Google: We had no choice in Israel ID request
Google is taking issue with reports saying that it "voluntarily" turned over information about a Blogger.com user to someone who filed a libel lawsuit in Israel.
An article published Tuesday on an Israeli news site said that the search company had "agreed to supply the IP address" of a blogger sued for alleged defamation, marking "the first time that Google forewent legal action in such a case." That was quickly echoed in headlines saying Google "voluntarily" divulged user data and "Google dishes out IP address of anonymous blogger."
Google spokesman Steve Langdon sent this in e-mail to me late Tuesday night:
Google's approach to personal data is clear -- we only ever hand over information about our users to third parties (such as law enforcement agencies) when they have been through the proper legal process. This ensures that we are able both to protect the privacy of our users and act responsibly where people may have used Google's products to break the law.
In terms of Blogger, we have clear terms and conditions, which users agree to when they sign up for the service. These make clear that: violent, hateful or copyright infringing content, for example, is against our rules; violation of our terms of service may lead not only to the termination of the users' account but also "state and federal penalties and other legal consequences"; and Google may investigate any violations to "comply with any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request."
In terms of this case, we handed over the IP address of the Blogger after an Israeli court order required us to do so. Google has not blocked the blog or taken it down. Google gave the IP address to the court (the court handed it over to the complainant).
So what really happened? Without seeing the original court documents, it's hard to know for sure. But the story seems a bit more complicated than saying Google did this "voluntarily." Langdon, as you can see in the portion of his response I put in boldface above, says Google was "required" by law to do so -- which would make this a less interesting and more commonplace situation.
One last thought: Blogger.com appears to have its servers located in California, where libel is a civil offense but not a crime (criminal libel laws have been largely abandoned in the U.S. since the 1964 Supreme Court ruling in Garrison v. Louisiana). Libel is a crime in Israel, and this judge reportedly noted the criminal overtones. So we have a situation where there's an apparent conflict of criminal laws related to free expression. I've asked Google to explain its policy in these circumstances, so check back in a few hours for an update.
[Disclosure: Declan McCullagh is married to a Google employee.]
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
This is like a Russian Court ordering Google to turn over my information because I said some nasty things about President Putin.
The last time I looked, we had our own government with it's own courts and Constitution...or has someone now put Israel in charge of America?
It doesn't matter where your servers or core businesses are located these days. The MPAA/RIAA sue P2P companies in other countries all the time (and win). If you don't protect yourself and use anonymous proxies to post criminally defamatory accusations, then you get what you deserve (a boot on the neck usually).
And yes, Israel own American politics and thus the court system as a result. Everyone knows that.
Competing jurisdictions can be a problem. If I were a company in the blog-hosting business, I'd be very careful before expanding to countries with weaker free speech protections. It's bound to get you in trouble with one country or the other eventually.
- Google aint that stupid
- by t8 November 28, 2007 12:49 PM PST
- Why would they divulge information willingly? They simply wouldn't unless they had to.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)Their multi billion dollar industry sits on trust and they wouldn't be stupid enough to destroy that trust. Remember that they don't have a lock in business like Microsoft. So it doesn't pay for them to be evil. Even from a selfish point of view, it would cost them too much money and they get nothing in return for disclosing such information.
I say give them some credit. There is no way they are that stupid.