Google Brazil Pressured to Give Up Names 263
Kordau writes "Google Brazil is under pressure to release user info from Orkut, relating to a child porn investigation by the Brazilian government. Google Brazil maintains that the info officials want is held on US servers and if they want the info, they should talk to Google USA."
Article full of errors. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first four paragraphs of the article contain the story (not too much there) - the rest is fluff - and inaccurate fluff at that - I'm going to go completely OT to look at some of the absurdities it contains:
The Brazilian case highlights an issue that has been brewing for sometime over the information that search engine and other internet companies keep on their databases about their users.
No, it doesn't highlight that - the cases are not similar in any form, other than both involving large internet companies
The recent blunder made by AOL in which the internet company erroneously published 20 million search requests....
Erroneously? AOL deliberately published the search requests.
Early this year, Google successfully defended a subpoena from the US Department of Justice to hand over its data in another child porn investigation case.
Calling that a "Child porn investigation case" is one of the most misleading statements I've ever heard. It was a "porn on the 'net fishing expedition."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The cases are extremely similar in that they highlight the risks of internet companies *HOLDING* that data.
Personally, I think it's not that bad for AOL to have released the relatively limited data they had; and I think it's not that bad for Brazil to be going after actual criminals with whatever tools they have available.
The probl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, sincerely wish that child porn never existed, not so much for any concern I have for the brats, but more because the damn stuff seems to be single-handedly ending any semblance of privacy on the internet.
Re:Article full of errors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Google owns Orkut doesn't mean this case has anything to do with search engines.
It is Orkut the brazilian government is attacking, not Google Search. Because Google Inc owns Orkut, the government is asking it to take action.
This case has been brewing around here for about 2 years, in and out of the news and all that. This particular issue of Google Brasil (which is pretty much just a comercial branch office) refusing to hand the information is at least 6 months old. Some news.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because it was deliberate, doesn't mean it wasn't also an error.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Releasing the records was an error. A mistake. It was erroneous.
If you don't know what a word means, look it up before you rail against a particular use.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's true - in retrospect, it was a mistake. However, describing the deliberate release of the records as 'erroneous' mischaracterises the event. If I was going to sum up the deliberate release of user's data without their permission, I wouldn't use the word 'erroneous'.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean: it was erroneous.
Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that? (Score:5, Informative)
That's why Google was able to succesfully refuse the subpoena, because it had fuck-all to do with actual justice.
Not Brazil, a previous case in the US (Score:2)
Early this year, Google successfully defended a subpoena from the US Department of Justice to hand over its data in another child porn investigation case.
Note that this case happened in the US, not Brazil. THAT case had absolutely nothing to do with child porn. THAT case is what I was talking about. So I'm sorry, but it is you who are mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, censorship is just what we need. Fuck you, speak for yourself.
Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that? (Score:5, Informative)
Calling that a "Child porn investigation case" is one of the most misleading statements I've ever heard. It was a "porn on the 'net fishing expedition."
Ok, can you elaborate on that? Normally, the cases where the prosecutors ask Google for Orkut user info normally involve child porn or drug distribution, and at least one case involved "virginity auctions" of ten-year-olds.
FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean? [com.com] The GP is right--the DOJ was fishing, and expected search engines to assist in their witchhunt to support their tenous position.
People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US.
That doesn't mean that they have the right, or can be compelled, to divulge that information.
And even if nobody in Google Brasil has access to such data, they can ask Google US for the data.
Which is what was suggested that they do.
For those playing at home: we just learned why Google is hesitant to build data centers in countries that have weaker protection for freedomes than does the US.
Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Brazil we don't have a president that does illegal wiretaps and even admits that publicly nor companies disclosing personal information about without permission nor Guantanamo, so I feel my freedoms are better respected here than in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I think likewise. Now excuse me while I go pay a beer to my 19 year old friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our privacy is a constitutional right in the US, but we don't have it. The president won't be impeached over it. Which would you rather have, actual freedom or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you care if cops randomly pulled you over to search your trunk, you know, just because? Maybe your make and model of car was recently used in some terrorist exploit? Driving is a priviledge, so according to your logic you shouldn't care at all. Just don't drive!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação;
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao
fair play and leverage (Score:5, Interesting)
in the US, a us branch of a large company gets slammed with multiple subpeonas and searches and requests for eveything the DA can arrange to harrass the US branch (and ultimately the parent company) of a multinational when they want data held outside the country.. and in some cases, it's justified and the only leverage for a necassary investigation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fair play and leverage (Score:5, Interesting)
they have common carrier status.. as far as i am concerned websites should have it too as they don't discriminate on who can view it.. (if they do then they lose that status)
you have to watch out about having double standards
Re: (Score:2)
If i'm a BBS admin and i see people posting kiddie porn and i take it down and ban them, i would lose my common carrier status?
I guess by your set of rules i should just say "It's none of my business" right?
Re: (Score:2)
taking things off because you don't like that person.. that would make you no longer a common carrier..
if you have a terms of service it more than likly includes something about content being withing the law. that would cover your kiddie porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they do have to give phone records to assist in investigations... I can't see how different it is to Googles case at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fair play and leverage (Score:5, Funny)
No company can afford to lose a brazillian customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that Google Brazil WON'T hand over the info. They CAN'T hand it over, because they don't have it. Apparently the Brazillian goverment thinks otherwise though...
Re: (Score:2)
Legally that may be the case, but saying they don't have that info b/c it's stored in the US is just a way to buy some time.
The way I see it, Google is just trying to be perceived as responsible with private information of its users, but it's forgetting that it's a child porn case, with plain visible proofs of violation (no pun intended) of the law in Brazil (and also in the US for that matter).
If Google wants to
Re: (Score:2)
Or, to put it the other way, the sysadmins at Google USA, who presumably have a policy of "we don't disclose data to anyone without a warrant," might get an email from someone in the Brazilian office, but they're not going to just email them a ton of confidential data. They want a warrant, valid in th
Google won't prevail here (Score:3, Informative)
Brazil is by no means a totalitarian regime but its privacy laws differ from those of the US.
If a Brazilian judge decides that Google must hand over data or pay a hefty fine and shut down its local operations then it sets a dangerous precedent for Google.
I don't think Brazil's legal system is as porn friendly as the US legal system. I bet ya that Google will have to hand over something in this case, or risk being tossed out of Brazil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really a useful distinction? I mean, there aren't any places that belong in the latter group.
If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If the Brazilian government kicks Google out .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Spanking a child is not quite what he means by child abuse. The phrase "child abuse" encompasses a far, far wider range of criminal activity than corporal punishment.
Also, how would Google giving up the information stop child abuse? If it is for a criminal investigation then the abuse has already occured. Thus, Google giving up the information in no way would reduce child abuse.
Not entirely. If the data is new evidence, or d
Re: (Score:2)
You're reading a lot more into my post than what's actually there. I don't deny that Brazil is an important market, nor that their kicking Google out would do some harm to Google's business. What I do deny is that their importance as a market is equal to Google's importance as a search engine. And this would be the case regardless of whether Google were based in the US, Brazil, Germany, India, or Outer Qwghlm; Google's impo
Archibald Buttle (Score:4, Funny)
The solution is simple really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To clear, must the individual or the bar have the cabert license? 'Cause I heard that "life is a cabert" and a license would seem to confuse the issue...
Re: (Score:2)
No, I thought is was a good, however absurd, example. Adults and their crazy laws! Pretty soon, people won't be allowed to bring beverages onto planes...
Re: (Score:2)
This is how police states are formed.
Re: (Score:2)
Several governments either have laws, or are introducing laws [europa.eu] that require Telcos, ISPs and the like to retain data usually under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.
Ladies & Gentlemen, set your tinfoil hats to stun.
Really? (Score:2)
A precedent about to be set? (Score:3, Insightful)
The devil is not as ugly as it seems (Score:5, Informative)
Not having an Orkut account there (among teenagers and young adults from the middle/upper class) is something like not having an IM account or a cellphone, there are more than 5 Million users only from Brasil there, popular enough to force Google to provide a Brazilian Portuguese translation of the site, and to make Google to open a subsidiary there, to take advantage of this unexpected success.
The downside of the site is that brazilian people are very open and trusting, and the "invite-only" aspect of the site incentived from the very beggining the users to put their real data there, like friends, habits, pictures, etc (something similar to MySpace in the U.S.), and that attracted all kind of problems concerning to racism, gang rivaltry and child harassment. Not that it wouldn't happen in the real world anyway (Brasil has a lot of problems), it only moved to a different scenario, the internet.
As it is based on the concept "Communities" (similar to groups on yahoo groups), a lot of groups with dubious/illegal subjects popped up, groups endorsing racism, neo-nazi propaganda, child abuse and other illegal activities, crimes were planned and the results posted and commented in some of thoses threads. When the perpetrator was stupid enough to use his real information (and believe me, it happens every once in a while, stupid punks, althought it would be a violation of their TOS not provide real information heh), the police had no problem to find the criminal and prosecute. But when they hide behind fake profiles, the police has no other option other than subpoena the information to try to find the culprit.
Don't let the hype make you think this is another case of a country trying to "think of the children", Orkut has became a place where crime (or apology to crime, as it is also illegal in Brasil) has became a major problem and police and the justice system are having to deal with it adequatedly. (For the ones who didn't got it, I'm brazilian and English is not my first language, so sorry for any eventual mistake)
Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BT
Re: (Score:2)
PLEASE MOD PARENT UP, UP AND UP! (Score:2)
Apology To Crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pedophiles and racists are chatting online. Read my lips. Big Fucking Deal. In a free society, people should be entitled both to their views, and to discuss those views with like minded individuals. The majority of society happens to find these views highly offensive. Tough Shit. Liberty isn't as selective as most mobs. I refuse to sacrafice society on the altar of public outrage because a few sickos are typing objectionable content. "Apology to crime". What kind of a fucking country is Brazil anyway!?
To those who would cry; "Oh but these groups are inherantly evil and morally wrong!", let me tell you something about "inherant" evil and morality. There are countries in the world where clitorectomies are not only considered legal, but morally correct. In fact, a grown woman with a clitoris is considered inherantly immoral. You might scoff at the notions of "primitive" societies, but let it first be noted that the US has highest circumcision rate in the developed world. You'll find plenty of people with "inherantly's" on both sides of that debate.
Morals change. Oh boy do they change. Racism, pedophilia, facism were once not only legal, but moral as well. They were regarded as virtues in many societies at one point in time or another. You want the sad truth. Morals change with the tides. I'll trust in what's legal long before I trust in what's "moral".
Left to the media and the mob, our society would embrace old status quos just as quickly as it would condenm them. Right now the media is making money from outrage against child porn. Give it a few decades and they'll be calling for "tweenage" weddings to be legalised, or for segregation to be reestablished. Will you want to listen to them then? Do you think the legligatures and companies should be so quick to kow-tow?
So fuck moral outrage. It's like a fashion fad. Google knows this. They respect peoples rights, even if they abhor their actions. And so should everyone. If you don't like it, then move to a totalitarian state. Or Brazil, where my above "apology to crime" is in fact illegal.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I stopped reading here, and I'm actually amazed by the fact that you got modded Interesting. You (and most people outside Brasil) doesn't know what "incitement" means in this context. (lol, you guys will not forgive me for the misplaced "apology", will you?). Mostly, because you guys don't have all the background stories that lead police and the judiciary system to assume this awkward move. Incitement here mean, in the cas
Re: (Score:2)
Google [google.com] translates:
The dictionary here [uol.com.br] give the portugese translations of:
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake." [wikiquote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see the problem as Brazilian authorities appear to be refusing to follow proper conduct. I agree that if the servers are in the US, then the laws that apply to those crimes is the US law and Brazilian authorities have no jurisdiction.
I think it should be solved, instead, by the Foreign Relations Office, that could forward the request either to Google itself or to the local authorities - I am not sure if it would be the FBI or the DOJ. Both would be more than happy to help and, IIRC, they could even ask
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Illegal opinions are a great danger to society.
Signed by: the Chinese government.
Google telling the truth? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A proxy is a type of caching system to accelerate delivery of frequently requested data. It is by no means a permanent storage system.
Information may not even be stored in the proxy's file system in a way humans can understand/navigate. But rather in a way to optimized for the machine to find and retrieve information.
If a request for a resouces not found in the cached occurs that information is retrieved from it's original source;
I Remember Orkut (Score:5, Interesting)
Then, the Brazilians came.
My inbox slowly flooded with Portugese spam, mostly asking to be my friend. All of the communities I frequented filled with Portugese spam, mostly asking me to join other communities. They ignored the "language" preferences on communitues and overran practically every non-Portugese group. They constantly spammed one another. Many times, it was just two people having a private conversation with one another, but for whatever godforsaken reason sending this conversation to EVERYONE ON THEIR FRIEND LIST AND EVERYONE ON ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS' FRIEND LISTS!
They completely took Orkut over in the space of a month. It was impossible to use the service if you didn't speak Portugese. They'd email me constantly asking me to join their friend lists and communities. It got so bad I had to remove all of my contact information from the site.
It's not that they used their native language. I'm cool with that. You're free on the Internet to speak whatever language you want. The problem was they ignored and trampled everyone else, filling English-only boards and spamming constantly.
That's my Orkut story. Seeing it in the news again reminded me of the potential, and of how annoying Brazilians can be online
I wonder if anyone outside of Brazil even uses Orkut anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I Remember Orkut (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a difference between an immigrant feeling overwhelmed by the language of the country he moved to and a native feeling overwhelmed by an influx of immigrants.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sincerely,
The U.S.A.
(Notice for the humor impaired: This post is a joke.)
Re: (Score:2)
When will you think of the children?!?!
(Notice for the humor impaired: This post was also a joke.)
Re: (Score:2)
Carry on
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
What must be done: (Score:4, Interesting)
This country doesn't need to be very big. It just needs to have room for some enormous data centers. Everything would be based here, and countries like Brazil or the US would have no say in what's being hosted on the servers based there.
Then, there would be no such thing as Google having to succumb to government pressure.
Re:What must be done: (Score:4, Informative)
what data do they want (Score:2, Insightful)
The stupid thing is they expect criminals to be providing orkut with any legit info - for a long time my address was in Svalbard and the Jan Mayen
Simple: IP addresses (Score:2, Insightful)
Boas-Vindas (Score:3, Funny)
Damn Google/Altavista language tools: (Score:2, Informative)
Eu, por mim, dou boas-vindas aos nossos novos Senhores brasileiros.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, you really need to brush up on your Spanish. You're liable to insult the Brazilian culture if you get their native language all wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
A Google Response? (Score:2)
Jurisdiction (Score:4, Informative)
Hi.
I see the problem as Brazilian authorities appear to be refusing to follow proper conduct. I agree that if the servers are in the US, then the laws that apply to those crimes is the US law and Brazilian authorities have no jurisdiction.
I think it should be solved, instead, by the Foreign Relations Office, that could forward the request either to Google itself or to the local authorities - I am not sure if it would be the FBI or the DOJ. Both would be more than happy to help and, IIRC, they could even ask - and be granted - extradition of non-Brazilian citizens to the US so they could be prosecuted there. This is, of course, about the child-porn problems. Speech is more protected in the US, so, it should be safe to use a US-based server to express illegal opinions about such things as racism or neo-nazis. The server is in the US, so Brazilian laws should not apply. Not that I approve racism or neo-nazis - it's a matter of jurisdiction.
OTOH, I am quite sure any employee of the Brazilian Google office that could have access to the requested data would be committing a crime in wherever-in-the-US the servers are by giving the requested information without proper authorization to foreign (from the server point-of-view) authorities and would face possible arrest upon setting foot on the US.
As it is configured now, it looks more like a pissing contest between Google and the Brazilian authorities. I side with Google, in that the data is not under Brazilian jurisdiction and Brazilian authorities are refusing to follow proper procedures for the case.
And yes, I am Brazilian and live in Brazil.
--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/ [dieblinkenlights.com] [dieblinkenlights.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I know that many crimes (aggression based on racism and religious intolerance, drug-dealing and pedophilia) are being committed in Brazil. Yet, the mountain of evidence that resides within Google servers is subject to US laws and disclosing it without proper authorization probably is a crime.
After investigating, cataloging and summarizing the alleged crimes, I can't understand why is it a chore to ask for the data directly from Google through US authorities instead of strong-arming the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, not everything you can tack up on a wall is legal. Child porn, for example.
And not everything you can get on such a wall is legal either. Child porn, for example.
No offence, but I cannot really express how blatantly stupid seems to me what you just wrote.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the million-dollar question? There's no way to break only their privacy without breaking everyone's first and then hoping they'll just go after the original "them."
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please note I have no idea what the Brazilian government is like, and the above examples may be off base for them (at least presently,) so this isn't meant to be a dig at the Brazilian administration. My point is, there are now and will always be governments out there who would really enjoy the chance to extract info on certain people through nervous US-based Internet companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the tactic used by so many in power to get their foot in the door of eliminating privacy: Choose an issue that causes anyone who disagrees to look like a criminal, and get people to voluntarily give up their freedoms and privacy. Now that you have a precedent set for getting access to that information, you can do it for basically any reason - and abuse of power is just a step away.
I don't trust anyone enough to give them that kind of power in the first place.
There's a saying, and I will paraphrase because I don't remember the exact words..
"I would rather one guilty man remain free than compromise the freedoms of a thousand."
See, that's what so few people understand - the price of freedom is eternal vigilance (Thomas Jefferson). What this means is that freedom is actually an incredibly difficult social system to maintain, and still retain justice and order. But it is that struggle, that effort, that makes the ends so worthwhile - it is the very definition of honor and integrity.
And that is why so many people find freedom so frustrating [read: people we elect to leadership]... they know they don't deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh. The only court in the United States empowered to handle international legal disputes is the US Supreme Court.
But it takes alot to bring a case before them, so it'd probably be awhile before we saw any US legal action.
[If anyone knows differently let me know. My recollection of the US
Re:Child porn... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, actions like these establish that irritating little fellow called "precedent." Once authorities in Brazil and other countries realize they can strong arm a company into turning over personal information (whether based on the child porn pretext or otherwise, regardless of how solid that pretext is), you can kiss privacy goodbye.
But more than that, you can kiss justice and government oversight goodbye. When the government can have more information on you than YOU have on you, you know the balance of power has shifted way too far in the government's favor. That's the kind of world in which you fear your own government more than any terrorist.
I am not willing to open those kinds of doors. If that means some guilty people are harder to prosecute, that's what that means - that is the price of freedom. It makes sure that the vast majority remain free. Arguing otherwise requires arguing that the vast majority of free people are in fact criminals, which is a simply ridiculous claim to make - and if one were to rely on the claim that the law makes most people criminals (even for minor infractions like jay-walking or littering), one really should consider the idea that there's something wrong with the law.
Limitations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they should. As they should also turn in the IP address of a known terrorist who recently murdered innocent civilians. I believe the above posters point (and if not, it's my point) is that just as terrorism is not necessarily a black and white issue, kiddie porn is not necessarily a black and white issue. Just as a government