Searching \ for '[OT] 3 Google execs convicted...' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=google+execs+convicted
Search entire site for: '3 Google execs convicted...'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] 3 Google execs convicted...'
2010\02\25@102934 by PICdude

flavicon
face
Three Google Execs Convicted Over Italian Bullying Video...

http://www.cio.com/article/553914/Three_Google_Execs_Convicted_Over_Italian_Bullying_Video?source=CIONLE_nlt_leader_2010-02-25



2010\02\25@130733 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
PICdude wrote:
> Three Google Execs Convicted Over Italian Bullying Video...
>
> http://www.cio.com/article/553914/Three_Google_Execs_Convicted_Over_Italian_Bullying_Video?source=CIONLE_nlt_leader_2010-02-25
>

Heard the story on NPR yesterday. Completely insane.

2010\02\25@134015 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
Soon ( if not already ) *anyone* can be found guilty of a crime
at any time since it is now impossible to avoid committing
crimes or even guess what all of them might be.
Gus

On Feb 25, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Vitaliy wrote:

PICdude wrote:
> Three Google Execs Convicted Over Italian Bullying Video...
>
> http://www.cio.com/article/553914/Three_Google_Execs_Convicted_Over_Italian_Bullying_Video?source=CIONLE_nlt_leader_2010-02-25
>

Heard the story on NPR yesterday. Completely insane.

2010\02\25@154058 by BOB

picon face
Would you consider it insane if it were your child. GOOGLE left it up
for 2 months.  The people who Have a thing like google have a
responsibility's to Police their content.  Much as the owner of this
list has to maintain its content .  If things get to big for them to
handle  then they need to cut back to a level they can control.  Much
like TV, Radio, newspapers and other regular printers.
Just because it is the internet does not above the law  or decent
thinking.   This is what causes the governments to start to control
things and wrecks it for every one else.

Sorry for the soap box RANT but I have a relative that is autistic.

My friend had a saying.  "THERE, BUT FOR FEW CHROMOZONES OR GENES,  GO I."



Vitaliy wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\02\25@160627 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:40 PM, BOB <spam_OUTBOBSCNCTakeThisOuTspamcharter.net> wrote:
> The people who Have a thing like google have a
> responsibility's to Police their content.

Do the executives of a telephone company get in trouble when someone
uses their phone to transfer illegal material?

There is the concept of a "common carrier" that does not police or
discriminate on content.  Different countries have different laws
concerning this, but last time I checked cell phone company executives
weren't getting put in jail because their customers are taking illegal
pictures and broadcasting them to their friend's cell phones.

Whether an online video service (or a web host of any sort) has an
obligation to pro-actively police material or not is the key point
here.

However, if we force all online services to view each video and
determine whether it's legal or not, then who is going to pay all the
lawyers to waht millions of hours of video per month?

It would significantly cripple the service which on top of all that is _free_.

Further, the person that was affected received an apology from Google
and withdrew from the lawsuit.  The people who continued it were the
state's prosecuter and an organization who's name was uttered
derogatorily in the video.

The only solution, of course, is to block all public websites from
Italy except for those hosting companies that promise to actively
police ALL content posted on ALL websites, video, text, or otherwise.

Keep in mind that this has extraordinarily far-reaching implications.
It's not just video hosting websites, but all websites with any
content whatsoever.

If Italy's laws really do require this, then a lot more people are
very exposed to jail time.  Even though the executive's sentences are
automatically suspended, there's doubtless hundreds of videos on there
that could possibly be breaking the law as well, so the next time it
happens they will be put in jail (or sentenced in absentia and then we
get into a big mess with extradition agreements).

Yes, it's terrible that this abuse happened, and that it continued
online in the form of repeat viewings, but Google is barely a third
party to the abuse.

Why weren't the cell phone executives whose phone took the video
named?  What about the ISP used to transfer the video to Google?  What
about the hundreds of ISPs that let their users view the video?  What
about the thousands of ISPs that own routers between Google and the
other ISPs?  What about the companies that own the lines running
between the ISPs?

2010\02\25@160711 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
BOB wrote:
> Sorry for the soap box RANT but I have a relative that is autistic.

But the severity of what was posted is completely independent of the what
the responsibilities of the various parties are.  All that your statement
does is add emotion to the issue, which all too often causes people to stop
thinking about it logically.

Do you really want to hold Google or any other hosting company responsible
for the content their user's post?  Think about where this would lead.  They
would have to have massive numbers of employees on staff that do nothing but
review content as quickly as possible after it is posted.  That's basically
a impossible job, so in the end there would be no hosting services.

Instead there needs to be a way for people to alert hosters to objectionable
content, a reasonable time for the hoster to review the content, and only
then have the hoster be judged on how they act towards that content.  If in
fact Google did act swiftly after this video was pointed out to them, and
they then cooperated with authorities to track down the perpetrators, it
seems to me they did everything that could be asked of them.

I have no problems with the people who put up the video being prosecuted
under hate crime or other laws.  The severity of what they posted should
have influence on their sentence, but has nothing to do with whether Google
is responsible or not.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\25@162558 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> The only solution, of course, is to block all public websites from
> Italy except for those hosting companies that promise to actively
> police ALL content posted on ALL websites, video, text, or otherwise.

Actually I think the better solution is for all hosting companies to
withdraw from Italy immediately, citing that the cost of compliance with
Italian law far exceeds any profit they can make there.  I imagine Google
can live pretty well without Italy, but Italian citizens would have a thing
or two to say to their government when nobody wants to host their web sites.

Dario, I know you're in Turino where this occurred.  What is the reaction
there?  Is there much awareness of this trial there?  What is the opinion on
the street?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\25@163114 by ivp

face picon face
> What about the ISP used to transfer the video to Google?  What
> about the hundreds of ISPs that let their users view the video?  What
> about the thousands of ISPs that own routers between Google and the
> other ISPs?  What about the companies that own the lines running
> between the ISPs?

Unfortunately, however distasteful/disturbing, bullying is a fact of life
and the Internet does present life warts and all. You might say that
the sites and videos with Jackass-wannabes, hacking tutorials etc have
just as many consequences not in line with "community standards"

As you say, you either let it all be or scrutinise and police everything.
Individuals can always ask for content to be removed. If it was me
or someone I knew being bullied, of course I would not be happy
but would rather target the actual original offenders

wbr

2010\02\25@163858 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:40:59 -0600, "BOB" said:
> Would you consider it insane if it were your child. GOOGLE left it up
> for 2 months.

I would say two months is pretty awful.

If it was a movie studio with a DMCA type of complaint the video would
be removed in two hours.

-Bob


--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be

2010\02\25@164702 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:40 PM, BOB wrote:

> GOOGLE left it up for 2 months.

The story I read said that Google took it down within 2 hours
of being notified "by authorities."  No word on how much notification
they did or didn't have from users...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100224/ap_on_hi_te/eu_italy_google_trial

BillW

2010\02\25@165311 by BOB

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:40 PM, BOB <.....BOBSCNCKILLspamspam@spam@charter.net> wrote:
>  
>> The people who Have a thing like google have a
>> responsibility's to Police their content.
>>    
>
> Do the executives of a telephone company get in trouble when someone
> uses their phone to transfer illegal material?
>  
No because the users of telephone lines have a right to privacy.  Thats
why wire tapping is illegal.

> There is the concept of a "common carrier" that does not police or
> discriminate on content.  Different countries have different laws
> concerning this, but last time I checked cell phone company executives
> weren't getting put in jail because their customers are taking illegal
> pictures and broadcasting them to their friend's cell phones.
>  
Her again wire tapping and right to privacy.
{Quote hidden}

That is the services responsibility if they are going to let any one put
anything on their service to publicly display it.  Google should at
least the least have the identity of the person who uploaded the video
so the lawyers could be going after the person who posted it.
In other words google should confirm who up loaded the video before they
air it.  That would stop almost all of this kind of thing.  They could
nail the actual person responsable and GOOGLE, in this case would be out
of  trouble.
{Quote hidden}

2010\02\25@170925 by BOB

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> BOB wrote:
>  
>> Sorry for the soap box RANT but I have a relative that is autistic.
>>    
>
> But the severity of what was posted is completely independent of the what
> the responsibilities of the various parties are.  All that your statement
> does is add emotion to the issue, which all too often causes people to stop
> thinking about it logically.
>
> Do you really want to hold Google or any other hosting company responsible
> for the content their user's post?  Think about where this would lead.  They
> would have to have massive numbers of employees on staff that do nothing but
> review content as quickly as possible after it is posted.  That's basically
> a impossible job, so in the end there would be no hosting services.
>  
What is the old saying " if you want to dance you have to pay the fiddler."

The hosting services should put safe guards in place to be sure they can
pass the identity of the up loader on to the law if they upload
something like this.  Simple Google gives the identity of the up loader
over to the law and they are in the clear.  All the forums I have signed
up for do some kind of a check on people before they let them post
messages.  Why is someone as big as Google to lazy to do it?


{Quote hidden}

2010\02\25@171838 by Marechiare

picon face
> Dario, I know you're in Turino where this occurred.  What is the
> reaction there?  Is there much awareness of this trial there?
> What is the opinion on the street?

Sophocles from the neck of the woods wrote already in "Antigone" - "No
one loves the messenger who brings bad news."

Seems that it's always been easier to shoot the messenger than to fix a problem.

2010\02\25@173108 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
BOB wrote:
> The hosting services should put safe guards in place to be sure they
> can
> pass the identity of the up loader on to the law if they upload
> something like this.  Simple Google gives the identity of the up
> loader
> over to the law and they are in the clear.  All the forums I have
> signed
> up for do some kind of a check on people before they let them post
> messages.  Why is someone as big as Google to lazy to do it?

Do you really know they didn't?  I'd be really amazed if Google didn't log
the IP address it came from at the very least.  They supposedly "cooperated
with Italian law enforcement", so they obviously had some information and it
appears they did hand it over.

You are asking for a system that is too complicated and therefore either
expensive or unworkable.  I'd rather continue to have access to free or
relatively inexpensive services like Google and understand that occasionally
something will get thru, as long as it is dealt with when it is brought to
the attention of the provider and there is some basic tracking for a
reasonable chance to identify the perpetrators.  I'd strongly object to a
system where you'd have to give (and somehow verify) your drivers license
number, social security number, credit cards, fingerprint, DNA profile, etc.

What you should really be outraged about is the number of people who viewed
the video during the 2 month it was up and didn't report it.  Apparently the
system worked correctly once the offense was reported.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\25@173803 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:40 PM, BOB wrote:
>
> Would you consider it insane if it were your child. GOOGLE left it up
> for 2 months.  The people who Have a thing like google have a
> responsibility's to Police their content.  Much as the owner of this
> list has to maintain its content .  If things get to big for them to
> handle  then they need to cut back to a level they can control.  Much
> like TV, Radio, newspapers and other regular printers.
> Just because it is the internet does not above the law  or decent
> thinking.   This is what causes the governments to start to control
> things and wrecks it for every one else.
>
> Sorry for the soap box RANT but I have a relative that is autistic.
>
> My friend had a saying.  "THERE, BUT FOR FEW CHROMOZONES OR GENES,  
> GO I."

See my other posts.  Yes you can insult me ( or try to ) and my  
progeny and my clothes
and my accent and my car.   Just don't mock my choice of cell phone.
My children do many bad? things and embarrass? me all the time.  My  
daughter accused
me of child molestation.  I used to take showers with my kids.  
Censorship ( for me )
is bad, bad, bad.  Even if message is a total lie.  I just can't  
accept any form of censorship.

Now ...... was that rambling enough ?

Gus


2010\02\25@174041 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

It looks to me like the bullying was done by the court system.
Gus

2010\02\25@174548 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face

{Quote hidden}

Lazy ?   Google absolutely has no responsibility to remove any content
regardless of how tacky , inaccurate , pornographic, ???? it is.    
They may
*choose* to do so in order to retain their customers.
Gus
{Quote hidden}

2010\02\25@175926 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:45:47 -0700, "YES NOPE9" said:

> Lazy ?   Google absolutely has no responsibility to remove any content
> regardless of how tacky , inaccurate , pornographic, ???? it is.    
> They may
> *choose* to do so in order to retain their customers.

Afraid your Google stock is going down?

I can't really fathom why you would take sides against the kid's right
to privacy.

If this makes Google more careful in the future, I say good.

Nobody's even going to jail over this.

If they publicly host it, they need to be prepared to take the heat.

If Google stops hosting videos it wouldn't be any big loss. YouTube is
99.9% crap anyway.

But I forget - you are also against moderation on the Piclist...

-Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

2010\02\25@180143 by ivp

face picon face
> It looks to me like the bullying was done by the court system.

I don't think it solved anything. I might stop, in an infinitesimally
small way, some people uploading that sort of video (and eg
school fights) but it certainly won't stop bullying. There was a
similar debate here in NZ not so long ago about making ISPs
in some way responsible for, and being complicit in, piracy. As
it happens, ISPs would like to see less piracy. Not on moral or
legal grounds, but because it uses so much bandwidth

wbr

2010\02\25@182746 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> Would you consider it insane if it were your child. GOOGLE left it up
>> for 2 months.
>
> I would say two months is pretty awful.
>
> If it was a movie studio with a DMCA type of complaint the video would
> be removed in two hours.

According to the NPR report, the video was removed by Google two hours after
they were contacted by Italian police.

Vitaliy

2010\02\25@183012 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> Lazy ?   Google absolutely has no responsibility to remove any content
>> regardless of how tacky , inaccurate , pornographic, ???? it is.
>> They may
>> *choose* to do so in order to retain their customers.
>
> Afraid your Google stock is going down?
>
> I can't really fathom why you would take sides against the kid's right
> to privacy.

It's a slippery slope. Now there is a precedent and Italian courts can do
the same thing to blog sites, forum, etc etc.

Would you (as a PICList admin) want to be held liable for something that I
said?

The only proper way to handle this case is to punish the kids who did the
bullying and posted the content (which was already done).

Vitaliy

2010\02\25@183355 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:26:26 -0700, "Vitaliy" said:
>
> According to the NPR report, the video was removed by Google two hours
> after
> they were contacted by Italian police.

I bet they did.

What about the other two months when the victim and the ViviDown
association had complained and Google didn't remove it?

Why did it take the police to have it removed?

-Bob


--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

2010\02\25@184511 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:29:14 -0700, "Vitaliy" said:

> It's a slippery slope. Now there is a precedent and Italian courts can do
> the same thing to blog sites, forum, etc etc.

Good. Keep your blogs clean. I have no problem with people being held
responsible for what is posted on their blogs. The blog owners can edit
out anything they choose.

> Would you (as a PICList admin) want to be held liable for something that
> I
> said?

I do have some liability. It's something I thought about before I took
it on.

That's one reason why moderation is available to me as a tool and I
don't hesitate to use it when I need to. And I read every post.

It's not like life is free from hazards.

-Bob


--
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail

2010\02\25@191803 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 25, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Bob Blick wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:45:47 -0700, "YES NOPE9" said:
>
>> Lazy ?   Google absolutely has no responsibility to remove any  
>> content
>> regardless of how tacky , inaccurate , pornographic, ???? it is.
>> They may
>> *choose* to do so in order to retain their customers.
>
> Afraid your Google stock is going down?
>
> I can't really fathom why you would take sides against the kid's right
> to privacy.

The kid has a no *right* to privacy as portrayed in this story.  The  
kid can request the video be removed.
One would expect that Google would remove it as a gesture of *good  
will* .
>
> If this makes Google more careful in the future, I say good.
>
> Nobody's even going to jail over this.
>
> If they publicly host it, they need to be prepared to take the heat.
No doubt they will get heat ...... but do they deserve it any more  
than the
kid deserves to be bullied ?
>
> If Google stops hosting videos it wouldn't be any big loss. YouTube is
> 99.9% crap anyway.
>
> But I forget - you are also against moderation on the Piclist...

I wouldn't moderate you .................

> -Bob
>
-- or anyone else really
Gus

2010\02\25@203643 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Vitaliy ha scritto:
> PICdude wrote:
>> Three Google Execs Convicted Over Italian Bullying Video...
>>
>> www.cio.com/article/553914/Three_Google_Execs_Convicted_Over_Italian_Bullying_Video?source=CIONLE_nlt_leader_2010-02-25
>>
>
> Heard the story on NPR yesterday. Completely insane.
>


don't tell me... :(

--

Ciao, Dario
--
Cyberdyne

2010\02\25@203724 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Bob Blick <bobblickspamKILLspamftml.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I agree. If I put up a website the authorities should have to approve it
before it can go public. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was posting
propaganda that was anti-authoritarian.


--
Martin K.

2010\02\25@204552 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Olin Lathrop ha scritto:

> Dario, I know you're in Turino where this occurred.  What is the reaction
> there?  Is there much awareness of this trial there?  What is the opinion on
> the street?


Thanks for asking, Olin :)

Well, I have to admit I barely watch any TV recently and moreover (by
chance but we're going to regional election day soon) I've attended 3
meetings from different parties in the latest 2 days...

You all know Berlusconi and it's "large" dominion over the media.
Possibly internet (facebook, youtube) are free zones where different
thoughts than public (i.e. "his") TVs broadcast. So there's a feeling
that this trial is meant to make internet "guilty" - as has been tried
other times.
The message going on the TV (news etc) is that "internet is evil" and is
just used to play bad jokes upon impaired people and all of this...

So, there seems to be a plot. We'll see. Censorship is what we fear,
even though it's said "it can't happen".


Of course, my post tends to became a bit "politic" - I'm sorry. But I'm
not saying that I am fan of this or that political side: I am just
against the "tycoon" ;-)

--

Ciao, Dario
--
Cyberdyne

2010\02\25@212655 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:37:04 -0500, "M.L." said:

> I agree. If I put up a website the authorities should have to approve it
> before it can go public. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was posting
> propaganda that was anti-authoritarian.

That wasn't what I suggested.

The Google employees were found guilty of violating the kid's privacy.
Privacy laws are strong in Italy and the victim had not given permission
for the video to be posted.

If it's too difficult for Google to comply with the law in Italy they
don't need to do business there.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own

2010\02\26@005124 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> It's a slippery slope. Now there is a precedent and Italian courts can do
>> the same thing to blog sites, forum, etc etc.
>
> Good. Keep your blogs clean. I have no problem with people being held
> responsible for what is posted on their blogs. The blog owners can edit
> out anything they choose.

Who gets to decide what is "clean"? What about this little thing we call
"free speech"?

I think you would be very comfortable in China and Russia (and I guess now,
Italy), where people are dragged into court or even arrested for posting
content the censors find "objectionable".


>> Would you (as a PICList admin) want to be held liable for something that
>> I
>> said?
>
> I do have some liability. It's something I thought about before I took
> it on.

What in the world are you talking about? What "liability"?!


> That's one reason why moderation is available to me as a tool and I
> don't hesitate to use it when I need to. And I read every post.

How do you know that in my next post I won't make a political comment, or
post child pornography? Your argument is absurd.

Vitaliy

2010\02\26@020456 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:50:45 -0700, "Vitaliy" said:

> I think you would be very comfortable in China and Russia (and I guess
> now,
> Italy), where people are dragged into court or even arrested for posting
> content the censors find "objectionable".

I think you are getting a little too personally rude.

And it wasn't "censors". The kid did not give permission for the video.

> How do you know that in my next post I won't make a political comment, or
> post child pornography? Your argument is absurd.

I'm not arguing. I'm saying that moderation is a tool I have, and it
does have some power. Just because it doesn't have absolute power, or it
can't turn back time, doesn't mean it is completely ineffective. And
it's my responsibility to monitor the list.

A disabled kid in Italy was being bullied and someone posted video of
him to the internet, and you are defending it. Sorry, but there is
absolutely no way I could possibly do that. I'd rather see Google fail.

-Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...

2010\02\26@030826 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> I think you would be very comfortable in China and Russia (and I guess
>> now,
>> Italy), where people are dragged into court or even arrested for posting
>> content the censors find "objectionable".
>
> I think you are getting a little too personally rude.

This sounds rather hypocritical, coming from a person who said:

"Afraid your Google stock is going down? "


> And it wasn't "censors". The kid did not give permission for the video.

The kid is not suing Google. "Permission" in this context smells of police
state. I don't understand how you fail to see the absurdity of your
argument. If I hijacked your phone, and called the FBI to tell them that I
plan to kill the President, should the Secret Service investigate you, and
put you on the watch list? If I glued a poster featuring child pornography*
to the wall of your house while you were away, should you go to jail because
you allowed your house to be used as a vehicle to deliver the illegal
content?

*I'm sorry, I can't think of any other example because in the US the First
Amendment protect's one's right to free speech, even if one chooses to use
this right to paint a swastika on one's house, or publicly denie the
Holocaust while wearing a Hitler Was Right t-shirt and waving a Nazi flag.
(Yet you very rarely see people doing any of those things, and then only on
TV -- but that's besides the point).


> I'm not arguing. I'm saying that moderation is a tool I have, and it
> does have some power. Just because it doesn't have absolute power, or it
> can't turn back time, doesn't mean it is completely ineffective. And
> it's my responsibility to monitor the list.

How does one become a moderator, anyway? IIRC you became one when you
expressed your dissatisfaction with the then admin-in-charge. Can I become a
moderator? What if I said "I *really* don't like how you are treating me,
and I *hate* what you're doing to the PICList"? Would you resign?


> A disabled kid in Italy was being bullied and someone posted video of
> him to the internet, and you are defending it. Sorry, but there is
> absolutely no way I could possibly do that. I'd rather see Google fail.

You can fight your straw man all you want.

Vitaliy

2010\02\26@064508 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Bob Blick <.....bobblickKILLspamspam.....ftml.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

The Google execs who were convicted didn't know that the video even existed.
So how can they be responsible for it? It's a bad thing that the kid was
bullied / beat up / whatever, but I don't see how you can argue with a
straight face that the people who run a public forum (Youtube) should be
aware of every article that is posted to their servers. The only videos that
they KNOW they should take down are ones that violate their terms of
service. For better or worse, someone being bullied is not against the terms
of service unless something illegal is going on - and google does not pay
judges to watch youtube all day and decide if the videos of dancing babies
are legal or not. They took down the video after the authorities told them
it was illegal. Preemptive censoring is NOT a good idea!

--
Martin K.

2010\02\26@101917 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:53 PM, BOB <EraseMEBOBSCNCspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTcharter.net> wrote:
> Google should at
> least the least have the identity of the person who uploaded the video
> so the lawyers could be going after the person who posted it.

Which would then result in a severe chilling effect on those that
*need* anonymity.  Human rights violations and political torture still
occur in many places in the world.

Would you deny the brother of someone who has been imprisoned and
tortured a platform to call for reform without repercussions because
the country they live in has a law that they can't ask questions about
their own relatives?

There is a tug-of-war between privacy and anonymity, and there should
be a balance, but you can't universally say that one should win out at
the cost of the other in all cases.

-Adam

2010\02\26@110303 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Bob Blick <bobblickspamspam_OUTftml.net> wrote:
> A disabled kid in Italy was being bullied and someone posted video of
> him to the internet

At this point we have several different conflicting ideas, and I think
that people are trying to argue them all at once.

First:

Possible Responsible Parties
------------------------------------------

What is the responsibility of each of the following to comply with
national laws:
- ICANN (International organization that basically regulates the internet)
- ISPs (individual companies, organizations, gov't organizations that
actually run the internet)
- Hosting services (companies and organizations that store content,
and make it publicly available via the internet)
- Clients (Individual or companies that interact with the internet by
publishing or consuming most of the content)

Google, in this case, is acting the part of the Hosting service.

Are they responsible for the content that is located on their servers?

In some countries they are seen as a media corporation, and thus they
might be legally responsible for obtaining model contracts for anyone
appearing in any of their videos.

In other countries they might be seen as journalistic in nature, and
so model contracts might not be required in some cases.

In still other countries they are seen as a service (like a shopping
center with bulliten boards where anyone can post a piece of paper
with advertising, political posters, something funny, business cards,
or whatever) and they are not responsible for the content posted,
unless they are aware that it breaks the law, and if they take action
in that case then they are seen as complying with the law.

But in the more strict cases, it would appear that the ISPs and even
ICANN might share some responsibility.  After all they *could* do
something about this issue at both levels, so therefore they must take
some of the blame of violating privacy laws.

National privacy laws
------------------------------

Here's where it gets even more sticky.  Regardless of *who* is to
blame, there are big differences between privacy laws in one nation vs
another.

In the US, a private citizen can take video of other people in a
public place and show it to whomever they like with very few legal
repurcussions.

I understand this might not be the case elsewhere.

Further, as described above, there are differences depending on who
they are, and how they show it to others.  If they are a company, and
use it in marketing materials such as commercials, then the people
have to sign modeling contracts.  If they are journalists showing it
on the nightly news then they may be able to do so without a contract
depending on the usage of the video.  If they are private citizens,
showing it on a big screen in a park or privately at home, they
generally don't have to have permission fromt he people appearing in
the video, since it was originally taken in a public place.  There are
nuances to this based on "expectation of privacy", but this is the
general oidea.


Place of violation
------------------------

Further, does it matter where the video was recorded, where it's
stored, or where it's ultimately viewed?

Where does the violation actually occur?

If the video is stored on a server in the US, but played in Italy
using an italian ISP to carry teh video over the ocean, then can't you
say that the media organization is "transmitting" it from the US, and
thus Italian law has no jurisdiction, except over the local ISP?  What
if it's stored in the US, but Google has a completely unrelated
business presence in Italy (say, for their solar power projects)?

Shouldn't an Italian ISP have stopped the video from being transmitted
out of the country to Google's data center?

China understands the implications of this, and so requires their ISPs
to be the gatekeepers to enforce their national laws.

How can Italy explain that they are sentencing Americans from an
American company for breaking an italian law when they never stepped
foot on italian soil, and the violation (in terms of where the data is
stored and played from) occurred outside the country?

Now I'm not saying that's absolutely the case - I'm sure they have a
data center in italy, and it's possible the video was stored there,
and it's possible that the executives live and work in italy.

But the arguments about the general concept must take these issues into account.

Balancing Privacy, Anonymity, and Freedom of Speech
-----------------------------------------------
The kid may have a right to privacy in a public place.  Even in the US
there are complex rules for whether someone might have the right to
privacy, or an expected right to privacy even in a public place.

His right to privacy should trump the video poster's right to freedom
of speech and anonymity.

However, this can only be done on a case-by-case basis.  If someone
videos a politician receiving a bribe, their right to privacy might
not trump the recorder's right to anonymity (whistleblower laws might
apply) or freedom of speech (hold gov't officials accountable).

Therefore there is NO way to have a blanket, easy to enforce rule that
covers all situations.  Given that, is it reasonable to expect third
parties to enforce the laws of each country without the authority to
enforce the laws?  Are they then responsible for reporting the
violations, or are they seen as bystanders - not responsible for
reporting the rape they saw if they don't wish to become involved?

I suspect that given these four intersecting axis, there's no easy way
to say that what was done was right or wrong without each argument
being broken down so it's clear where the relevant points exist in
each axis.

Regardless, I distrust anyone that says without hesitation that they
know this case was rightly solved or wrongly solved since no one here
has all the above information as it pertains to this particular case.

-Adam

2010\02\26@112611 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Regardless, I distrust anyone that says without hesitation that they
> know this case was rightly solved or wrongly solved

Amen to that, and to the complexities of international law!

Here are two more 'interesting' questions, totally unrelated to the
google case. I don't expect answers, they serve only to show how
complicated or unresolved legal things can be.

- US copyright law has a blanket permission to use material for
educational purposes. Microchip explicitly acknowledges this in their
copyright explanation on their website. Dutch law (my country) has no
such exception: Dutch education institutions pay a per-page fee for
using Dutch copyrighted material. Which rule applies to me reproducing
Microchip datasheets, for educational purposes, in my country? I have
asked a copyright lawyer and he did not know (he suggested that that
there simply might be no answer to be found in current laws and treaties)

- I have a webshop based in the Netherlands. Which countries' law
applies when I sell something to someone in, let's say, Japan? If that
seems easy (a lawyer I asked said it is definitely not) add the
complication that we might use paypal (which used to be US based) to do
the payment.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\02\26@120835 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>- I have a webshop based in the Netherlands. Which countries' law
>applies when I sell something to someone in, let's say, Japan? If
>that seems easy (a lawyer I asked said it is definitely not) add
>the complication that we might use paypal (which used to be US
>based) to do the payment.

I have seen contracts where there is a specific clause to the effect that
"This contract shall use the legal definitions and rights of the law of xxx
country" to define such a problem. I suspect it would be sufficient to have
a suitably worded statement on your web pages, probably suitably prominent
on the check out page.

I suspect PayPal will have something similar in their conditions of use.

2010\02\26@122811 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:07:49 -0700, "Vitaliy" said:

> What if I said "I *really* don't like how you are treating me,
> and I *hate* what you're doing to the PICList"? Would you resign?

I know you don't like me. The feeling is mutual. But it's no big deal,
who cares.

You seem to be able to get your feelings known, and you say mean things
to me. I don't like that either.

Will I resign if you continue to complain? No.

> > A disabled kid in Italy was being bullied and someone posted video of
> > him to the internet, and you are defending it. Sorry, but there is
> > absolutely no way I could possibly do that. I'd rather see Google fail.
>
> You can fight your straw man all you want.

I really don't see how it is a straw man, it's the Subject of this
thread. If hosting videos of underage disabled kids being bullied is an
essential part of Google's business, I think that's a bad business plan
and they should fail.

If they break Italian law, then they shouldn't have employees in Italy.

-Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                         wherever you are

2010\02\26@124543 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Alan B. Pearce
<@spam@Alan.B.PearceKILLspamspamstfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>>- I have a webshop based in the Netherlands. Which countries' law
>>applies when I sell something to someone in, let's say, Japan? If
>>that seems easy (a lawyer I asked said it is definitely not) add
>>the complication that we might use paypal (which used to be US
>>based) to do the payment.
>

Yeah, but if Wouter sells from the Netherlands to Japan, and the
object is illegal in Japan, the Japanese authorities don't go after
Wouter and expect him to follow Japanese law.  They go after the
person who imported the item.

So the parallels to this case are actually quite interesting.

>  I have seen contracts where there is a specific clause to the effect that
> "This contract shall use the legal definitions and rights of the law of xxx
> country" to define such a problem. I suspect it would be sufficient to have
> a suitably worded statement on your web pages, probably suitably prominent
> on the check out page.

The contracts are not much more than boilerplate.  They may not be
enforcable, but companies will try to require that jurisdiction be
brought into a court that favors them - this is why so many US
companies are incorporated in Delaware - it's laws regarding
corporations are very favorable to the corporation.  So a company and
a customer may live elsewhere, but if they don't challenge
jurisdiction they may have their case dealt with in the Delaware court
system.

But if the contract was broken elsewhere, the clause may or may not
have legal effect depending on a lot of other factors.

Unfortunately that's really only for contracts.  A more relevant
disclaimer might be one of liability - "By purchasing from us the
customer agrees to accept all liability regarding their local laws and
statutes, and agrees to hold harmless ThisCompany from any issues
arrising from the product above and beyond the cost of the product
itself."

If you read the Google Terms of Service for both viewers and content
providers, I'm sure it says something similar.

However, lots of contracts and terms of service have completely
unenforcable clauses that are put in there in the 1) hope that they
may be effective in some cases and 2) expectation that it will affect
user behavior so they don't have as many problems.

2010\02\26@142957 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> Regardless, I distrust anyone that says without hesitation that they
>> know this case was rightly solved or wrongly solved
>
> Amen to that, and to the complexities of international law!
>
> Here are two more 'interesting' questions, totally unrelated to the
> google case. I don't expect answers, they serve only to show how
> complicated or unresolved legal things can be.
>
> - US copyright law has a blanket permission to use material for
> educational purposes. Microchip explicitly acknowledges this in their
> copyright explanation on their website. Dutch law (my country) has no
> such exception: Dutch education institutions pay a per-page fee for
> using Dutch copyrighted material. Which rule applies to me reproducing
> Microchip datasheets, for educational purposes, in my country? I have
> asked a copyright lawyer and he did not know (he suggested that that
> there simply might be no answer to be found in current laws and treaties)

I don't know the answer from a legal standpoint, but from a moral/ethical
POV I think it's obvious that when you copy Microchip datasheets for
educational purposes, it doesn't hurt Microchip (probably the opposite is
true). Have they ever objected to people copying their datasheets?


> - I have a webshop based in the Netherlands. Which countries' law
> applies when I sell something to someone in, let's say, Japan? If that
> seems easy (a lawyer I asked said it is definitely not) add the
> complication that we might use paypal (which used to be US based) to do
> the payment.

As a seller, you are bound by the laws of your country. For example, our
company is forbidden from exporting our products to countries on the US
sanctions list. It's up to the buyer to comply with their country's laws.

I know that lately it's become fashionable in Europe to sue Americans,
recently there was an American author who was convicted by a British court
en absentia for "libel"[1]. The US constitution protects the author's right
to free speech, and it's highly unlikely that she will ever be extradited to
the UK.

Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death in Iran for publishing Satanic Verses.
As long as he stays in Britain, he is under the jurisdiction of British law.

So what's complicated about it?

Vitaliy

[1] http://public-integrity.org/article/invent_index.php?id=971

2010\02\26@145131 by Rolf

flavicon
face
Vitaliy wrote:
> Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>  
>  
...
> So what's complicated about it?
>
> Vitaliy
>
>  

Oh, I don't know, but I bet that Roman Planski is wondering about a few
things right now.....

Rolf

2010\02\26@145310 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> What if I said "I *really* don't like how you are treating me,
>> and I *hate* what you're doing to the PICList"? Would you resign?
>
> I know you don't like me. The feeling is mutual.

I never said that I don't like *you*. I don't like your *treatment* of me.


> But it's no big deal,
> who cares.

If you didn't walk around swinging your moderation baton, I couldn't care
less whether you consider me your enemy or not. But you do, so I care.


> You seem to be able to get your feelings known, and you say mean things
> to me. I don't like that either.

Bob, this is becoming annoying. Do not tempt me to provide proof that the
things you've said to me were far nastier than anything I've ever said to
you. Unlike you, I don't hate you based on your political or economic views,
I just have a strong distaste for your bully tactics.

My position on many issues (including this one) can be summed up in three
words: LEAVE ME ALONE. You don't like it when I rub the truth in your face?
Then lay off of me.


> Will I resign if you continue to complain? No.

It worked for you, that's how you and Olin "got rid of" James. What's
different now?

You ignored my question: how does one become an admin? If we were able to
communicate on equal terms, I am sure there would be a lot less friction
between us.


{Quote hidden}

Let me respond with a quote from M.L.:

> The Google execs who were convicted didn't know that the video even
> existed.
> So how can they be responsible for it? It's a bad thing that the kid was
> bullied / beat up / whatever, but I don't see how you can argue with a
> straight face that the people who run a public forum (Youtube) should be
> aware of every article that is posted to their servers.

Best regards,

Vitaliy Maksimov
ScanTool.net, LLC
+1 623 582-2366
http://www.scantool.net

2010\02\26@150639 by John Gardner

picon face
One complication is that jurisdictions (countries, usually)
tend to take positions on such matters influenced more by
current political exigencies than the legal principles they
theoretically adhere to...

Such things change over time, though, making a mess of
precedent-based legal engineering.

A blindfold Justicia needs three arms, the 3rd with one finger
in the wind...

Jack

2010\02\26@150655 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Vitaliy <KILLspampiclistKILLspamspammaksimov.org> wrote:
> I know that lately it's become fashionable in Europe to sue Americans,
> recently there was an American author who was convicted by a British court
> en absentia for "libel"[1]. The US constitution protects the author's right
> to free speech, and it's highly unlikely that she will ever be extradited to
> the UK.

Well there's the rub, and it has similarities in this case.

In the above case, the author published the work in the UK.

In the Google case, one could make the argument that Google published
someone else's work in Italy.

On the other hand, that would be the same as the book publisher being
sued in the UK, rather than the author.  So there are some interesting
differences as well.

Who is at fault - the author that said bad things, or the publisher
that printed and distributed the bad things, or both?  If I remember
the case, both were sued to stop publication (and perhaps with a fine)
but I don't recall that this was considered a case where jail time for
the libel was an option.  Is a libel suit a civil case, or a criminal
case?

Of course the issue only made the book more popular than it otherwise
would have been.

But then we rarely hear about libel and slander issues in the US as
the first amendment trumps such issues to a large degree, so I have no
solid understanding of how that really affects things in the UK.

-Adam

2010\02\26@152659 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:52:32 -0700, "Vitaliy" said:

> My position on many issues (including this one) can be summed up in three
> words: LEAVE ME ALONE. You don't like it when I rub the truth in your
> face?
> Then lay off of me.

How am I laying on you? By replying to your posts? Do you just need the
last word? If so, then I'll stop replying, because this is extremely
boring.

I can't think of anything I've said in this thread that should upset you
so much. And no, I'm not asking you to quote things I've written. I am
tired of this back-and-forth.

If you have a particular question you would like a reply to, pose it.
Otherwise I am not replying any further to this thread.

-Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

2010\02\26@153610 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
The most ironic and frustrating part of defending freedom,
is when someone uses their freedom of speech ( and other
freedoms ) to attack freedom.  I admit I am selfish in wanting
to have freedom of speech , freedom to live where I want,
freedom to travel where I want, freedom from pirates , etc.
Yes, I want all these things because they benefit me.  Yet
I am willing to accept the inevitable annoyances that occur
because others have the same freedoms.

Please don't use the benefits you derive from
 the free market to attack the free market.

Please don't use your freedom from censorship to attack
freedom of speech.

Please don't attack Google after using Google to find out
about the attack on Google.

Or something like that.

And on a separate note.
I love ya Vitaliy.  Try not to get too annoyed when other
people are not as smart as you.  We try.  ( I am not being
sarcastic.... I really do think Vitaliy is real smart in a great
number of ways. )

And appreciation for Olin has grown on me.
And I read every word of Rzzzzzz's flights of
english language fancy.
Gus

2010\02\26@161641 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> My position on many issues (including this one) can be summed up in three
>> words: LEAVE ME ALONE. You don't like it when I rub the truth in your
>> face?
>> Then lay off of me.
>
> How am I laying on you? By replying to your posts? Do you just need the
> last word? If so, then I'll stop replying, because this is extremely
> boring.

I've explained it 100 times, therefore I don't believe you when you say you
don't get it (naturally you disagree with me, but you cannot pretend that
you do not understand).

I don't like the status quo. I don't like the current policy of message
moderation, with you having the absolute power to censor what I or other
people post. I'm tired of the recurring run-ins with you, and your veiled
threats ("moderation is available to me as a tool and I don't hesitate to
use it", "I read every post", etc).

Ideally, I would like for you to resign, because in your capacity as admin
you are doing more harm than good.

Alternatively, I would like for someone to finally explain to me what one
needs to do, to become a PICList admin. It's neither an elected office nor a
hereditary title, so who decides who gets appointed to the position?

Vitaliy

PS I proposed another alternative on several occasions (requesting that due
to the obvious antipathy Bob refer me to the other admins for moderation),
but every time got stonewalled by the admins.

2010\02\26@165200 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Vitaliy <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:
> I would like for someone to finally explain to me what one
> needs to do, to become a PICList admin. It's neither an elected office nor a
> hereditary title, so who decides who gets appointed to the position?

The current moderators/list owners can do so, and the decision is
largely up to them.

Last time I checked they were Jory, Josh, Herb, Tony, Bob, and
Russell, but the last change I was aware of was two years ago.

Ugh.  I wish we didn't have to keep going through this rigamarole.
Let's just get rid of the bully once and for all.

-Adam

2010\02\26@182447 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Bob Blick wrote:

> If hosting videos of underage disabled kids being bullied is an
> essential part of Google's business, I think that's a bad business  
> plan
> and they should fail.

It *is* an essential part of Googles plan that they don't have to  
"edit" (in the sense of a magazine editor) the content that they host  
or refer to.  Such editing would consume resources approximately equal  
to the number of people uploading such content, which is clearly not  
practical...

Missing from the press on this particular issue is what steps were  
taken during the two months the video was present on youtube.  Clear  
to me is that posting a comment to the video is not sufficient  
"notification" to google; comments are a user/user feature and not an  
official communications channel.  There hasn't been any indication of  
whether there were any attempts in between those comments, and the  
later "notification by authorities" that resulted in rapid removal.  
WERE there official attempts by the injured parties, or are they  
mostely complaining after-the-fact?

Interesting to have this case show up from Italy, from where we also  
get the term "Paparazzi"...

BillW

2010\02\27@082939 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
Wearily dons still-warm from last time admin hat :-(.

I have FAR better things to do than spending time on this.
PLEASE take notice of the following.

ALL:

This thread is worthy of being shut down because of the abuses and off
original topic posts buy  a number of people. This topic comes close to
political. It is NOT the sort of thing that can sensibly be discussed in
this sort of forum. People's view are disparate and emotively based and this
is NOT only a logical choice.

If you want to keep this thread alive please stick to the 3 Google execs
stuff. There is enough stupid comment on that topic to keep everyone happy
without adding other things.

Vitaliy:

I asked you nicely to NOT use this thread to snipe at Bob. You ignored the
request. Regardless of the merits, or not, of your feelings about Bob or his
actions DO NOT USE THIS THREAD AS A PLATFORM TO DISCUSS THEM.
(There was no "PLEASE" in that sentence and the capital letters indicate
loud yelling and waving of arms down here in NZ.)

If you must stir and cause trouble on list please do it in a separate thread
with an appropriate title, post it in [OT] and keep the material relevant.
Better still don't do it on list at all.

DO NOT REPLY ON LIST TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
Offlist replies please if you think any questions worth replying to. Copying
replies to PICList admins is welcomed and would be a good idea if you think
that any reply is worthwhile.

1. Do you think the above requirement set is fair [ :-) ].

2. You have suggested that Bob has been doing and saying underhand things
wrt you since the last time you complained to the list admins about such
things. I'm not aware that that is true. Can you substantiate this in any
manner which should matter to a sensible person? (You qualify for that title
much of the time)(I may resemble that). Offlist reply please if you think
it's worth replying to.

3. From what I have read, and without going back and carefully comparing
words and dates, it seems to me that you used this thread to reopen issues
you have with Bob on a thread which was not sensibly related and that you
are essentially provoking him and seeking to cause discord. Do you think
that my impression is correct?  Offlist reply please if you think it's worth
replying to.

4. I carefully explained in the last day or so that, while individual admins
ARE able to initiate moderation action as individuals they are NOT able to
hide this action from other admins beyond the first time the moderated
person posts a list message. (At that time ALL admins receive a message re
the moderation). I also explained that such individual action is rare. BUT
you are now essentially repeating your allegations. Did you read my original
explanation? Did you believe me? Do you think that you are right and that I
am wrong and that individual admins can and do exercise secret rights of
moderation? [I may be wrong - I don't think I am].  Offlist reply please if
you think it's worth replying to.

5. You have made a specific allegation about how admins acted when you
complained to them a while ago. I was not aware that the admins' discussions
on this matter were made public or provided to you. Do you have an
information source that I am unaware of re admin discussions?  Offlist reply
please if you think it's worth replying to.

6. I consider myself your friend. I want the best for the list and for you.
I dont thin
k that you are doing yourself or the list much good by bringing up such
matters in this manner. What do you think?  Offlist reply please if you
think it's worth replying to.

You may feel that I am getting at you. I can understand that. I would
normally write such things in private email. The views expressed by you and
some others that things should be done in public is hereby met halfway -
questions in public. Responses in private. People can see what motivates
actions but any to and fro stays offlist. PLEASE. (Not really a "please". )


Aim: Maximise sum of list user satisfaction quotients. Not just SOME
people's satisfaction quotients. Please help.



                 Russell

2010\02\27@103425 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
A question was asked here.
As Bob suggests (WISELY) that he is not goingto continue discussion, what
say I explain what I understand him to be saying.

V
>>> Would you (as a PICList admin) want to be held liable for something that
>>> I said?
N
>> I do have some liability. It's something I thought about before I took
>> it on.

V
>What in the world are you talking about? What "liability"?!
What he said.
He means that he understands that he has some (legal) liability as a list
admin.
I'm not sure what else that could be taken to mean.
eg if unauthroised copyrighted material was posted on PICList, or links to
"carxcked" programs, of "hate speech" etc THEN some administration may seek
to hold "The List" responsible. Depending on which state or country had
legal jurisdiction, liability may lie with all, some or none of hosting
organisation (MIT!), list mamangement (Bob et al), the poster or other.
If list management was involved then eg Bob as an admin may be held liable
by the laws of the land to be financially liable for copyright violations.
Does that now make sense?

> That's one reason why moderation is available to me as a tool and I
> don't hesitate to use it when I need to. And I read every post.
The above statement can now be read in the light of the above explanation of
liability. It adds a nice new dimension to list management. It would never
have occurred to me in this context to take those two statements as threats
of any sort. Rather it's saying that the need to "keep things legal" MAY
lead an admin to act to keep the list squeaky clean. Reading every post is a
requirement if you want to be sure that nothing which may incure liability
will sneak through unobserved.

Reading all messages was actually listed as a requirement of becoming a list
admin. That requirement may be required by MIT fwiw. Or not).Probably
hounoured more in breach than observance. Bob may be the only admin who does
it.



          RM



             Russell






>
>
>
>
> How do you know that in my next post I won't make a political comment, or
> post child pornography? Your argument is absurd.
>
> Vitaliy
>
> -

2010\02\28@001452 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon
> Vitaliy:
>
> I asked you nicely to NOT use this thread to snipe at Bob. You ignored the
> request. Regardless of the merits, or not, of your feelings about Bob or
> his
> actions DO NOT USE THIS THREAD AS A PLATFORM TO DISCUSS THEM.
> (There was no "PLEASE" in that sentence and the capital letters indicate
> loud yelling and waving of arms down here in NZ.)

Russell, I hope you understand that your requests (both prior and current)
are unfair, considering that it was Bob who dragged the topic of moderation
into this thread?

I appreciate your intent is to "keep the peace" and "maintain the balance",
however you are taking sides and your actions are making the disbalance even
worse.

You can afford to see (or pretend to see) things through rose colored
glasses. You should my shoes on for size.

Yes, I violated your direct order. Put me on moderation if you must. Perhaps
it is the one thing I need to make me realize that nothing I say will ever
make a difference, and stop wasting my (and everyone else's) time.

Vitaliy

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...