Google Denies Requests To Remove Videos of Police Brutality

[moultano]

But Google's record is spotty. Just this month, it handed over a WikiLeaks volunteer's Gmail data to the U.S. government, which used an old and controversial law to request it without a warrant from a judge. Google is pushing for updated laws ...

This seems like an absurdly high standard if obeying the law and pushing for updated laws isn't enough.

[rickmb]

Have we collectively forgotten the time when journalists went to jail rather than reveal their sources, and publishers didn't waiver in their support?

However understandable Google's position may be, fighting the law is not an "absurdly high standard". Sometimes it's simply the right thing to do.

This "obey the law, obey the government" attitude is a post-9/11 thing we really need to get over.

[nextparadigms]

Google actually fought so they don't have to give the data of that Wikileaks guy, but I think they had no choice in the end.

[spodek]

"an absurdly high standard if obeying the law and pushing for updated laws isn't enough"

The law, in case of disputes, doesn't work that you just obey one rule. Different people interpret them differently and often multiple rules apply. Also, laws and their interpretations change over time.

Just because one branch of the government claims the law says you have to do X doesn't mean that's the only interpretation of the law or the only law that applies.

That's why a different branch of the government interprets laws than enforces them, at least in the U.S. When the executive branch tries to circumvent the judicial, you can bet they don't think the judicial branch would agree on their interpretation.

[jberryman]

Does anyone know if what they're talking about a National Security Letter? I would guess not, since those come with a gag order.

[boscomutunga]

Yes, there is little they could do since its the government we are speaking about here.

[famousactress]

The addition of "(This Time)" in the article's title is just short of outrageous, if I'm not misunderstanding. It seems to me there's nothing indicating Google has ever taken down videos of police brutality at the govt's requests.. but rather, has complied with many other types of legal requests from the US?

[thret]

FWIW I trust Google's "don't be evil" policy over the US government.

[famousactress]

Oh, interesting. They've quietly removed that bit from the title. I guess I'm not alone in finding it awful, then.

[Edit: For anyone confused, the title of the article (RWW, and HN) was originally "Google Denies Requests To Remove Videos of Police Brutality (This time)". It's been updated sometime since yesterday evening without explanation.]

[grandalf]

Thank you Google! BTW justin.tv saves broadcasts in real time, so I recommend it if you're worried that the police will confiscate the phone, etc.

[guelo]

I believe Livestream, Ustream and Qik also do this.

[jayfuerstenberg]

Good on them!

I was disappointed when Google quickly complied with last year's request by the Japanese government to take down the sengoku38 videos (leaked video evidence of a Chinese fishing vessel trespassing into Japanese waters and ramming a Japanese Coast Guard vessel twice).

After that DVDs of the original video were anonymously left in a box for anyone to pick up and watch at home.

I suppose even if Google is eventually forced to comply, the original poster has some options to get the truth out.

[verroq]

>leaked video evidence of a Chinese fishing vessel trespassing into Japanese waters and ramming a Japanese Coast Guard vessel twice

The Senkaku Islands are a disputed territory and from the video, you could easily say the Japanese coast guard boat cut in front of the Chinese boat, thus causing the collision.

Let's lets not forget the 2008 incident where a Japanese coast guard rammed a Taiwanese fishing ship and Japan had to pay compensation as a result.

I don't see why you must take sides when the matter is murkier than it is, probably due to your own political bias but I digress.

In summary: a title of 2010 "Senkaku boat collision incident" should be appropriate. There is no need to simplify it if you can't keep a neutral point of view because it detracts from your main point.

[jayfuerstenberg]

Here is the video reposted to Youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ugZ1bjaH0 ) for those interested.

[schwit]

I would like to know what videos were requested be removed.

[skcin7]

I agree. I really like the Google transparency report but I would like to know WHO/WHAT government officials/organizations requested to remove WHAT links and what their basis for removal is. However, I am still glad that the transparency report exists at all.

[jQueryIsAwesome]

If they release the links to the public those videos would gain more popularity and it may look like an attack to the US police.

[onosendai]

I think it's more than a little sad that it's suddenly news the fact that a corporation did the right thing.

[thowaway001]

Google having a spotty record, does not take away from the fact that its good for the public to know what is going on, and Google is helping do that. It is hard for me to beleave a company can be completly good or bad.

[rdtsc]

So which videos were removed again?

[yanw]

Let's compare Google's stats with the rest of the industry .. Oh, wait! we can't! because no one else publishes a transparency report.

You can't knock Google for complying with the law and not devoting resources to fruitlessly fight every court order and removal request when the goal of their transparency effort is to highlight the problems with that law and try and change it. They're doing something unique and are trying to fix the larger problem yet some people still give them shit for it.

[jxi]

Really, everyone should be following Google's example and yet they get so much flak for trying to do the right thing in the comments of this post alone.

[freemarketteddy]

This makes me want to work for Google!!