conversation where you have a mixed race crowd, you won't hear it from non-blacks that much. But, in conversations with an all non-black group, I don't know that when referring to blacks that you ever hear them called African-Americans. You hear the term black or nigger used almost interchangeably. However, when I hear it in conversation with others...it isn't being used in a derogatory way honestly...it is synonymous with the term black person. It never had a derogatory slant really as I was growing up. I find this is much more true in the southern part of the US, than the northern part. I think the word nigger is alway pictured as derogatory up north, but, not always meant that way in the south. I hear people's grandparents (and older) often use the term "nigra"...which is a variation of the word negro, which was common a long time ago as the standard way blacks were referred to, and they way they referred to themselves. Back then, they were aka "colored people".....NAACP you know.

So, they way it is as I observe it, and these are WELL educated people, not rednecks as many might think...when there are no blacks around, you usually hear the terms blacks or niggers. Heck, in the south, most of the time I hear blacks talking about themselves..they say nigger or nigga.

But really, in my practical experience, outside of a tv show or someone that is really trying to be politic....no one in real conversation calls black people African-Americans, in the US.

Just shows the hypocrisy I think in this day of having to be PC at certain times.

Your experience would vary depending on the region your are in or grew up in.

Re:Even the Post Title

[Anonmyous Coward]

I have to disagree. 'Black', I think is generally acceptable, but a white person saying 'nigger' isn't. If you're hearing it from them, I'm guessing you're in one of those Hillary-Clinton's-Last-Stand states like West Virginia where they don't usually do lynchings anymore, but darned if they'll vote for one.

As for black people using the term 'nigger' or 'nigga', it's one of two things:

• Multiple generations of people being taught they're inferior until they finally accept it. (Which isn't to say that past family hardships are an excuse for underachievement or to suggest that the current generation of white people 'owes' black American's anything other than the respect and equality under the law not afforded their ancestors, but simply that the horrors of slavery in America went even beyond forced labor and corporal punishment)
• Black culture 'reclaiming' the word under a different connotation, which strips some of the power the word has when used in a derogatory fashion.

As for your family using it, I'm sure they're perfectly nice people who aren't interested in restoring slavery or any such thing, but they're probably like some of my family from Texas: They understand and support equal rights on a legal/moral/theoretical basis, but think things like friendship or/or intermarriage between people of different races is a bit unnerving.

Two clarifications

[sijucm]

Using the same bowl in toilet can mean that he used the same bowl to get water to wash himself. It doesn't necessarily mean that he used it in any other way.

Shivaji is not a Hindu saint. He is an ancient(?) king of one small part of India. In thise parts of India ( Maharashtra and Mumbai) abusing him can get you in trouble. People try to put him forward to create problems as he was famous because he fought wars with Muslim kings for power (not for love of Hindu religion, although people want to believe otherwise). I consider no King to be good for people and definitely Shivaji was not; there can never be a good king. Insulting him is not exactly like insulting a politician.

My personal opinion is that India do lack freedom of speech. Not restricted by law, but by crazy people. The press and judiciary is last resort of a sensible person.

Hope my home does not get burnt for this comment. Slashdot, please do not give away my IP address.

Re:Even the Post Title

[ShieldW0lf]

Those people aren't native to North America. They came across the land bridge from Asia. The first people native to North America were the Métis, a distinct culture and race that was created in this place. The other tribes were no more indigenous to this place than the British or the French.