Above of all I should explain some things, seen I am in internet and not all the people worldwide know italian legislation and how think the italian law.
For the italian legislation the law does not allow ignorance so all citizens and non-citizens resident or domiciled in italian territory ( for business company is the registered address) are they are obliged to inquire into the laws and respect them.
Secondly, one of fundamental principles of Italian law means that everyone must use the full goodness of the good father in their action to comply with the law; this means simply that like the good father loves is family and to make up for careless actions and repair the family, managing all the situations that are created during the life, in the same way each of us must use all means at its disposal that should not be in conflict with the law itself and to repair other damage that may occur by careless actions.
For example, going in the car I must use all the expertize and my ability in guiding, according with the laws of the street code, to avoid accidents and that other hurt, if this it’s not happen I missed at principle of the good father so I could be with my inexperience guilty before the law of possible crimes.
Guilt and deceit, according to Italian law are two different things, I fault that despite my expertise occasioned harm to someone but I did not intend to do so, it is deceit of if I was aware of the damage that could cause, because in some way informed by written or spoken (for example. "careful" or "make sure that if this happens or simply because they knew that other ...") for my personal or work experience that could be harmful.
While the fault is not always a crime and those who actually caused the damage may not actually be guilty, with the intent there is always a crime even if lower, so those who caused the damage is always condemnable.
What does the Italian law for "treatment"?
The treatment is any operation or a series of operations designed to: collect, record, organize, maintain, consult, develop, edit, select, extract, compare, use, interconnect block, transmitting, distributing, delete, distribute the data ( information or data of any real or personal, p. 87 reason for the sentence).
The reasons that led the court to decide the guilt of two of the defendants are described in the reasons thereof and describe below.
The video released in google video (youtube not yet the time) was a video about an autistic boy who was badly mocked, mistreated, insulted by his classmates, for this crime they have already been tried elsewhere.
In this video was insulted and maligned not only the autistic boy but also the association ViviDown that presented itself at trial against Google Inc., but the boy's parents were satisfied with financial compensation and an apology of Google Inc.
In the video one of the boys guilty of insulting the autistic boy said "hello we are the Association ViviDown a Mongol is wearing shit and we do not know what the fuck, why the smell of shit we entered into the nostrils, this Then the association ViviDown felt by someone who had seen the video decided to present complaint for breach of privacy code for unlawful processing of personal data.
The videos were two alleged offenses as being the same guy.
The video has been added to Google Video as Video Entertainment on September 8, 2006 and removed on November 7, 2006, viewed 5500 times and downloaded 29 times.
It is to be noted that Google Inc. as requested by their lawyers requested that the hearings were closed to all, why will be known later.
During the trial it was found that Google Inc. has not worked since the beginning of investigations, as was stated by them on their blog is both reporters.
In fact, after the complaint, the press talked about it and immediately became active in the normal manner to requests by the public prosecutor and the police post in Milan, but the answers of Google Inc. were not adequate to the situation, there have also been many reports of users viewing the video that requires the removal, but there was nothing. The video has been removed only after various cares is part of the police post, both from the public prosecutor and the ministers then in office.
After removal of the video Google Italy and Google Inc. have continued to not cooperate with any investigations claiming that Google Video is a free service, then denied allegations by evidence found by police in the hard disk of the executives of Google Italy Srl, in fact, a letter was stated that even if every single video posted freely and without charge is a source of revenue for Google Inc. and Google Italy Srl, through the AdWords.
Basically it works, you are paying AdWords ads, where the customer earns every single click that is made on his ads and Google itself, where gains for each click on the same ad every time someone put a video and places keyword method shows AdWords advertisements according to the words that are searched on the net, both for video or text links, images and any other research. That implies that there is a gain for the video and links posted for free.
At this point is absolutely clear how the law is for the economy is no longer a simple host gains nothing about entering and searching for each link or, as in this case, video. It would be so if the items were reported as AdWords advertising and effective method for collecting data were clearly defined, it is not so because it is specified that the ads that appear on the green belt and the right side of the screen when searching . Those were the facts, Google is no longer just a passive host, but becomes a content provider that is not covered by the law of trade as they requested but that of privacy, speculation that Google makes Adwords advertising also on free content, then also on that video against autistic boy, content providers are responsible for the content placed on their site, this is Italian law for both international law.
It is also evident from the e-mails sent by employees in Italy with the directors of Google Inc. that their first thought of this whole thing was able to convince the public and the press that in fact they were unaware of all and cooperated with the investigation right now without delay and that the video had been removed as soon as possible, what then denied during the trial and investigation of postal police (page 22 of the reasons for the sentence, where Hesse says it is able to manipulate the media in the right mood for the situation).
The trial has shown that managers made Google Australia did not have any power whatsoever to which the only responsible and the only ones who can take any kind of decision, even were the economic leaders of Google Inc. at the time of the facts, of course.
Following the facts put to the proceedings, the judge ruled that two executives of Google Inc. were found to have posted a notice on holding personal data in the time of the offense sufficiently clear and visible to all and especially understanding an account by anyone on their site, if this had happened and then the warning was clear and well comprehensible with 90% chance the guys who made the video would have entered the same, but executives at Google Inc. time the facts were not guilty or intentionally, as in reality, nor to blame, since they done the principle of good family man. It 'was considered willful misconduct and not because Google executives were aware that the filters were insufficient (it seems that there were only 2 people or so to watch over 10,000 videos, executives of Google Inc. at the time of the facts were mentioned in the trial stage than they were actually).
In computing, the sentence level as you can see, has nothing to do with censorship of the Internet, or a site in part or all of the sites or google video or youtube or whatever. It just made a very specific request and the leaders of the time Google (remember that was 2006), if there is a request for an appeal we will see developments in a short time.
heba
pubblicato il 16/04/2010