Google Won't Let Cops To Nab Terrorists Using Its Services Indian Cyber Cops worried over this

[delivi 0]

On the growing concern about the Terriorists activites in Inidia, the Indian security agencies are having a tough time in catching criminals and terrorists. The terrorists and their supporters use the Google-owned Gmail or Orkut sites for their communication.

According to security officials, since Google servers are based in US and their IP addresses are masked, it takes a long time to get the real IP addresses and log details of culprits. Moreover, Google demands a judicial order to process the request which further delays the arrest of the accused, who may even have fled by then. However Microsoft and Yahoo offer full support to the Cyber Cops.

Recently, Orkut communities like fan club of Dawood Ibrahim and Osama bin Laden Rocks were found on the Google owned site.

------------
New Modified and edited for clarity by Livingston Samuel JP a.k.a delivi
Original Source: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2006-12-12/news/27450190_1_ip-addresses-orkut-google

[brainless 0]

So what are you asking for? If a police state isn't enough, a police world could do the job?

 

indiatimes.com wrote

 

[...] Moreover, Google demands a judicial order to process the request which further delays the arrest of the accused, who may even have fled by then. [...]

Even though this does not make me trust my data to G (changing the CEO might mean changing corporate policy), I am happy to hear that at least some companies pay respect to the separation of political forces. This is the way free states are supposed to work: Those who actually do the repression should not be free to decide why to be repressive...

 

Cyber lawyers add that the time to process a normal criminal complaint (like a morphing of a picture of Orkut user or defacing the site) for an overseas based internet firm may take up to one year.

 

[...]

 

In terrorist threats however, if the request is escalated to G-8 24/7 anti-terror network, it is processed immediately.

Notice the difference? What's wrong with morphing a picture and what's wrong with physically attacking people?

To clarify one thing: The real terrorists are on the other side of the barricades. Who teargassed a couple of city blocks in Seattle, 1999 [with clouds of tear gas getting into flats of people living there, forcing them onto the streets]? Who severely injured hundreds and killed one in Genua, 2001? Who's beating up people who try to stay alive?

[Dooga 0]

I am actually really happy that Google is considering privacy over almost everything else. This is the best way for services to function, and it protects the user's rights. However, there needs to be a way around this to prevent Terrorism. Google needs to however, focus more on closed investigations instead of refusing the do anything. Yet, it further emphasizes Google's commitment to privacy. I wouldn't trust Yahoo if they suddenly decide to post all my IM and emails just because some police guy wanted them to.

[hydrogen 0]

I completely agree with Google's policies, neutrality and a strong foundation of privacy, a judicial order is completely reasonable as there is a formalised process and it is still possible to obtain details.

[Liam_CF 0]

I completely agree with what they are doing. Google should regard the privacy of their users as a very high priority.

[iGuest 3]

Three cheers for Google! Raspberries for Yahoo and Microsoft! It's about time someone stood up to the panic mongers that want to do away with freedom. Abe Lincoln once said "I would rather die than give up ONE liberty for the sake of public safety". And Teddy Roosevelt said "I don't think I'd WANT to live in a country where the president DIDN'T have to worry about getting shot"How far we've sunk. -sylent1