Google submits Indian user to Corporo Fascist Reprisal

Maybe a little evil: Google outs Indian man to authorities
By Jacqui Cheng - Arstechnica
May 19, 2008

An Indian man was arrested over the weekend for allegedly posting derogatory and vulgar content about Indian politician Sonia Gandhi on Google's social networking site, Orkut. 22-year-old Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid had posted his comments in an Orkut community called "I hate Sonia Gandhi" through an Orkut account associated with his Gmail account. With Google's help, local authorities were able to verify Vaid's identity and make the arrest.

Vaid was charged under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Information Technology Act, according to expressindia. Perhaps surprisingly, the creator of the "I hate Sonia Gandhi" group was left alone, as hating prominent politicians is not illegal in India. Posting vulgar comments about that someone is, however, leading authorities to pursue Vaid.

Google admitted today that it had forked over Vaid's information after it was requested by Indian law enforcement. A spokesperson for Google told IDG News Service that, while the company is committed to protecting user privacy, it must obey local laws and legal processes.

Google's part in the arrest has hit a nerve with those who hold Google on a pedestal for its commitment against evil-ness....
Article Continues


To Post said...

How Did Honor Evolve?
The biology of integrity

Article tools By DAVID P. BARASH

To paraphrase Shakespeare's Falstaff, "honor pricks us on." And although Sir John famously concludes "I'll none of it," the reality is that for most people, honor is more than a "mere scutcheon." Many colleges have honor codes, sometimes elaborated into complex systems: The list includes small colleges (e.g., Gustavus Adolphus, Haverford), large universities (e.g., the University of Virginia, Texas A&M), Ivies like Dartmouth and Princeton, sectarian institutions like Brigham Young, science-tech (Caltech) as well as liberal-arts (Reed) colleges, and, with particular solemnity, the three military academies. The code at West Point is especially terse and predictably directive: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do." The first "three commandments" — thou shalt not lie, cheat, or steal — speak for themselves. Of particular interest for our purposes, however, is that fourth admonition: "nor tolerate those who do." (Sure enough, Prince Hal shows himself true to this martial virtue when he eventually — and for many of us, hurtfully — turns away from Falstaff, showing that as king he disowns Fat Jack's dishonorable behavior.)

Doesn't it stand to reason that everyone would be intolerant of violators? After all, when someone lies, cheats, or steals, it hurts the rest of us while making a mockery of society itself (cue Immanuel Kant, and his categorical imperative). The "fourth commandment" should, therefore, be altogether logical and hardly need specifying. The problem for theorists — if not for the "naturally intolerant" — is that blowing the whistle on liars, cheaters, or thieves is likely to impose a cost on the whistle-blower, while everyone else benefits from her act of conscience. Why not mind your own business and let someone else do the dirty work? Isn't that why we have police: to, as the word suggests, police the behavior of others, at least in part so we don't have to do so ourselves?

A conceivable explanation is that if no one else perceives the transgression or, similarly, if no one else is willing to do anything about it, then perhaps the miscreant will get away with it, whereupon everyone — including you — will be worse off. In short, turning in a violator could be a simple act of self-aggrandizement, if the cost of doing so is less than the shared penalty of keeping silent. Another possibility, of course, is that people are indeed predisposed to ignore code violations, which is precisely why the "fourth commandment" exists — because otherwise malefactors would be tolerated. Yet another, and of particular interest to evolutionists, is that people are, at least on occasion, inclined to do things that are detrimental to their personal benefit so long as their actions are sufficiently beneficial to the larger social unit.

David Raymond Amos said...

Fancy words about such an elementry thing that my little dog senses and understands with one eye open and one ear cocked as she snoozes on the step. N'est Pas? If the wrong dude comes in the yard she senses it and growls and yet she allows decent people walk on by without hardly a glance from her.

For the record I truly believe Integrity and honour are a personal things independent of society. My dog and I would act the same if we were alone together in the woods. We remain true to our nature. There are no degrees of honesty or integrity and you are born with the conscience to practice it or you are not. There are sneaky little dogs and crooked little men but the opposite also exists as well. Lets just say my dog and respect and love each other. To Hell with what the rest of society thinks of us. It is society that has a problem understand the meaning of such a simple thing not us.

How society respects or treats its people with such characteristics reflects the true nature of the society but has no bearing whatsoever on how an individual with such attributes acts or reacts to anything. Integrity and honour dictate that he remain true to himself and nobody else.

To someone who is true to himself Shakespeare explained what would follow after that as surely as the night follows the day. An Honourable person knows full well the larger social unit can quite simply go fuck itself if it does not understand his ethical intentions.

In my humble opinion ethical actions are what makes a person different from the rest of the society that he is forced to live within. It is ethical actions that make a person honourable not the fact so many dumb people just happen to elect him or if another corrupt bastard appointed him to a fancy job and gave him that label.

Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos