US cops tried to erase online evidence of brutality

[Eyesontheprize]

Google has been asked by a US law enforcement agency to remove several videos exposing police brutality from the video sharing service YouTube, the company has revealed in its latest update to an online transparency report.

Another request filed by a different agency required Google to remove videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. The two requests were among 92 submissions for content removal by various authorities in the US filed between January and June 2011. Both were rejected by Google along with 27 per cent of the submissions.

The IT giant says the overall number of requests for content removal it receives from governmental agencies has risen, and so has the number of requests to disclose the private data of Google users.

Brazil heads the first list with 224 separate demands to remove a total of 689 items from its search results, as well as from YouTube and various other services. Google says its social networking service Orkut is very popular in the Latin American country, which partially explains the number of requests.

Heading the list of countries requesting the disclosure of personal data is the United States, where a total of 5,950 submissions targeting 11,057 user accounts have been filed. Google fully or partially complied with 93 per cent of those requests. Second on the list is India, with 1,732 requests over a six-month period.

Russian officials filed fewer than 10 requests to remove content and 42 requests to disclose user information (which was the first time the number reached Google’s threshold for reporting). The company complied with 75 per cent of the Russian requests concerning content and none of those concerning user data.

Google says it hopes that its report will contribute to the ongoing public discussion on the ways the internet needs to be regulated.

Commenting on the incident, Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, points out that YouTube is a public platform and any steps to censor it should be backed with a court order.

“Police seem to be advising Google on what material might be breaking the law, and then Google decides to censor this material without a court order,” he said, stressing that a court appearance should be part of making such judgments.

Ultimately, public media seem to becoming more of a police tool to gather evidence. Killock recalled British Prime Minister David Cameron urging the news outlets to hand over material collected during the UK riots – both published and unpublished – to the police.

Rt

Not looking to good guys....

[Kimble]

Not looking to good guys....

This is how you introduce yourself here? No source article linked, or any sort of polite introduction?

I'm sure you're stay here will be a short one if your posting activity continues in this manner.

[Samuel]

Ditto the above.

[Eyesontheprize]

I cant link the article.. said i need 15 posts sorry and i normally never introduce myself into new forums there are to many people besides this is the interweb not highschool.

[Eyesontheprize]

So what do people think about this should the videos be taken down or dose it infringe on peoples right to freedom of speech? Normally i would say they have a right to ask for them to be taken down but the fact that the media already broadcast them on TV viods the idea.

BTW even though i couldn't link the article if you google RT you can find it there

[mcsap]

Google has been asked by a US law enforcement agency to remove several videos exposing police brutality from the video sharing service YouTube, the company has revealed in its latest update to an online transparency report.

Can you name any of the agencies ?

Another request filed by a different agency required Google to remove videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. The two requests were among 92 submissions for content removal by various authorities in the US filed between January and June 2011. Both were rejected by Google along with 27 per cent of the submissions.

Can you name this agency ?

The IT giant says the overall number of requests for content removal it receives from governmental agencies has risen, and so has the number of requests to disclose the private data of Google users.

Can you name these " governmental agencies ? "

Brazil heads the first list with 224 separate demands to remove a total of 689 items from its search results, as well as from YouTube and various other services. Google says its social networking service Orkut is very popular in the Latin American country, which partially explains the number of requests.

" US cops tried to erase online evidence of brutality" This is the title of your post yet this part has nothing to do with the US.




Heading the list of countries requesting the disclosure of personal data is the United States, where a total of 5,950 submissions targeting 11,057 user accounts have been filed. Google fully or partially complied with 93 per cent of those requests. Second on the list is India, with 1,732 requests over a six-month period.

Russian officials filed fewer than 10 requests to remove content and 42 requests to disclose user information (which was the first time the number reached Google’s threshold for reporting). The company complied with 75 per cent of the Russian requests concerning content and none of those concerning user data.

Google says it hopes that its report will contribute to the ongoing public discussion on the ways the internet needs to be regulated.

Commenting on the incident, Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, points out that YouTube is a public platform and any steps to censor it should be backed with a court order.

“Police seem to be advising Google on what material might be breaking the law, and then Google decides to censor this material without a court order,” he said, stressing that a court appearance should be part of making such judgments.

Ultimately, public media seem to becoming more of a police tool to gather evidence. Killock recalled British Prime Minister David Cameron urging the news outlets to hand over material collected during the UK riots – both published and unpublished – to the police.

Rt

Not looking to good guys....

NOTE , there was no evidence of a request to destroy any videos , just remove them. People who were present but not involved certainly find their way into a video and may not want their face exposed. No different then you , police officers are also presumed innocent. If you feel you have video evidence of a crime , you can send a copy to the DA / Chief /Sheriff/ City Council / Mayor / media etc.

[mcsap]

So what do people think about this should the videos be taken down or dose it infringe on peoples right to freedom of speech? Google can choose to not remove the videos. You do not the right to freedom of speech in a privately run forum. Normally i would say they have a right to ask for them to be taken down but the fact that the media already broadcast them on TV viods the idea.

NO , anyone can ask for something , whether or not Google agrees is their choice.

BTW even though i couldn't link the article if you google RT you can find it there

Comments embedded.

[Eyesontheprize]

I feel bad for the good cops that get lumped in with some rotten apples, the job is very stressful and they are only human beings but if we start removing videos because of requests i think that it goes against what i think any sane person would want freedom of speech , press and just accountability.
BTW mc once something is on the internet it is nearly impossible to destroy or erase it.

[Samuel]

I cant link the article.. said i need 15 posts sorry and i normally never introduce myself into new forums there are to many people besides this is the interweb not highschool.

No manners/no etiquette/unwillingness to follow rules/procedures = Ignore

::CLICK::

[mcsap]

I feel bad for the good cops that get lumped in with some rotten apples, the job is very stressful and they are only human beings but if we start removing videos because of requests i think that it goes against what i think any sane person would want freedom of speech , press and just accountability.
BTW mc once something is on the internet it is nearly impossible to destroy or erase it.

OK , so why the fuss ? If it can never be fully erased , if the person who took it certainly has a copy , if a attorney / court wants it .....they can get it. Google owes you NOTHING. They are free to do with videos are sent to them whatever THEY want to do. We have no authority to make them do something that they don't want to do.

Maybe you can start you own version of Youtube and post to your hearts content ? !!

[MikeG]

I feel bad for the good cops that get lumped in with some rotten apples, the job is very stressful and they are only human beings but if we start removing videos because of requests i think that it goes against what i think any sane person would want freedom of speech , press and just accountability.
BTW mc once something is on the internet it is nearly impossible to destroy or erase it.

I'm not a LEO but you give no context to anything. I can imagine that some of these requests for removal are mandated by law. There are lots of privacy and employer/employee laws that come into play when videotaping the workplace. In addition, there are victims rights laws which may protect privacy of, say, victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. Finally, there are copyright laws. Without any details, you are just spewing out random garbage. You may be able to ignore these very real rules and laws from your armchair Tostito's pit since no one really cares what you think, but professional and government agencies must comply with all facets of the law as well as due diligence requirements.

[Legoate]

You ever think that videos can cause problems for prosecutors trying to investigate and prosecute cases? Are you aware that media attention and public release of evidence can make it impossible to find an impartial jury?

People should be tried in court, not on Youtube. I've seen numerous examples where small video clips appeared to show horrible misconduct, but after watching a more complete video or a different view you realize what happened was completely legal and justified.

[Joeyd6]

i normally never introduce myself into new forums there are to many people besides this is the interweb not highschool.

So that means you do not have to act like a human being and have manners?

if we start removing videos because of requests i think that it goes against what i think any sane person would want freedom of speech , press and just accountability.

First, YouTube is a PRIVATE COMPANY and not a public domain. YOU do not have the RIGHT to fredom of speech on PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owner can limit your speech. Additionally, even in public spaces you do not have "freedom of speech" if such creates a hazard or potential for harm to others.

Second, as a human being, who follows social norms, you have an obligation to contribute to society and not tear it apart. Thus, condoning or advertising illegal or other behavior which may be taken out of context and used by others to prove a point or cause an issue, or encourage illegal behavior does not contribute to society.

Third, folks posting on YouTube ARE NOT THE PRESS. They are normal folks using something owned, operated and paid for by a private entity. Thus there is no freedom.

You hit the nail on the head when you used the word "interweb" instead of internet. Just for those passing by, the Urban Dictionary defines "interweb" as: "A sarcastic term for the internet. Often used in the context of parody regarding an inexperience, unskilled, or incoherent user."

[Aussie George]

I cant link the article.. said i need 15 posts sorry and i normally never introduce myself into new forums there are to many people besides this is the interweb not highschool.

Your spelling, punctuation, and grammar are atrocious.

I suggest spend less time on youtube and more time on home work.

Learn some manners.

[Aussie George]

Youtube is full of idiots that post something and say that it is police brutality and other idiots that spew out venom and hate against good officers doing their job.

Just because someone titles something or calls something police brutality, does not make it so.

To post a video of that sort and say that someone is doing something illegal, when they are not, is defamatory and the poster of such clips could find themselves liable for prosecution.

And don't spew out rhetoric about free speech. That does not apply when that free speech threatens, harasses, defames, or illegally targets someone else.