

Google Denies Requests To Remove Videos of Police Brutality - jonmwords
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_denies_takedown_requests_this_time.php#.TqnuLZnzTGk.hackernews

======
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.

~~~
learc83
Google is a publicly traded company, their first duty is to their share
holders. If a reporter chooses goes to jail that's up to him, it's his
decision to make. It's not Google's money to throw away.

~~~
billswift
>their first duty is to their share holders.

Even if this is entirely true, it is quite possible that fighting the law more
aggressively may be in their share holders best long-term interest. An
excessive focus on the extremely short term has caused many businesses quite a
lot of trouble over the last century. For a really interesting analysis of the
decline of a machine-tool manufacturing company (the most thorough discussion
of the issues I know of) see Max Holland's _When the Machine Stopped_ , about
the decline and collapse of Burgmaster, a mid-century "start-up" by an
inventor.

~~~
learc83
I meant not throwing away money in respect to suggestions that they out right
refuse a legal order. Not that they hire more lawyers to attempt to change
that legal order.

I was talking about the prospect of them breaking the law.

------
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.

------
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
Sorry, I have no intention of taking sides.

I only highlight the sengoku38 event as one where Google didn't stand its
ground, and how impressed I am that at least this time they are refusing to
take down the police brutality video.

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

~~~
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.

~~~
khafra
It would be fantastic if the police learned that abusing their power gets them
recorded on video, and trying to suppress the video gets the video even more
publicity. But it'd be nice if other companies weren't making Google look so
unusual for its basic decency.

------
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.

~~~
CodeMage
Right, because they're beyond criticism for being better than the rest of the
companies. Let's not go to extremes, how about that?

------
freemarketteddy
This makes me want to work for Google!!

