[ NNSquad ] Re: NYTimes on U.S. vs. Europe on Privacy and Google

[Stefano Quintarelli <stefano@quintarelli.it>]

http://is.gd/9NMkb
News from the prosecutor's office in the Google-Vividown case.


>      Absent harmonization of key privacy and related laws
>      internationally to encourage free speech, we run a serious risk
>      of a rapid race to the bottom of "lowest common denominator"

right, yet one could argue that

      Absent harmonization of key privacy and related laws
      internationally to encourage privacy, we run a serious risk
      of a rapid race to the bottom of "lowest common denominator"

;-)

ciao, s.

    [ Unfortunately, we're increasingly seeing ersatz "privacy"
      concerns being used to control information and speech -- and
      hide official misbehavior and public safety violations -- in
      ways that mainly serve the interests solely of restrictive
      governments -- and/or paranoid fantasies. 

      It's particularly galling to see government complaints about
      Google Street View -- a service of great use to the ordinary
      citizen, at the same time that law enforcement deploys
      enormously vast closed circuit camera networks and collects the
      resulting real-time data usually with few if any rules on its
      retention or use.  And just you try pull up in front of the
      neighborhood chemical plant, hydro facility, or nuclear power
      station and start snapping photos from a completely public
      vantage point -- see how long it takes before the guys with the
      itchy gun and taser fingers are at your side demanding that you
      delete those photos or hand over the camera.  Then we have all
      the cases of law enforcement and government misconduct that are
      covered up using "privacy" as an excuse, and HIPAA cited as the
      reason that hospital screw-ups must be kept under cover.

      In other words, "privacy" (and I've spent many years of my life
      engaged in this issue of course) can and should serve
      individuals appropriately, but it can also be the "unwitting"
      repressive tool of tyrants and sociopaths.

            -- Lauren Weinstein
               NNSquad Moderator ]


   - - - -


Barry Gold wrote:
> Lauren Weinstein wrote:
>> NYTimes on U.S. vs. Europe on Privacy and Google
>>
>> http://bit.ly/bxfyHN  (New York Times)
> 
> The discussion of free speech vs. privacy is worth reading.  As an
> American, I tend to lean toward free speech, but privacy is also important.
> 
> One question not addressed is, does Google need to "be" in Italy?  If
> Italian courts are hostile to the concept that a passive provider of
> other people's concept logically _cannot_ be responsible for that
> content(*), then perhaps Google should say, OK, we'll keep servers
> elsewhere, and perhaps pay the Italian equivalent of Akamai to provide
> edge service.
> 
> (*) At least until we get true AI, so that a computer can review
> everything posted for compliance with various laws.  ANd in many ways
> that could be _worse_ than the current situation.
> 
>    [ I've seen no concrete evidence to suggest that the Italian
>      government's desire in this case was limited to blocking
>      Italians from seeing particular videos.  Of course even this is
>      impossible in a practical sense, since if Google blocked Italian
>      IP address ranges, and Italian ISPs also tried to block specific
>      videos, Italian users could still use proxies, VPNs, mirror
>      sites, and the like to feast on the forbidden fruit.
> 
>      But the attitude of many countries (including Italy) seems to be
>      that they don't want their populace viewing certain materials,
>      *and* they will attempt to block the *entire world* from seeing
>      those items as well, by seeking global takedowns, and
>      prosecuting executives of international firms.
> 
>      Absent harmonization of key privacy and related laws
>      internationally to encourage free speech, we run a serious risk
>      of a rapid race to the bottom of "lowest common denominator"
>      content being the only legal viewing for much of the world, and
>      the relegation of vast numbers of Internet users to the
>      classification of "outlaws" for bypassing their governments'
>      attempts at information and thought control.
> 
>      -- Lauren Weinstein
>         NNSquad Moderator ]
> 
> 
>     
>     

-- 
blog.quintarelli.it
www.eximia.it
www.reeplay.it