Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Privacy

Google Assists In Arrest Of Indian Man 609

Posted by CmdrTaco from the many-shades-of-evil dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Assists In Arrest Of Indian Man More

Google Assists In Arrest Of Indian Man

Comments Filter:

  • Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CarAnalogy ( 1191053 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:49AM (#23462502)
    I don't usually complain about badly written summaries, but this one made my head explode.

    • Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)

      by InvisblePinkUnicorn ( 1126837 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:53AM (#23462556)
      You's didn't thinked the summary's quality were as good you had likening?

  • Gnostech! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ideonode ( 163753 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:50AM (#23462506)
    Hindu saints have IP addresses?
  • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:01AM (#23462686) Homepage Journal
      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... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Holi ( 250190 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:08AM (#23462788)
        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... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Sancho ( 17056 ) * on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:15AM (#23462868) Homepage
          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... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by omeomi ( 675045 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:24AM (#23463716) Homepage
            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... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by xSauronx ( 608805 ) <xsauronxdamnit&gmail,com> on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:39AM (#23463898)
              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... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @12:26PM (#23464476)

              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... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by c6gunner ( 950153 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @12:43PM (#23464642) Homepage

          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.


          Really? So, say I catch some kid trying to shoplift. Out of the goodness of my heart, I decide not to press charges, and instead just tell his parents. His parents take him home, beat him, lock him in his room for a week, and force him to endure all sorts of humiliating punishments. You're saying what I did was evil?

        • Re:Sloppy Definition? maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by KoRnhornio ( 879848 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @01:08PM (#23464966)
          Wait wait wait... this man's GOVERNMENT is making him use the same dish to eat and shit, and GOOGLE is the bad guy?!?

      • Re:Dont be evil (Score:5, Funny)

        by bryanp ( 160522 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:11AM (#23462810)
        .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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Artuir ( 1226648 )
        You know, if you examine *anything* in the English language closely enough, you will find that all of it is basically an ill-defined hodgepodge of concepts. Anything when looked at too closely loses meaning, and you're just trying to find witches to hang I think. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

        They couldn't come right out and say, "we won't be dicks, promise" for their motto now could they? They've done a good job with things so far, I think, given how most companies turn out when they get t

        • Re:Dont be evil (Score:4, Funny)

          by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:14AM (#23463582) Homepage Journal
          It's actually on more than two of their pages. It's in a few places on their investor relations pages and on some other pages that discuss their policies. But you're right in that they're not announcing it everywhere.

        • Re:Dont be evil (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:59AM (#23464158)

          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.
    • >> Well, I'm glad that google abides by the law here in canada.

      Well they abide by the law in India and China too which is why they put people in prison.

    • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Noexit ( 107629 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:45AM (#23463224) Homepage
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by element-o.p. ( 939033 )
          Whether or not that was the law where this person lives, that doesn't make it right for Google to have cooperated in this case.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by aproposofwhat ( 1019098 )
        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

        • Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin (Score:5, Insightful)

          by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) * on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:17AM (#23463634)
          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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:26AM (#23463754)

          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 (Score:4, Informative)

          by quarterbuck ( 1268694 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @03:31PM (#23466860)
          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:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Main Gauche ( 881147 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:33AM (#23463844)
        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ewhenn ( 647989 )

        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.

        Tastelss? Perhaps. Illegal? Not where I live.

        Not everyone lives where you live. You need to follow the laws of the locality you are doing business in, when inside of those localities. It is not google's place to determine what laws are "just" and "unjust".

        By y

    • Re:Do no evil doesnt stop 'aiding evil do bad thin (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:10AM (#23462798)

      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.

  • compliance, not judges (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caffeinemessiah ( 918089 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:52AM (#23462540) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bryanp ( 160522 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:03AM (#23462718)
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by roystgnr ( 4015 )
      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zappepcs ( 820751 )
      This is the best question to ask for both the Google and Yahoo issues. While some information is known, even in North America, companies are expected to play by the rules of the law. When the judge says give up the info, you are supposed to do so, not ask what they are going to do with it.

      Now, that can have bad consequences in some countries, and that is painfully clear. I would like to see the detailed information about what was asked of who, exactly, and how it was asked and by whom. Those details could c

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pluther ( 647209 )

        ... even in North America, companies are expected to play by the rules of the law. When the judge says give up the info, you are supposed to do so, not ask what they are going to do with it.

        And that's a scary, scary thought.

        "What are they going to do with it?" should be exactly the question asked when anyone is asked to give up personal information.

        And when the answer is "we're going to imprison him and mistreat him for speaking an opinion we don't like", the response should be "No."

        Yes, this would c

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Quixote ( 154172 ) *
      Wow.. when Yahoo did this (respond to a court-issued subpoena), everyone here was all up in arms.

      And when Google does the same thing, everyone nods approvingly.

      What a bunch of brainwashed people.

      Here are some highly-rated comments on Yahoo's story, to refresh everyone's memory: 1 [slashdot.org], 2 [slashdot.org], 3 [slashdot.org].

      Keep drinking that "don't be evil" koolaid!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss ( 770223 )

      However, we need to remember that Google is a company, not a judge in a court of law.

      Was that the case as well for the manufacturers of Zyklon [wikipedia.org]? Do you feel the same about "defense contractors" involved in the production of Nuclear Bombs? If it where still illegal for blacks and whites to marry, would you be OK with rounding 'em all up because after all, "it's the law"?

      Businesses should not be free to ignore moral and ethical issues simply because something is the law where they do business. This is not to t

  • Mixup (Score:5, Informative)

    by hansraj ( 458504 ) * on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:53AM (#23462552)
    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".

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by arktemplar ( 1060050 )
      Not sure I get this, why would me saying "Obscene" things about Sonia Gandhi get me in jail ? I thought that India had some of the better free speech laws out there, it's only the people like Shiv Sena etc. who mess around with this stuff. Also For the information of most of the people here - Shivaji wasn't a saint as such, just a highly respected king, so sumamry isn't quite correct about that bit.

      I mean what was the situation (TFA has not got too many details)

      Police : I CAN HAZ HIZ IP ?
      Google : Of cours

      • Reason of Arrest (Score:4, Interesting)

        by hansraj ( 458504 ) * on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:35AM (#23463130)
        The guy in the Sonia Gandhi case was booked under Section 67 of the The Information Technology Act, 2000 [naavi.org]. (Check the section titled "Information Technology Act, 2000".

        Apparently "being obscene" is a crime in India and the IT act takes it to the internet. So posting "obscene" stuff is punishable by an imprisonment of upto 5 years. So the crucial part was "obscene comment" not "targeted to Sonia Gandhi". Of course the person filing the complaint with the police was a member of the Congress Party (whose leader is Mrs. Gandhi).

        India has many laws that are rooted in the prude thinking that is pretty much common there. This law is just an example that aims to turn "a behavior that maybe not be noble" into "a criminal act". The same law makes pornography illegal even though you can find pornography pretty easily.

  • Meanwhile, back at the ranch... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OglinTatas ( 710589 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:53AM (#23462554)
    US Telecoms are demanding immunity for assisting unlawful federal wiretaps.

    • Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by adpsimpson ( 956630 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:05AM (#23462740)

      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.

      • Re:Meanwhile, back at the ranch... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by adpsimpson ( 956630 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:08AM (#23462780)

        Dang, hit 'Submit' instead of 'Continue editing'...

        My point (not very well made) was that Google are caught between a rock and a hard place by obeying repressive laws in the countries where they do business, while in the US most telecoms and the government simply ignore the laws designed to protect people in order to be every bit as oppressive.

        Pot, meet Black Kettle.

  • One big difference (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quanticle ( 843097 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:54AM (#23462576) Homepage

    India is a Democracy. China is not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iminplaya ( 723125 )
      Nonsense. They have elections in China. And the one party similarities between China and the US are more extensive than they appear.

  • Hypocrites (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:54AM (#23462586)

    So when the FBI can demand personal information from places like libraries, and arrest anybody who even discloses that such a disclosure has taken place; and when the NSA can perform warrantless wiretaps on the USAmerican public; and when telecom corporations get retroactive immunity for aiding in those wiretaps... I don't think the USA is in any position to call Google evil for this. Get your own house in order first.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hansraj ( 458504 ) *
      I don't think the USA is calling Google Evil. It is just a reporter who doesn't represent the official stand of the US. Also, even though the majority of Slashdotters might be from USA (I have no idea), it has a pretty international reader base.

      The whole world and everything under the sun does not revolve around the US. Stop talking about US all the freaking time!!

      I suppose the focus of the story should have been "Rights in India" as opposed to "Google is Evil". Anyway, no harm still focusing on India and l

    • Re:Hypocrites (Score:4, Insightful)

      by adpsimpson ( 956630 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:17AM (#23462880)

      You forgot to mention the torture metted out in Guatanamo Bay and prisons in Iraq (Abu Graib amongst others), kidnapping, rendition and transfer of prisoners for torture in Eastern Europe, North Africa or the Middle East. All of which can now also be applied to US citizens.

      It's not the contrast between the application of corrupt laws in India or China and the corruption of the law in the US that is the most shocking, it's the fact that both end in the same abuse and, frequently in the US and China's cases (I'm not up to spead on India), execution or death under torture.

  • Shivaji was a warrior not a saint. (Score:5, Informative)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:54AM (#23462588) Journal
    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! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dread_ed ( 260158 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @09:57AM (#23462636) Homepage
    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.)
  • Google better not do this at the Olympic Games to people from the usa and people from the us should set up a script to endlessly Google stuff about Tibet.

  • India is to blame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by esocid ( 946821 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:00AM (#23462678) Journal
    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. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xant ( 99438 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @12:19PM (#23464378) Homepage
      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? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Paradise Pete ( 33184 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:02AM (#23462712) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:12AM (#23462836) Journal
    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.

  • Profit-seeking animals (Score:3, Insightful)

    by barocco ( 1168573 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:14AM (#23462850)
    Corporations are profit-seeking animals. If you expect any level of morality from them, you will find it near the stockholders' buy/sell margin or on accountants' govt tax deduction page.

  • Saint Shivaji? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Moridineas ( 213502 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:19AM (#23462914) Journal
    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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @10:23AM (#23462974)
    This is why I refuse to be an exit node.

  • be specific (Score:5, Insightful)

    by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:50AM (#23464058)
    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.

  • Figure it out, Sergey (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @12:01PM (#23464170) Journal
    Information brokers - what Google is, essentially - are going to need to figure out what they're trying to do.

    If they continually ACT as if they are responsible for the content that's connected by them, then they are going to be continually TREATED that way.

    Nobody would even consider suing a phone book for the number they listed for a mass murderer.

    Politicians (apparently across the world) don't understand that Google is little more than a well-linked phone book, and that despite all the cool stuff you can get, ISP's are not much more than a phone company.

    This will continue to bite them in the ass until they say "Look, we're data-neutral. We don't give a crap what we index, if it's out there, we index it. You don't like it? You're going to punish us for what we link to? Fine, we'll just stop serving IP's from your country."

  • Why would somebody do this? (Score:3, Informative)

    by the brown guy ( 1235418 ) on Monday May 19, 2008 @12:20PM (#23464396) Journal
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close