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, but the search giant is far from the only company to give up the good on its users to law enforcement in other countries. Yahoo is perhaps the most famous (or is that infamous?) for having done so with a number of dissidents in China, resulting in their arrest. Since then, the whole issue of complying with local authorities has become a large blip on Congress' radar, which remains unimpressed with Yahoo's defenses. And, both Microsoft and Google regularly censor things in China, with Microsoft blocking certain terms from blogs hosted on MSN Spaces, and Google censoring search results.

Could Google et al. be forced to change their ways? Earlier this month, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) announced his plans to push the Global Online Freedom Act (HR 275) to the House floor for voting, which would bar US companies from disclosing personally-identifiable information about users except for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes."

The problem is that "legitimate law enforcement" is vague and left up to the US Department of Justice's discretion. Would Vaid's case be considered legitimate or not? What is the threshold for legitimacy? Also, the bill has a convenient exit plan for anyone who tries to apply its rules to the US, and the President would have the authority to waive the provisions of the Act as long as "the important national interest of the United States requires the exercise of such waiver authority."

This much is sure: multinational digital giants like Google have to play ball with governments—repressive and otherwise—if they want to continue operating in those countries. Making sure they do so without angering activists, shareholders, US authorities, and foreign authorities is another matter entirely.