×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the balancing-rights dept.

Google 386

An anonymous reader alerts us to a story out of Israel in which Google (its Israeli subsidiary) gave up the IP address of a Blogger user without being compelled to do so by a court. A preliminary ruling was issued in which a court indicated that the slander the blogger was accused of probably rose to the level of a criminal violation. Google Israel then made a deal with the plaintiffs, local city councilmen whom the blogger had been attacking for a year. Google disclosed the IP address only to the court, which posted a message (Google says the anonymous blogger got it) inviting him/her to contest the ruling anonymously. When no response was received within 3 days, Google turned over the IP address to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

386 comments

So Post Anonymously from someone elses AP.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498505)

Directional Antenna and a 500mw bi-directional amplifier.

I gave up my ass cherry to Ike Thomas!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498565)

When I think of dirty old men, I think of Ike Thomas and when I think about Ike I get a hard-on that won't quit.

Sixty years ago, I worked in what was once my grandfather's greenhouses. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the range by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help me get the benches ready for the fall planting.

Ike always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white, shaded by the brim of his battered felt fedora.

He did not chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.

The old-timer extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old fellow then winked at me, "Ike Thomas is the name and playing pecker's my game."

I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."

"Now me," said Ike, "I just love jumping men ..."

"I'll bet you do."

"... and grabbing on to their peckers," said Ike.

"I thought we were talking about ..."

"You like jumping old men's peckers?"

I shook my head.

"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Ike lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."

That summer of 1941 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of an outside john, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.

Under the greenhouse glass, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as brown as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Ike wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his high-top work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.

"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Ike licked his lips from corner to corner then sticking his tongue out far enough that the tip could touch the end of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."

"People do that?"

He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"

"I never ..."

"Well, old Ike's willing to let you find out."

"No way."

"Just teasing," said Ike. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. "Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."

"Why would I do that?"

"Curiosity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."

"I'm no queer."

"Now don't be getting judgmental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't being queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Ike slipped a hand into the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. "Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."

I swallowed, hard.

Ike winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"

We worked steadily until noon. Ike drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and make with the golden arches before lunch."

I followed Ike to the end of the greenhouse where he stopped at the outside wall of the potting shed. He opened his fly, fished inside, and finger-hooked a soft white penis with a pouting foreskin puckered half an inch past the hidden head.

"Yes sir," breathed Ike, "this old peter needs some draining." He exhaled a sigh as a strong, yellow stream splattered against the boards and ran down to soak into the earthen floor.

He caught me looking down at him. He winked. "Like what you're viewing, Boy?"

I looked away.

"You taking a serious interest in old Ike's pecker?"

I shook my head.

"Well you just haul out yourn and let old Ike return the compliment."

Feeling trapped and really having to go, I fumbled at my fly, turned away slightly, withdrew my penis and strained to start.

"Take your time boy. Let it all hang out. Old Ike's the first to admit that he likes looking at another man's pecker." He flicked away the last drop of urine and shook his limp penis vigorously.

I tried not to look interested.

"Yes sir, this old peepee feels so good out, I just might leave it out." He turned to give me a better view.

"What if somebody walks in?"

Ike shrugged. He looked at my strong yellow stream beating against the boards and moved a step closer. "You got a nice one,boy."

I glanced over at him. His cock was definitely larger and beginning to stick straight out. I nodded toward his crotch. "Don't you think you should put that away?"

"I got me strictly a parlor prick," said Ike. "Barely measures six inches." He grinned. "Of course it's big enough around to make a mouthful." He ran a thumb and forefinger along its length and drawing his foreskin back enough to expose the tip of the pink head. "Yersiree." He grinned, revealing nicotine stained teeth. "It sure feels good, letting the old boy breathe."

I knew I should button up and move away. I watched his fingers moving up and down the thickening column.

"You like checking out this old man's cock?"

I nodded. In spite of myself, my cock began to swell.

"Maybe we should have ourselves a little pecker pulling party." Ike slid his fingers back and forth on his expanding shaft and winked. "I may be old but I'm not against doing some little pud pulling with a friend."

I shook my head.

"Maybe I'll give my balls some air. Would you like a viewing of old Ike's hairy balls?"

I swallowed hard and moistened my dry lips.

He opened another button on his fly and pulled out his scrotum. "Good God, It feels good to set 'em free. Now let's see yours."

"Why?"

"Just to show you're neighborly," said Ike.

"I don't think so." I buttoned up and moved into the potting shed.

Ike followed, his cock and balls protruding from the front of his overalls. "Overlook my informality." Ike grinned. "As you can see I ain't bashful."

I nodded and took my sandwich from the brown paper bag.

"Yessir," said Ike. "I just might have to have myself an old fashioned peter pulling all by my lonesome. He unhooked a shoulder strap and let his overalls drop around his ankles.

I took a bite of my sandwich but my eyes remained on Ike.

"Yessiree," said Ike, "I got a good one if I do say so myself. Gets nearly as hard as when I was eighteen. You know why?"

I shook my head.

"Cause I keep exercising him. When I was younger I was pulling on it three time a day. Still like to do him every day I can."

"Some say you'll go blind if you do that too much."

"Bull-loney!" Don't you believe that shit. I been pulling my pud for close to fifty years and I didn't start till I was fifteen."

I laughed.

"You laughing at my little peter, boy?"

"Your hat." I pointed to the soiled, brown fedora cocked on his head. That and his overalls draped about his ankles were his only items of apparel. In between was a chest full of gray curly hair, two hairy legs. Smack between them stood an erect, pale white cock with a tip of foreskin still hiding the head.

"I am one hairy S.O.B.," said Ike.

"I laughed at you wearing nothing but a hat."

"Covers up my bald spot," said Ike. "I got more hair on my ass than I got on my head. Want to see?"

"Your head?"

"No, Boy, my hairy ass and around my tight, brown asshole." He turned, reached back with both hands and parted his ass cheeks to reveal the small, puckered opening. "There it is, Boy, the entrance lots of good feelings. Tell me, Boy, how would you like to put it up old Ike's ass?"

"I don't think so."

"That'd be the best damned piece you ever got."

"We shouldn't be talking like this."

"C'mon now, confess, don't this make your cock perk up a little bit?"

"I reckon," I confessed.

"You ever seen an old man's hard cock before," asked Ike.

"My grandpa's when I was twelve or thirteen."

"How'd that come about?"

He was out in the barn and didn't know I was around. He dropped his pants. It was real big he did things to it. He saw me and he turned around real fast but I saw it."

"What did your grandpa do?"

"He said I shouldn't be watching him doing that. He said something like grandma wouldn't give him some,' that morning and that I should get out of there and leave a poor man in peace to do what he had to do."

"Did you want to join him."

"I might have if he'd asked. He didn't."

"I like showing off my cock," said Ike. "A hard-on is something I always been proud of. A hard-on proves a man's a man. Makes me feel like a man that can do things." He looked up at me and winked. "You getting a hard-on from all this talk, son?"

I nodded and looked away.

"Then maybe you should pull it out and show old Ike what you got."

"We shouldn't."

"Hey. A man's not a man till he jacked off with a buddy."

I wanted to but I was as nervous as hell.

Ike grinned and fingered his pecker. "C'mon, Boy, between friends, a little cock showing is perfectly fine. Lets see what you got in the cock and balls department."

In spite of my reluctance, I felt the stirring in my crotch. I had curiosity that needed satisfying. It had been a long, long time since I had walked in on my grandfather.

"C'mon let's see it all."

I shook my head.

"You can join the party anytime, said Ike. "Just drop your pants and pump away."

I had the urge. There was a tingling in my crotch. My cock was definitely willing and I had a terrible need to adjust myself down there. But my timidity and the strangeness of it all held me back.

Hope you don't mind if I play out this hand." Ike grinned. "It feels like I got a winner."

I stared at his gnarled hand sliding up and down that pale, white column and I could not look away. I wet my lips and shook my head.

Old Ike's about to spout a geyser." Ike breathed harder as he winked. "Now if I just had a long finger up my ass. You interested, boy?"

I shook my head.

The first, translucent, white glob crested the top of his cock and and arced to the dirt floor. Ike held his cock at the base with thumb and forefinger and tightened noticeably with each throb of ejaculation until he was finished.

I could not believe any man could do what he had done in front of another human being.

Ike sighed with pleasure and licked his fingers. "A man ain't a man till he's tasted his own juices."

He squatted, turned on the faucet and picked up the connected hose. He directed the water between his legs and on to his still dripping prick and milked the few remaining drops of white, sticky stuff into the puddle forming at his feet. "Cool water sure feels good on a cock that just shot its wad," said Ike.

"Cock-tale telling time," said Old Ike. It was the next day and he rubbed the front of his dirty,worn overalls where his bulge made the fly expand as his fingers smoothed the denim around the outline of his expanding cock.

I wasn't sure what he had in mind but I knew it wasn't something my straight-laced Grandma would approve of.

"Don't you like taking your cock out and jacking it?" Ike licked his lips.

I shook my head in denial.

"Sure you do. A young man in his prime has got to be pulling his pud."

I stared at his calloused hand moving over the growing bulge at his crotch.

"Like I said," continued Ike, "I got me barely six inches when he's standing up." He winked at me. "How much you got, son?"

"Almost seven inches ..." I stuttered. "Last time I measured."

"And I'm betting it feels real good with your fist wrapped around it."

"I don't do ..."

"Everybody does it." He scratched his balls and said, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Then, looking me in the eye, he lifted his leg like a dog at a tree and let out a long, noisy fart.

Denying that I jacked off, I said, "I saw yours yesterday."

"A man has got to take out his pecker every once in a while." He winked and his fingers played with a button on his fly. Care to join me today?"

"I don't think so."

"What's the matter, boy? You ashamed of what's hanging 'tween your skinny legs?"

"It's not for showing off."

"That would be so with a crowd of strangers but with a friend, in a friendly showdown, where's the harm?"

"It shouldn't be shown to other people. My Grandma said that a long time ago when I went to the bathroom against a tree when I was seven."

"There's nothing like a joint pulling among friends to seal a friendship," said Ike.

I don't think so." I felt very much, ill at ease.

"Then what the fuck is it for," demanded the old man. "A good man shares his cock with his friends. How old are you boy?"

"Fifteen almost sixteen."

You ever fucked a woman?"

"No."

"Ever fucked a man?"

"Of course not."

"Son, you ain't never lived till you've fired your load up a man's tight ass."

"I didn't know men did that to each other."

"Men shove it up men's asses men all the time. They just don't talk about it like they do pussy."

"You've done that?"

"I admit this old pecker's been up a few manholes. More than a few hard cocks have shagged this old ass over the years." He shook his head, wistfully, "I still have a hankering for a hard one up the old dirt chute."

"I think that would hurt."

"First time, it usually does," agreed Ike. He took a bite from his sandwich.

I looked at my watch. Ten minutes of our lunch hour had already passed.

"We got time for a quickie," said Ike. "There's no one around to say, stop, if were enjoying ourselves."

He unhooked the slide off the button of one shoulder-strap, pushed the bib of his overalls down to let them fall to his feet.

"Showtime," said Ike. Between his legs, white and hairy, his semi-hard cock emerged from a tangled mass of brown and gray pubic hair. The foreskin, still puckered beyond the head of the cock, extended downward forty-five degrees from the horizontal but was definitely on the rise.

I could only stare at the man. Until the day before, I had never seen an older man with an erection besides my grandpa.

Ike moved his fingers along the stalk of his manhood until the head partially emerged, purplish and broad. He removed his hand for a moment and it bobbled obscenely in the subdued light of the potting shed. Ike leaned back against a bin of clay pots like a model on display. "Like I said, boy, it gets the job done."

I found it difficult not to watch. "You shouldn't ..."

"C'mon, boy. Show Ike your pecker. I'm betting it's nice and hard."

I grasped my belt and tugged on the open end. I slipped the waistband button and two more before pushing down my blue jeans and shorts down in one move. My cock bounced and slapped my belly as I straightened."

"That's a beaut." Ike stroked his pale, white cock with the purplish-pink head shining. "I'm betting it'll grow some more if you stroke it."

"We really shouldn't ..."

"Now don't tell me you never stroked your hard peter with a buddy."

"I've done that," I finally admitted,. "But he was the same age as me and it was a long time ago." I though back to the last time Chuck and me jerked each other off in the loft of our old barn. Chuck wanted more as a going away present and we had sucked each other's dicks a little bit.

"Jackin's always better when you do it with somebody," said Ike. "Then you can lend each other a helping hand."

"I don't know about that," I said.

Ike's hand continued moving on his old cock as he leaned over to inspect mine. "God Damn! Boy. That cock looks good enough to eat." Ike licked his lips. "You ever had that baby sucked?"

I shook my head as I watched the old man stroke his hard, pale cock.

"Well boy, I'd say you're packing a real mouthful for some lucky gal or guy." He grinned. "Well c'mon. Let's see you get down to some serious jacking. Old Ike's way ahead of you."

I wrapped my fist around my stiff cock and moved the foreskin up and over the head on the up stroke. On the down stroke the expanded corona of the angry, purple head stared obscenely at the naked old man.

Ike toyed with his modest six inches. "What do you think of this old man's cock?" His fist rode down to his balls and a cockhead smaller than the barrel stared back at mine.

"I guess I'm thinking this is like doing it with my grandpa."

"You ever wish you could a done this with your grandpa?"

"I thought about it a lot."

"Ever see him with a hard-on."

"I told you about that!"

"Ever think about him doing your grandma?"

"I can't imagine her ever doing anything with a man."

"Take my word for it, sonny, we know she did it or you wouldn't be here." Begrudgingly I nodded in agreement.

"Everybody fucks," said old Ike. "They fuck or they jack off."

"If you say so."

"Say sonny, your cocks getting real juicy with slickum. Want old Ike tolick some of it away?"

"You wouldn't."

Ike licked his lips as he kept his hand pistoning up and down his hard cock. "You might be surprised what old Ike might do if he was in the mood for a taste of what comes out of a hard cock."

And that is what he proceeded to do. He sucked me dry.

Then he erupted in half-a-dozen spurts shooting out and onto the dirt floor of the potting shed. He gave his cock a flip and shucked t back into his overalls. He unwrapped a sandwich from its wax paper and proceed to eat without washing his hands. He took a bite and chewed. "Nothing like it boy, a good jacking clears the cobwebs from your crotch and gives a man an appetite."

The following day, We skipped the preliminaries. We dropped our pants. Ike got down on his knees and sucked me until I was hard and good and wet before he stood and turned.

"C'mon boy, Shove that pretty cock up old Ike's tight, brown hole and massage old Ike's prostate.

Ike bent forward and gripped the edge of the potting bench. The lean, white cheeked buttocks parted slightly and exposed the dark brown, crinkly, puckered star of his asshole. "Now you go slow and ease it along until you've got it all the way in," he cautioned. "This old ass craves your young cock but it don't want too much too soon. You've got to let this old hole stretch to accommodate you."

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

"Easy boy, easy," he cautioned. "You feel a lot bigger than you look. Put a little more spit in your cock."

"It's awfully tight. I don't know if it's going to go or not."

"It'll go," said Ike. "There's been bigger boys than you up the old shit chute."

I slipped in the the last few inches.. "It's all in."

"I can tell," said Ike. "Your cock hairs are tickling my ass."

"Are you ready," I asked.

"How are you liking old Ike's hairy asshole so far?"

"It's real tight."

"Tighter than your fist?"

"Might be."

"Ready to throw a fuck into a man that reminds you of your grandpa."

"I reckon."

"I want you should do old Ike one more favor."

"What?"

While you're pumpin' my ass, would you reach around and play with my dick like you would your own? Would you do that for an old man?"

I reached around and took hold of his hard cock sticking out straight in front of him. I pilled the skin back and then pulled it up and over the expanded glans. I felt my own cock expand inside him as I manipulated his staff in my fingers. I imagined that my cock extended through him and I was playing with what came out the other side of him.

"C'mon, boy, ram that big cock up the old shitter and make me know it. God Damn! tickle that old prostate and make old Ike come!"

I came. And I came. Ike's tightened up on my cock and I throbbed Roman Candle bursts into that brown hole as I pressed into him. His hairy, scrawny ass flattened against my crotch and we were joined as tightly as two humans can be.

"A man's not a man till he's come in another man." said old Ike. "You made it, boy. But still, a man's not a man till he's had a hard cock poked up his ass at least once."

Every time I think of that scene, I get another hard-on. Then I remember the next day when old Ike returned the favor.

I never have managed to come that hard again. If only Ike were here.

double entendre (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498527)

Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger

Sounds like that guy could use a good IP attorney.

Re:double entendre (5, Interesting)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498865)

Sounds like he was not anonymous in the first place. But doesn't this violate Google Privacy policy, giving up address/personal information without a court order? And what about not being evil? Giving up anyones address/identity if some authority asks for it, without going through appropriate legal channels, doesn't sound good to me.

Re:double entendre (-1)

Romancer (19668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499335)

Some general things to think about when talking about evil/not evil:

Is it illegal to withhold information in a criminal trial before the defendant is found guilty? What good would the parts of the trial be where the person is still anonymous and cannot represent their side? I personally don't know about these things. IANAL

What happens when the person being slandered is denied the ability to stop it using the courts because there isn't enough evidence to justify revealing the IP address but the slander continues. How would you feel if this was happening to you and google declined to hep without a court order? How long would this take and can the damage ever be repaired?

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom of anonymous speech.
There is a specific law that the specific person is being investigated for possibly breaking. This is not invasion of privacy since it's a public post, not restriction of free speech since it is being investigated under the anti slander laws.

I think that this is just a case of responsibility, for the individual to be held accountable for what they say.

What happened to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498531)

"Do no evil"? Good thing I was using a anon proxy server...

Do no evil? That's funny (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498611)

"Do no evil"?

Do no evil + IPO = Public company

IPO = Public company

Google is just as good, bad, or ugly as the next public company. They're trying to balance the interests of their shareholders and their belief in doing no evil. In the end, the interests of shareholders will win every time. If they can keep clear of any illegal insider trading, mistreatment of employees, or other b.s. that affects so many public companies, that'll be a "good" outcome. Believing that somehow Google is different because it thinks it is different is pure fantasy.

It's 2007, folks. The Cult of the Shareholder rules.

Re:Do no evil? That's funny (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498821)

On the other hand, "do no evil" provided them with the success necessary to make the shareholders rich, and their customers may be coming to them only for that motto. Some shareholders, perhaps, only invest in Google because of that motto. "Do no evil" will always play a part in resolving the wants of the Google shareholders.

Re:Do no evil? That's funny (3, Insightful)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498871)

Don't be absurd, they're not trying to balance anything with the interests of their share holders.

Google is a company that relies heavily on its public image. Hurting that image is bad for it's share holders. Thats why any significant company has PR people. Just that with Google they take it a good deal further than most, and its obviously served their wallets well.

I don't mean to disparage Google, I tremendously enjoy a good number of their services, but lets be realistic.

Re:Do no evil? That's funny (1)

ronocdh (906309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499135)

I don't mean to disparage Google, I tremendously enjoy a good number of their services
Trying desperately to hang onto that IP address, huh? ;)

Premature, But Ultimately Correct (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498543)

The court order should have come first, but Google ultimately did the right thing. Questions of alleged criminal activity were in play. I'd certainly want the chance to dispute such allegations were they made against me.

So what if I murder somebody? (4, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498965)

Everyone eventually dies anyway.

Following due process is important and Google should have done so. Releasing info without court demand is as bad as searching without a warrant.

Re:So what if I murder somebody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499017)

I think we're looking at this differently. You seem to see it in one lump of "wrong," where I see two separate things (the lack of a court order being the first, and then the giving of the information). We agree on the first point, so I really don't think there's any argument to be had here.

Re:Premature, But Ultimately Correct (2, Insightful)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498989)

Yes but only 3 days? There are some times that I dont get on the computer for 3 days although it is rarely, and other days that I just quickly check the news, /. or my e-mail. It should be at least 2 weeks to allow for vacation and other time when people would be away from the computer.

Interesting... (5, Insightful)

Lord Aurora (969557) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498545)

...in contrast to Google's vow to protect its users' privacy [boston.com] early last year. Although this is a very different situation...criminal libel instead of general aggregate use data. Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals.

Re:Interesting... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498625)

First the Israeli court came for the Israeli criminal blogger. But I was not an Israeli criminal blogger so I did nothing.

Next the Israeli court ... did some kind of Israeli law thing ... and then the story kind of went nowhere ... so again, I did nothing.

I really need something to do. But I lack motivation. I suppose I could blog ... nah.

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499237)

Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals.

tell me why Google should ignore criminal abuse of its networks and services.

tell me why someone shouldn't have the right to ask Google for help in the prosecution of a crime.

tell me when "the right to privacy" became a right to injure others anonymously - safe from any consequences.

I look forward to (0, Troll)

gentlemen_loser (817960) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498551)

reading the comments mindlessly defending how this is not "evil". Google is now beholden only to investors and the all-mighty dollar. Everything is fair game.

Re:I look forward to (2)

slyn (1111419) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498643)

reading the comments mindlessly defending how this is not "evil". Google is now beholden only to investors and the all-mighty dollar. Everything is fair game.
Actually, this would imply that Google is somewhat at the call of the government. Why they would give up the IP address when they didn't have to is beyond my knowledge, but unless the prosecutors in the case were investors or bribing Google, this only shows that business in a country is bound by the laws in that country.

Re:I look forward to (1, Troll)

BlueMerle (1161489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498707)

mindlessly defending how this is not "evil".

Wow! So I'm to take it that from this one article you now have all the information you need to call anyone that disagrees with you "mindless"!

Seems somewhat "narrow minded" to me. You must be a Republican!

Re:I look forward to (3, Insightful)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498783)


mindlessly defending how this is not "evil".

Wow! So I'm to take it that from this one article you now have all the information you need to call anyone that disagrees with you "mindless"!

Seems somewhat "narrow minded" to me. You must be a Republican!

Well that is specious reasoning. I'm not grandparent, a Republican, or anything else for that matter but not only did you misrepresent grandparent's quote but then you attack him by calling him narrow-minded, then you accuse him of being a Republican with the implication that all Republicans are narrow-minded!

It does not bode well for your case when you treat your enemy worse than they treat you. Learn some respect for other people's opinions (even if they are criticizing mindless Google-lovers), for narrow-minded people, for Republicans, and for Evil-Baby-Crushing-Google.

Re:I look forward to (2)

BlueMerle (1161489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498987)

Well that is specious reasoning

And you are implying that the GP's reasoning is lucid? What he basically said was anyone that doesn't think what google did was evil is mindless!... There's some sound logic for you.

And I'm marked as a Troll? No wonder there are so many AC postings here.

As to the rest of my post, it's called sarcasm!

Thanks for taking the time to post a reply, instead of just marking it down. At least we can discuss it this way, weather or not we agree is another matter.

Re:I look forward to (1)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499275)


As to the rest of my post, it's called sarcasm!

Thanks for taking the time to post a reply, instead of just marking it down. At least we can discuss it this way, weather or not we agree is another matter.

Ah we both know this too well... My post, while truthful in disagreeing with you, was just me trying to be as heavily sarcasm-laden as well hence the spiraling into bizarre ubsurdity :) I can't stand the disagreement-by-modding-down either... nonsensical sarcastic posts are much more productive and fun to read!

Re:I look forward to (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499189)

I believe BlueMerle intended to counter-straw gentlemen_loser's straw man.

Re:I look forward to (1)

BlueMerle (1161489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499427)

I believe BlueMerle intended to counter-straw gentlemen_loser's straw man.

Ding! We have a winner. It's a shame that I suck at it though. I think that I'll give up my writing career and stick with Network Administration. I suck at that also, but I work for a small company and no one really knows. ;)

Re:I look forward to (2, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499117)

Seems somewhat "narrow minded" to me. You must be a Republican!

Trust me, the Republicans don't have a monopoly on narrow-mindedness.

Ron Paul is a Republican and he doesn't seem narrow-minded at all.

Re:I look forward to (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499333)

Ron Paul is a Republican and he doesn't seem narrow-minded at all.

Ron Paul is one of the most narrow-minded people in politics, by every definition of "narrow-minded" I can think of.

Isn't that funny... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498769)

I was just about to post something similar about the flood of comments that claim respecting court orders is somehow evil. I have a feeling this'll be a mighty flame war. Speaking of which, where are the flamebait mods when you need them?

What google is really about. (5, Insightful)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498787)

If what you mean is that Google is beholden to the law in the countries in which it operates. I agree fully.

Otherwise it's just sensationalist nonsense. Google is a company with an aim to generate income. However much of it's business deals are driven by the knowledge that google works in "good faith" with it's partners. (Many companies won't partner with Microsoft on new technologies because they don't want to be the next SGI/Fahrenheit sucker.)

Companies, universities and investors would not embrace google if it's practices were unfair on it's users. From reading the article we can see that Google actually made a decent decision and gave the anonymous user options before eventually releasing the details.

Google needs to appear as a reasonable entity to the courts. If google fights the courts to the last frontier in every case it is presented, it would not only be costly to the company, but give google a damaging litigious image. Instead google chooses it's battles wisely for the betterment of it's users allowing it to defend more important legal issues with success. [iht.com].

Re:What google is really about. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499093)

If what you mean is that Google is beholden to the law in the countries in which it operates.
Hmmm. Let's switch out a few things...

Concentration camp worker: Hey, just following the laws of the land...
Remember Yahoo and the Chinese dissident? Just following the laws of the land in China, what's the problem? Seriously, just because a company is "publicly traded" and in business to make money doesn't mean they should do so at all costs regardless of morality.

Good (0)

emj (15659) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498561)

You need to stand up for your views..

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498995)

And we are grateful to have Google making sure it happens...

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499263)

You need to stand up for your views..
Very true. But if you stand up for your views and your views are libelous, you must be prepared to accept responsibility for that.

Freedom of speech is not always a licence to defame others.

Conflicting thoughts (0)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498581)

Upon reading this article, two thoughts are conflicting in my head.. "Damn, turns out Google is evil..", "but wait! Google can't be evil, I mean, look at their motto!".

Truly, I'm confused, please oh wise Slashdotters, enlighten me, is Google evil or not, and why?

Quite simply: (1, Funny)

gentlemen_loser (817960) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498751)

Evil.

Do not get me wrong - I do not believe that Google is evil because they started out that way. Additionally, I do not believe that Google is evil because they are an evil corporation(TM). Rather, I believe that Google is evil because they are a publicly held/traded corporation. At this point, all of the Good(TM) mottos in the world will be unable to save them because their primary goal, second to "Don't be evil", is to serve the shareholders. It amazes me that ANY individuals are so willing to give their private data up to any public company.

The moral of the story - its a lot easier for a company to have "morals" if it is privately held.

On a brighter note, maybe we can coin a new term: Googged
Definition: To have been fucked by Google.
Usage (verb) (as a victim who has had their imagined private data used in an undesirable way against them) - Dude, I've been Googged!

Re:Quite simply: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498843)

I'm pretty sure that as a publicly traded company in America, the law suggests that "Don't be evil" must come second to serving the shareholders. IANAIL (I am not an international lawyer).

Re:Conflicting thoughts (1)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499239)

Google, like any other successful company, is loyal to its customers. Unfortunately, too many people are too stupid to realize that when you don't pay for a service, you're not the customer.

Google is loyal to its customers -- those who pay for Google's services. That means advertisers, researchers who purchase wide access to fast data stores, and governments who offer incentives, tax breaks, and city access.

If you don't pay for a service, you are not the customer.

Re:Conflicting thoughts (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499315)

Lets see, Google is a Corporation, and Corporations are generally evil. [google.com]

Is anyone really suprised? Wasn't it determined that they're in bed with CIA? [disgrunt.com]

Evil or no, it really all comes down to trust. Do you trust Google?

I don't.

Re:Conflicting thoughts (1)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499413)

Wasn't it determined that they're in bed with CIA?

And the CIA is evil because?..

Re:Conflicting thoughts (3, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499443)

And the CIA is evil because?..

Because they're a Corpor.. err.. crap! My communist hippie logic is failing me again..

A good rule of thumb for media honesty (1)

JewGold (924683) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499409)

There's an inverse relationship between how honest a company claims it is, and how honest it actually is.

This is most evident in the worst offenders and propagandizers in the media world: Fox News' "Fair and Balanced," and CNN's "The most trusted name in news."

With this in mind, Google's "Don't be evil" should set off alarm bells for anybody concerned with their privacy.

Actually, Google has mentioned this. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498595)

If you just did a little bit of searching within the behemoth you'd find that this has already been much discussed. [google.com]

You're welcome.

DO NOT CLICK LINK IN PARENT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498709)

Thanks for the Goatse, asshole.

You know who I blame for this? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498605)

The Jews.

Slippery Slope.... (1)

boyter (964910) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498613)

Now Google starts to slide into the abyss with Microsoft/Sony/SCO and all the other evil companies.

Do No Evil (1, Insightful)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498615)

I guess that doesn't mean much to Google anymore.

Re:Do No Evil (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499145)

Oh come on, you are not that naive are you?

It's a company. It can afford to do less evil when it has money and stock price skyrockets, but if it has to choose between the two, which one do you think it'd pick?

Business is business.

Re:Do No Evil (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499249)

Um, since when does anyone (person, corporation or otherwise) get to ignore the courts?

Do no evil? Obeying the law isn't evil, its their corporate responsibility. If the people of Isreal have a problem with those laws, they can address that with their government. Its not Google's business ethically or otherwise to do that.

Re:Do No Evil (1)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499325)

Wow, now people not only don't read the article, they don't read the summary either. They were not required by law to give out the information, they did it of their own free will.

What could be more fair? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498621)

FTA:

Quote: "The notice would invite the blogger to disclose his identity, participate in the hearing, or oppose the disclosure of his identity by filing a motion as "anonymous"."
End Quote

Hey after all he was warned. "...the Israeli blogger who used "Google Blogger" for a blog in which he slandered Shaarei Tikva council members running for reelection. ..." In a free democracy, he should have know better than to slander someone in Israel, guess he should have used the Arab Media.

Re:What could be more fair? (1)

goingforaslash (1195043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498903)

In a free democracy, he should have know better than to slander someone

Well, I thought in a "free democracy", a court decided slander???

American?

Not necessarily bad (read before flaming me)... (5, Insightful)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498633)

I'm not sure that I fully understand the situation, but if Google had waited until the final ruling to release the IP would that have actually prevented the blogger in question from fighting the ruling? If that is the case then short of simply defying a court order (which is something that should be considered on a case by case basis) this would seem to have been the best thing Google could have done. Had they waited they would have been allowing the plaintiff to "pull an RIAA" on the guy (or girl). If, on the other hand, that is not the case then shame on Google (a bit anyway - I still think Yahoo's games with the guy in China were much worse, but that doesn't excuse this).

Re:Not necessarily bad (read before flaming me)... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498841)

It makes no difference... if google provided the IP under these circumstances, then they certainly would have provided it under court order. The bit of info they provided is the exact same info yahoo provided. Only to different governments who wanted it for different reasons.

Re:Not necessarily bad (read before flaming me)... (3, Interesting)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499001)

Yes. And when you ask me for a gun so you can murder your wife, if I give it to you then most people would consider that "evil". When my brother asks to borrow my gun to go hunting most people (non-animal-rights activists anyway) would consider it to be just fine for me to loan it to him.

Circumstances are important in judging the morality of an action by most standards (unless you've been reading Kant - in which case I'm sorry).

Please understand... it's Israel (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498647)

They had several servers at gun point when they asked for the IP address.

Re:Please understand... it's Israel (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498673)

are you going to laugh as some faggot muslim is forcing you to worship allah at gunpoint?

Re:Please understand... it's Israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498785)

No, but I will laugh when Google Saudi Arabia turns over an IP address when they threaten to hijack an airplane and crashed it into their data center.

Oh, and don't worry, I'm not limited to the middle east. I can also laugh at Google Ireland have a few servers beaten up in a pub, or Google France just surrendering before the question is even asked.

Re:Please understand... it's Israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498893)

Dammit, undoing an accidental "underrated" mod. Sigh.

What the hell... (2, Interesting)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498675)

Have any of you considered that the Mossad has plants working AT Google, and that (like other countries with plants working in key or security-critical employers-- civil or private) that plant's duty was to monitor, collect, report on, sanitize, and enable the use of it for government purposes, whether to bring charges against someone or to slander someone?

Most of the comments so far (among the 1st 15) make it seem like Google is slipping into the hells. It very well could be that MOD/Israel contacted Google USA out of cursory moves, but already planned to use the IP collected whether or NOT GUSA assented, and probably had plans to SAY GUSA cooperated.

Of course, the US State Department and other agencies might WELCOME this, as another ruse/means of getting 'merkuns to RELAX their expectations of privacy over security.

Any more informed or better opinions to follow those prior to my own (slanted) assumptions here?

Re:What the hell... (1)

spicate (667270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499099)

You can believe it was because of Jewish spies - I'm torn between Microsoft and global warming.

Re:What the hell... (1)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499211)

Have any of you considered that the Mossad has plants working AT Google

Of course, when you realize that every single Israeli citizen old enough to serve is drafted into the military and is in the active reserves for the remaining time, you should no longer be surprised to have employed a member of the Mossad. You should expect it to happen.

However, the likelihood of the Mossad working on a low-level Internet slander case is one I'll leave up for debate.

Re:What the hell... (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499225)

You are just paranoid. Precious tools like spies, nukes, or torture are only used when the National Security or large sums of money are involved.

And since Israel is not stupid enough to give up a valuable asset for a simple libel investigation, it's was really up to Google to spill the beans on the guy.

Google is owned by the Rothschild family (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499229)

Google is owned by the Rothschild family. You won't see it directly, but if you look at the list of proxy owners, it is clear. This family owns Israel as well (bought it from the British) and controls the Mossad. It is a condition of Google's success that all Google data -- and I do mean ALL -- is made available to agents of the Rothschild family, i.e. Mossad in Israel. A reasonably sized portion of illegal Rothschild money is laundered through Google via ad sales (which put the marble business to shame). This is similar to how drug money from the British royal family is laundered through Microsoft -- what do you think Billy G. got that knighthood for? It is quite simple for any company that is part of the stock index to launder money and there are even "national security" laws which specifically allow for "off the books" transactions that make the entire process work quite effectively.

As for "evil", one might go back to the words of Paul, "for the love of money is truly the root of all evil".

There is no one that loves money more than bankers and there are no bigger bankers in this world than the Rothschilds whose eldest male son is is politely deemed "The Banker" (there have been a few exceptions to the eldest male son rule, but usually this is the way it works). The net worth of the Rothschild family is estimated at well over $100 trillion, perhaps even as high as $200 trillion. Remember that just the oil in Iraq is worth $30 trillion+. For the money to be created to sell/buy that $30 trillion of oil, it must be borrowed from the "Central Bank". And the Rothschild family is the primary beneficiary of the interest paid to the Central Bank to borrow that money.

Google, as a loyal asset to the Rothschilds, is nothing more than an evil vasssal of an evil overlord. The mission of Google is to become an all encompassing private Total Information Awareness program for Planet Earth. One might think of Google as a global Blackwater of information warfare. There is no real goal to provide genuine benefit to the public, just to provide monitored/managed information services that Google can use to help keep the world enslaved to the interests of the rulers.

The term for Google users is "willing idiots" although some have an affection for the word "sheeple".

Basic precuation (1)

Alex Pennace (27488) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498685)

For anything you do not want to be easily traced back to you, use Tor. Much better than relying on any intermediate parties to withhold your identity -- even if they mean the best.

Re:Basic precuation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498901)

Tor hides your location, not your identity. What good is a hidden location when you're authenticating to the other end?

Keep in mind (2, Insightful)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498731)

This is Isreal, not America. Its laws and enviroment is Different. This also was not a google CEO choice, it was probably some middle manager in Isreal.

Re:Keep in mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498825)

Also, Google's motto in Israel is "What's not to like?"

Re:Keep in mind (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498941)

I forget what internet law I'm about to violate, or validate, but -- Hitler didn't gas anyone himself, either. It's not about who's hand pulls the trigger, it's about who's running the ship. I can see rolling over with a court order; that's the law. Rolling over without a court order, that seems slimy.

So Google should break the law to not be evil? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499067)

You're kinda missing the point. You're saying Google should break Israel law to defend a criminal therefore becoming a criminal themselves.

The first amendment only applys to the US and you have to understand that what is evil to you is different from what is evil to everyone else.

Google refusing to co-orperate with a government that could throw all its employees in Jail because an idiot forgot to use Tor while breaking the laws of his country sounds quite evil to me.

Re:So Google should break the law to not be evil? (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499133)

No, I'm saying just the opposite. After RTFA, it seems Google WASN'T under a court order to comply. That's the actual point. If there's a court order, there's a court order. I wouldn't want some company violating the law, even if I disagreed with the law. But ABSENT a court order, I would like to think that Google would actually not go around showing people what's in my Gmail, what my IP address is, etc. To do differently violates (in my mind) their claimed "do no evil" policy.

Re:So Google should break the law to not be evil? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499353)

FTA

Google initially said that disclosing the blogger's identity violated rulings on the balance between freedom of expression and a person's right to his reputation.

However, in a pre-ruling, Judge Oren Schwartz said that the blog's content raised suspicions of criminal conduct, and Google took the hint.
That seems pretty clear that Google tried to stand by their principles until the Judge gave them the "You're going to Jail if you don't do this", wink, wink. Not everywhere in the world is "to the letter" and "needs paper work". Some countries don't work like that.

Even so the councilmen gave the guy three whole days to turn himself in and defend himself in court but he didn't. We can only suspect that he either didn't receieve the messages on time or we was running because he knew he was guilty.

Yahoo on the otherhand gave the chinese government that anon bloggers home address without even trying to protect him, then lied about it. No one seems to call them evil even though they do a lot more worse things then Google does. I don't want to sidetrack the issue but this seems like "doing good in Israel", "Doing evil in freedom America" or "I want my lawless internets back".

There is nothing stopping him from moving to a different country where the laws are less stricter and he can freely break the law of his own country.

Re:Keep in mind (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499227)

The idea that Israel has different definitions of Evil can be debated, but the excuse that it wasn't the CEO, but some middle manager that did the deed is simply not an acceptable excuse. Businesses use that excuse all the time, and it is utter bullshit. If you are a business, you are responsible for the actions that your employees take through the authority that you give them. We know that it is a common practice for businesses to tell "middle managers" that they just need to get something done, knowing exactly how they will do it, but playing the plausible deniabilty card.

hi, I'm non-white... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498759)

...can I immigrate into apartheid South Africa and live with the same rights as a white man? No? That sounds like a horrible, racist policy that the whole world should fight against; we should rejoice that someone should risk 30 years of imprisonment to fight it.

Actually, as well as being non-white, I'm non-Jewish. I just wanted to make sure that I'm not discriminated against for my race when it comes to moving to Israel? Not de facto, but de jure discrimination.

If so, I'd also review my patronage of Google; I wouldn't want to cooperate with a company that does business in apartheid Sout.. err Israel.

Thanks.

(N.B. Totally honest about the message behind this post. Modding it as Troll would be like modding a post down as Troll for speaking out against those who cooperated with the government of apartheid South Africa.)

Re:hi, I'm non-white... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498873)

I wouldn't want to cooperate with a company that does business in apartheid Sout.. err Israel.

That would be a good thing to do. You would have to stop using not just Google but computers in general though. And many, many, many other things too. Do your own research.

Re:hi, I'm non-white... (3, Insightful)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498881)

Would you also review your patronage of companies that do business with Saudi Arabia, which forbids any exercise of non-Muslim religion? Israel isn't perfect, but it does have non-Jewish citizens, and allows the exercise of other religions. It does discriminate, but it goes both ways. Non Jewish citizens aren't usually forced to serve in the military, although they can volunteer.

Tolerance can also mean second class treatment. (1)

edgedmurasame (633861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499031)

However, those practices stop when you object to them in any meaningful way (illegally built settlements, stirring the hornets nests around them) or encounter someone with a bad case of Checkpoint Syndrome. Yes, this means citizens as well.

I wonder what would happen if there was a Pollard affair at Google, would it be prosecuted?

Location, location (1)

Zatchmort (1091857) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498781)

It's pretty obvious that a court order was forthcoming. Google just smoothed things out and caused a little less paperwork. A dangerous path to go down, but I think in this instance there was no harm done. As a side note, I find it interesting who the plaintiffs were. Last time I checked, in the US public officials are unlikely to sue for libel, since they have to prove malice (either the defendant knew the statements were false, or published them with reckless disregard for the truth). That's a pretty hard barrier to overcome, since you have to prove something about what the defendant knew and thought.

Three days isn't nearly long enough (5, Insightful)

Jimmy_B (129296) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498803)

According to the article, Google released the blogger's identity when he failed to respond within 72 hours. That is MUCH too fast. Even if he dropped what he was doing and acted immediately, it would still take longer than that to figure out what's going on, get a lawyer, and draft a response. That's ignoring the fact that he probably didn't receive the message immediately (subtract 24 hours), probably had other things on his plate (subtract another 24 hours) and may not have even realized that the notice was legit. (An e-mail is not a legitimate court summon. If you receive one which claims to be, it is probably a scam.)

Re:Three days isn't nearly long enough (1)

zuvembi (30889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499153)

Or what if he's on vacation? Going to visit your mother for a weekend visit [1] and maybe don't check all your email accounts? If he's been doing it for a year, what was the big rush?

[1] I'm assuming unlike the rest of the Slashdot audience he doesn't live in her basement.

Comcast vs Google vs Apple vs MS (5, Funny)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498845)

Google: would require a court order to give the IP. negotiated a weak compromise. handed over IP.

Comcast: Would give the IP without a court order, offer to enable electronic wiretaps, and give full logs of everything that IP did.

Apple: Would require a court order to give IP. Negotiate a weak compromise. Hand over the IP on a sleek and stylish apple brand flash drive.

Microsoft:

It appears you are trying to arrest an anonymous person. Would you like me to:

*Find their unique CPU ID?

*Transmit contents of their hard drive?

*Enable back door key logger?

*Contact Microsoft Sales representative for more options?

Mandatory to log the IPs? (1)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498917)

Does google have to log the IPs? IIRC some libraries are not keeping the logs/keeping a limited log of who borrowed which book.

So What? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498999)

I love how all the slashbots defend anybody, in any court case, as long as they aren't a business, big or small, and do something online. Slander DOES exist, and it does happen, and while there is a chance the case is BS, it might very well be legitimate. Just because somebody's a blogger dosen't mean that they're innocent, and the court could have gotten the guy's IP if they really wanted to anyway. Besides, it's not like they're going to behead the guy if he's found guilty, and Israel's court system doesn't seem too dysfunctional. On a side note, however, it is a bit disconcerting that Google will give it away that easily. I can understand if they were asked by the court, but Google seems to be headed downhill.

Hey, what about the fact that if it's Anonymous, (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499371)

it has NO credibility? Why would this guy care if some anonymous jerk said that "he rapes any 5 year old he comes in contact with and kills kittens because he thinks it's cute?"

Unless more than a few minor anonymous sources indicate the same exact thing, it falls under the sticks and stones rule.

Words by people whom you don't know are worthless.

Easy solution (2, Insightful)

matt me (850665) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499009)

Google wouldn't be able to do such evil if it only stored the IP addresses of its users for immediate necessary use, and discarded them. Keeping data indefinitely, such that they can be reinterpreted and abused in ways unimaginable at the time , makes such problems as these likely.

Think it was approved by Google's Mother Ship? (1)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499043)

I doubt it...likely a local decision made at the local office in Israel. No doubt this Google manager is in for a shitstorm from the Mother Ship.

Nothing to complain about (1, Insightful)

AndrewM1 (648443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499079)

In this circumstance, the anonymous blogger has nothing to complain about. Despite the litany of "Do not evil, yeah right!" posts that are already becoming evident in this discussion, I think google did the least evil thing possible. An anonymous blogger was committing slander, which is a civil tort. Under the rules of any civilized legal system, the plaintiff has the right to go after someone who has unjustly slandered their name - this is especially true for politicians, whose very livelihood relies on their reputation. If this person lied to defame someone, they should certainly have the weight of the law come down upon them. Furthermore, all google did was give out the information on how to contact the blogger. This blogger will not be served with the lawsuit, and will have the opportunity to defend themselves. And all this after giving to blogger a, I would think, unnecessarily generous offer to contest the ruling anonymously. In short, I think that everything Google did throughout this process has been quite in keeping with their motto, and see this as a perfectly reasonable series of steps to take in accordance with their ethics and the law.

Due process of law. (1)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499137)

This isn't like George Bush and the NSA doing an end-run around the Constitution, or Communist China. This was a legitimate judicial proceeding in a multi-party country that observes due process of law. The anonymity of the Internet is not a free pass to commit slander. Either defend your words or shut up.

I wouldnt be surprised to see Israel shareholders (1)

edgedmurasame (633861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499207)

I wonder how much stock Israel has in Google(all divisions), and how much their US based interests(AIPAC, ADL, parts of New York) hold as well.

Seems like the right thing (5, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499273)

Fact: someone who's been wronged has a right to pursue the person responsible. No argument there. The fact that the person responsible is attempting to hide his identity doesn't change that. The problem with the RIAA's tactics is that they want the identity before proving they've been wronged. In this case the councilmen did the right thing: went into court, convinced a judge that the words as written did in fact qualify as something legally actionable, then asked for the identity of the responsible party. It might be technically more correct to wait until a final ruling, but I doubt the final ruling would be significantly different from the preliminary one. Judges don't just fire from the hip when making a preliminary ruling, it's more like "This will be how I rule, unless someone fairly quickly comes up with something that hasn't been even hinted at yet that's major enough to counter everything I've seen so far.".

Sorry, guys, but contrary to popular belief the right to remain anonymous is not a shield against being held responsible for your statements and actions. It just means that the other party should have to prove that your statements or actions were in fact legally actionable before stripping you of your anonymity.

this isn't about privacy. (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499277)

This is about some asshole thinking they can just slander anyone online and not have to own up to it.

privacy isn't a platform you can use to attack other people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...