<p>Search engine Google on Monday told the Supreme Court that it was well nigh impossible to prevent a person from uploading objectionable content online before he does so.<br /><br /></p>.<p>This would be like attempting to prevent murder, unless it is the case of a repeat offender like a serial killer, senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi submitted before a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and U U Lalit.<br /><br />“As with all crime, the job is to go after the criminal. But to try to strain the intermediary (Google) to bring in a preventive profiling mechanism is impossible,” he said, responding to the court's query if it was possible to check beforehand uploading of sexual offensive material.<br /><br />Hearing a PIL filed by NGO Prajwala for a mechanism to check uploading of sexually violent videos on the Internet, the bench asked the government if it was possible to put in place a preventive mechanism.<br /><br />The government counsel, however, said unless it was known that something has been done, it was not possible to prevent upload of such material. To the court's suggestion if “200 or so words” found objectionable could be blocked, the counsel said these words could also be used in other contexts – and they would get blocked in this manner.</p>
<p>Search engine Google on Monday told the Supreme Court that it was well nigh impossible to prevent a person from uploading objectionable content online before he does so.<br /><br /></p>.<p>This would be like attempting to prevent murder, unless it is the case of a repeat offender like a serial killer, senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi submitted before a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and U U Lalit.<br /><br />“As with all crime, the job is to go after the criminal. But to try to strain the intermediary (Google) to bring in a preventive profiling mechanism is impossible,” he said, responding to the court's query if it was possible to check beforehand uploading of sexual offensive material.<br /><br />Hearing a PIL filed by NGO Prajwala for a mechanism to check uploading of sexually violent videos on the Internet, the bench asked the government if it was possible to put in place a preventive mechanism.<br /><br />The government counsel, however, said unless it was known that something has been done, it was not possible to prevent upload of such material. To the court's suggestion if “200 or so words” found objectionable could be blocked, the counsel said these words could also be used in other contexts – and they would get blocked in this manner.</p>
