Google Helps Indian Authorities Arrest Student

Google, the leading claimant of "Do no evil,"  has helped Indian authorities nail a student who used some dirty words on Orkut to satirize an Indian elected official. Google provided information that led to the arrest of 22 year IT professional, Rahul Vaid, who had started an "I hate Sonia Gandhi," community.

Vaid used a Gmail address as a contact, and Google, tracked it and gave the information to authorities to track him down. Criticizing Gandhi is in itself not a crime in India, a democracy. But using vulgar language in your criticism is, and for that Vaid face fines and up to five years imprisonment.

This issue is not quite so simple as I would like it to be. Internet-based businesses have the complex issue of having to comply with national laws wherever the companies operate, which is very often everywhere. There are well-touted cases of Yahoo and Facebook ratting on users in China and Morocco and elsewhere.

The thing about Google is the company slogan implies a certain moral superiority that evidence does not back. In China they have voluntarily complied with national censorship laws, apparently before they were even politely asked to do so. There's also the case of Wael Abbas who had 179 YouTube videos of Egyptian police brurtality and government corruption taken down mysteriously for a while, before the Google subsidiary just as mysteriously restored them.

Maybe Google should tweak its slogan to "Do a little evil, when it is in our business interests.

Comments

[Merredith]

I agree, Shel. Starting with China, I found this whole contradiction unsettling; and still do.

[Ruth Marie Sylte]

The Google slogan is ""Don't be evil". Is it being evil to obey the law? There is not always a clear, simple answer. (I'm neither defending nor criticizing Google.)

Does this episode highlight unsettling contradictions? Yes -- on many levels and across many cultures.

Does the USA expect that foreign companies doing business in the USA will obey USA law? Absolutely.

Does the USA expect that companies will do this even if the the companies and their countries/cultures consider those laws to be at odds with their own law or cultural values? Absolutely. An example would be the death penalty laws that exist in some states.

The USA would expect a foreign company operating in the USA to supply it with information regarding a user who had broken US law.

It seems that the criticism of Indian law is based on an American cultural view and/or understanding of satire and "vulgar language".

I would be interested in hearing why India has such laws and what is it in the culture that caused these laws to be enacted. Without that information (at the very least), any criticism of their legal system/code is apparently based purely on a USA-based cultural filter, which seems neither fair nor well-rounded when trying to understand another country and/or culture.

Using the phrase "voluntarily complied" when referring to Google's decision to OBEY CHINESE LAW seems to suggest that companies (USA companies or all companies?) have an "option" to obey the laws of the nations in which they do business. The USA - or any other country - would certainly not accept any such rationale.

Moreover, the suggestion itself could be seen by some (particularly those outside the USA) as perpetuating a stereotype of the arrogant -- and ignorant -- American.

It is never easy or clear-cut to understand the culture and values of others, but it is important to try.

[shel israel]

Ruth, Thanks for you very passionate comment. I tried to focus on the issue of a company with a holier than thou slogan, taking a less than holy position. I don't think that it's anything to do with Americanism that I don't like companies who claim virtue as they rat out a customer. I passed no judgement on Indian Law, just that a company that claims a slogan of Do No Evil, seems to be quick to accommodate a government wish over a user's privacy.

[R Krishnan]

Hi,
I am really disgusted with google. The Indian police is just a bunch of state approved thugs. There is no grassroots democracy in India. Everything begins and ends with violence. Add India to the list of failed countries right at the top !!
Rk

[Ruth Marie Sylte]

Shel -

Perhaps this situation is simply another object lesson in the possible pitfalls of corporate image decisions.

My understanding is that, contrary to the information in your post, Rahul Vaid did not create the Orkut group, which was not against the law, but he did upload commentary, which is apparently against the India's IT laws. Vaid is an IT professional and he apparently posted these comments while at work. (One might ask why he didn't avail himself of an anonymous proxy.)

I continue to take respectful issue with the words you choose (e.g., "quick to accommodate a government wish"). There is no "accommodation" or "wish". There is *obedience* to *law* -- no matter what legal system you are under. (I think of the millions of Americans who "accommodate" the US government's "wishes" every day...)

Was Google obeying the laws of India (a fact) or "ratting out a customer" (your opinion)?

Let's put this in another context.

If a USA-based user posted something in violation of current laws on a forum run in the USA by an Indian company, would the applicable government entity ask for user identification and would they expect the Indian company to comply? Of course.

I'm sure that we could find many examples of current US laws that might seem (or be) absurd or even downright ridiculous to us as well as others. Nevertheless, these are the laws (not suggestions).

Cyndy Aleo-Carreira's May 19 post on Profy.com, "U.S. Law Is Not Global: Why Google Wasn't Being Evil" -- as well as the resulting comment stream -- is both interesting and informative. I recommend it.

Be assured that I take issues of privacy and free speech very seriously. The Internet is now taking us all into uncharted territories of laws, ethics and cultural understanding that will demand far more of us than I think anyone ever imagined.

[Bertil]

Let us assume that insulting your politicians is a good thing (I would mildly disagree, but I come from a country where it's really fashionnable to do so, and I watch enough of the Daily Show to know we are not alone. . .) Note that this sounds like a first cultural mishap: I don't know much about India, except Richard Gere went into a lot a trouble for trying to kiss a star.

Secondly, Google probably gave the IP, not the name or the adress: you need to have the ISP in the loop to help the Police out. And note that he could have used the same e-mail adress in another web-service, which could have rated his IP the same way.

Let's say Google doesn't give the IP: don't you have a risk that the company be banned from the country, and that all the Indians who look for anonymous proxies be less off?
It is the argument made by Google for entering China, and I am surprised that no one sees it for what it is; instead of a fake cultural relativism, they crearly are embrace a digital form of manifest destimny, and assume the role of the (discreet) rule-changer: who would blame the search engine for a more IT-savvy nation?
Honnestly, I doubt one case will drive them out -- but what Raid risks sounds more like a signal: for Westerners to act, and for Indians to cover their tracks.

Google Official Blog just made a comment, not directly adressing that issue, but clearly answering to the concerns: Why Commercial agreements do not include Free-speech conditions?
Don't you support the same regime by buying from them? Is it for them (a company notorious for having mostly non-PolSci trained geeks) to deal with Indian libel laws, or for (waht is left of) American diplomacy?

All this sounds much more important to me than increasing the copyrights on Disney's works: Would you blame Eisner or the Dept. of Commerce for not stopping fake Little Mermaids from hurting the average American?

It doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned by the case -- but that I'm happy Google now have the lobbyists' attention, rather then Mickey Mouse.

[shel israel]

It's interesting to me where this case is going. What would I have done if I had been a Google decision-maker? That's simple. I would have immediately notified the offender that he was in violation of his terms of agreement (no illegal activity) I would have asked him not to do it again and warn that if he does, Google will terminate service. That lets Google comply, and it ensure people like me don't perceive them as having done a little evil in India.

[dupage county arrest records]

Who know's where this case will go, should be interesting though.

Thanks John Dupage