The Italian Google-case: Privacy, freedom of speech and responsibility of providers for user-generated contents

International Journal of Law and Information Technology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 356-378

  Sartor, Giovanni ^a,b   de Azevedo Cunha, Mario Viola ^a,c  

^a EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Data protection; Freedom of speech; Google; Internet; ISP liability; Privacy; User generated contents; Videos

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149379323     PISSN: 09670769     EISSN: 14643693     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijlit/eaq010     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Sentenza n. 1972/2010. Tribunale Ordinario di Milano in composizione monocratica. Sezione 4 Penale. Available at http://speciali.espresso.repubblica.it//pdf/Motivazioni_sentenza_Google.pdf (16.04.2010). P. 102/103.
2. Sentenza n. 1972/2010. Tribunale Ordinario di Milano in composizione monocratica. Sezione 4 Penale. P. 108.
3. The Official Google Blog. 'Serious threat to the web in Italy' (2010). Available at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/serious-threat-to-web-in-italy.html (29.04.2010).
4. Thorne, 'Statement by Ambassador David Thorne: Ruling in Google Court Case' (2010). Available at http://italy.usembassy.gov/viewer/article.asp?article=/file2010_02/alia/10022205.htm (29.04.2010).
5. Donadi. 'Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case' (2010). The New York Times.. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html (29.04.2010).
6. 'Berlusconi e il governo approvano il decreto per controlare internet'. Available at http://revenews.info/berlusconi-e-il-governo-approvano-il-decreto-per-controllare-internet_post10615.html (29.04.2010).
7. Google investor relation. 2010 Financial Tables. Available at http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html (10.05.2010).
8. 'Caso Google: la replica della Procura' (2010). L'Espresso. Available at http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/Caso-Google-replica-la-Procura/2122058 (29.04.2010).
9. "it does not exist, in my opinion, at least until today, a legal codified obligation which imposes to internet service providers to exercise prior control over the uncountable series of data that pass every second through the network of the managers or owners of websites (.. .)". Sentenza n. 1972/2010. Tribunale Ordinario di Milano in composizione monocratica. Sezione 4 Penale. P. 103.
10. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000, on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on Electronic Commerce).
11. This seems to imply, contrary to the assumption of the judge, that "Service providers do not have to turn into cyber patrols, at least they cannot be forced to. Article 15(1) indicates that no general obligation exists for service providers to monitor information they transmit or store. A general obligation to actively seek facts or situations indication illegal activity does not exist either. Surely, with a general obligation the exemptions of the Articles 12, 13 and 14 would not be that meaningful." Looder, 'Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market'. In Looder and Kaspersen (editors), eDirectives: Guide to European Union Law on E-Commerce (Kluwer Law International: The Hague 2002). P. 89.
12. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt (29.04.2010).
13. The DMCA, Title 512 "exempts ISPs from liability for hosting copyright infringing materials in a set of 'safe harbours', but only on certain terms, such as the disclosure of the identity of infringers on request, subscription to a detailed code of practice relating to notice, 'take down'and 'put back', and the banning of the identified repeat infringers from access. By contrast, section 230(C) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides total immunity in respect of all kinds of liability bar that relating to IP, so long as the content in question was provided by a party other than the ISP." (Edwards. 'The Fall and Rise of Intermediary Liability Online'. In Edwards and Waelde (editors), Law and the Internet. 3.ed. (Hart Publishing: Oxford and Portland, Oregon 2009). P. 64.)
14. In a case regarding MySpace, a French judge reached a similar conclusion, considering that MySpace was not a mere hoster because it profits from the videos posted by users through advertisement (T.G.I. Paris [réf.], 22 juin 2007). See Strowel, 'Google et les nouveaux services en ligne: quels effets sur l'économie des contenus, quels défis pour la propriété intellectuelle. In Strowel and Triaille (editors), Google et les nouveaux services en ligne: impact sur l'économie du contenu et questions de propriété intellectuelle (Larcier: Bruxelles 2008). P. 44-45.
15. In another French case, regarding DailyMotion, although the court did not consider DailyMotion as a publisher or content provider, the court considered it "liable for providing internet users with the means to commit copyright infringements". See Edwards, 'The Fall and Rise of Intermediary Liability Online'. P. 72.
16. Legislative Decree n° 196 of 30 June 2003, known as Personal Data Protection Code, which replaced both the Legislative Decree n° 171 of 13 May 1998 and the Law n° 675 of 31 December 1996. It implemented EU directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC, and regulates all processing of personal data in both public and private sectors, including the internet and telecommunications.
17. 1. Any person who, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause harm to another, processes personal data in breach of Sections 18, 19, 23, 123, 126 and 130 or else of the provision made further to Section 129 shall be punished, if harm is caused, by imprisonment for between six and eighteen months or, if the offence consists in data communication or dissemination, by imprisonment for between six and twenty-four months, unless the offence is more serious.2. Any person who, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause harm to another, processes personal data in breach of Sections 17, 20, 21, 22(8) and (11), 25, 26, 27, and 45 shall be punished by imprisonment for between one and three years if harm is caused, unless the offence is more serious.
18. Sensitive data may only be processed with the data subject's written consent and the Garante's prior authorisation, by complying with the prerequisites and limitations set out in this Code as well as in laws and regulations (Article 26(1) of the Italian Data Protection Code)
19. Sensitive data include data able to reveal the health condition of the data subject (Article 4(1)(d) of the Italian Data Protection Code)
20. See Provvedimento del 3 novembre 2009. Garante per la protezione dei dati personali. Available at http://www.garanteprivacy.it/garante/doc.jsp?ID=1687662 (29.04.2010).
21. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 'Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking'. Adopted on 12 June 2009. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf (29.03.2010). P. 8.
22. The UK Information Commissioner adopted a similar view regarding the processing of names and, in a certain extent, also of images: "Religion or ethnicity, or both, can often be inferred with varying degrees of certainty from dress or name. For example, many surnames are associated with a particular ethnicity or religion, or both, and may indicate the ethnicity and religion of the individuals concerned. However, it would be absurd to treat all such names as "sensitive personal data", which would mean that to hold such names on customer databases you had to satisfy a condition for processing sensitive personal data. Nevertheless, if you processed such names specifically because they indicated ethnicity or religion, for example to send marketing materials for products and services targeted at individuals of that ethnicity or religion, then you would be processing sensitive personal data." (UK Information Commissioner's Office. 'The Guide to Data Protection'. Available at http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/the_guide_to_data_protection.pdf (30.03.2010). P. 24.
23. Article 4 (1)(a) of the Italian Data Protection Code
24. Article 4(1)(f) of the Italian Data Protection Code
25. Article 4(1)(g) of the Italian Data Protection Code
26. Case C-101/01 Bodil Lindqvist [2003] ECR I-12971
27. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 'Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking'. Adopted on 12 June 2009. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf (29.03.2010). P. 6.
28. Available at http://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/1988/0364s-88.html (10.05.2010).
29. Here is the text of Art. 13: "1. The data subject as well as any entity from whom or which personal data are collected shall be preliminarily informed, either orally or in writing, as to:a) the purposes and modalities of the processing for which the data are intended;b) the obligatory or voluntary nature of providing the requested data;c) the consequences if (s)he fails to reply;d) the entities or categories of entity to whom or which the data may be communicated, or who/which may get to know the data in their capacity as data processors or persons in charge of the processing, and the scope of dissemination of said data;e) the rights as per Section 7;f) the identification data concerning the data controller and, where designated, the data controller's representative in the State's territory pursuant to Section 5 and the data processor."
30. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 'Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking'. Adopted on 12 June 2009. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf (29.03.2010). P. 7.
31. In his motives, the judge refers to the settlement as evidence that a damage was suffered by the teenager (Sentenza n. 1972/2010. Tribunale Ordinario di Milano in composizione monocratica. Sezione 4 Penale. P. 91)."
32. Available at http://blog.quintarelli.it/files/cassazione-sentenza-49437-2009.pdf (29.04.2010).
33. Available at http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79909077C19080236&doc=T&ouvert=T&;seance=CONCL (29.04.2010).
34. Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber, 23 March 2010) on Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0236:EN:HTML (29.04.2010). Paragraph 109.
35. On freedom of expression according to Italian law, see Zeno-Zenchovich, La liberta' di espressione. Media, mercato e potere nella società dell'informazione (Il Mulino, Bologna, 2004).
36. See Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Penguin Press, 2008)
37. On the various ways in which information is provided and aggregated, see Sunstein, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006)
38. O'Reilly, 'What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software'.
39. O'Reilly, 2005, available at http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html (10.05.2010).
40. O'Reilly and Battelle, 'Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On'.
41. O'Reilly, 2009, available at http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/28/web2009_websquared-whitepaper.pdf (10.05.2010).
42. See in particular Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedoms (Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn. 2006).
43. See Zittrain, 'The generative internet' (1994). Harvard Law Review Vol. 119:1974-2006. P. 1993.
44. Zittrain, The Future of the Internet (Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. 2009).
45. For a discussion of free-speech issues involved in the regulation of providers' liability, see Balkin 'The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age' (2008). Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 36: 101-18.
46. Albeit that the CDA provides for complete immunity
47. Solove, The Future of Reputation (Yale University Press: New Haven, Conn. 2008).
48. On the liability of internet service providers according to Italian law, see Pagallo, 'Sul principio di responsabilità giuridica in rete' (2009), Il Diritto dell'informazione e dell'informatica, Vol 25: 705-34