Google to Give Data To Brazilian Court 182
Edu writes to mention a Washington Post article about Google's olive branch to the Brazilian courts. Despite previously refusing to reveal search information to the U.S. government, the company has announced they'll be releasing information on hate groups to the Brazilian courts. The move is intended to allow the Brazilian government to identify users associated with homophobic and racist groups. From the article: "Orkut pulls objectionable words and pictures from user sites, but Google stores content it feels could be useful in a lawsuit. Orkut is especially popular in Brazil, which accounts for 75 percent of its 17 million users. Legal and privacy experts said that Google had no choice but to comply with the court order. 'From the law enforcement perspective, if the records are in the possession of the business, the business can be compelled to produce them,' said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center."
Before you start Google-bashing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before you start Google-bashing... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.
Re: (Score:2)
While that's true, it doesn't prevent google from providing the requested information if they wish to, it merely means that they (presumably) cannot be compelled to do so.
Re:Before you start Google-bashing... (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, there are anti-discrimination laws in Brasil since the nineties, and racism (bigotry, in general) is a federal crime there. But, if I'm not wrong (IANAL), there is a difference in our law between "I hate " and "I hate you John Doe, you fucking ". The former counts as free speech, the latter doesn't. I may be wrong, I don't know.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Investigating conspiracy-to-commit-murder via Orkut would not generate nearly the same amount of news. Don't places in the US (myspace, etc) roll over with this information all the time?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I like the fact that google resisted until the end, and I don't like the fact that the government forced him to release this data. This is a bad thing, first because I believe that if someone would like to catch those people, Ork
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunatelly there are some racist and nazi-facist groups here at Brazil. And racism, and other forms of discrimination are crimes under the brazilian law. Also, there are some groups using Orkut to promote child pornography, and worst, child prostitution.
The brazilian authorities had been on a cruzade to erradicate children exploration, and I think that is fair to give them all the help we can.
Re:Before you start Google-bashing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Racism shouldn't be a crime in and of itself -- freedom of speech is something every country should agree on. The same pithy claim google makes that "we have to abide by their laws!!!oneone" doesn't refuse the fact that they are legitimizing an unjust law.
Do i expect all the employees of Orkut to destroy the data and go to prison for it? No. But it still doesn't make handing over the data justified. What's that cliche about "I vas just following orders..."
Re: (Score:2)
If someone refuses you a job because the color of your skin, or you sexual option, or the religion you belive in he is on it's his right to do so? Well, he MAY have this right, but living on a society has more to do with obligations than with rights. Nobody has the right to humiliate or hurt other person based on its skin color, beliefs or social origin.
So, yes... you can be a racist here at Brazil. You just can't commit racial discrimination.
Also, the people being chased use Orkut actively to promote
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a friend that paid a U$12,000 fine in Boston for saying "wow, nice" while looking a afro-american girl's breast.
If he said "die stinky niggers!" would it be fredom of speech?
In Brazil some girls would put a smile in their face. Some would not like, but would never take that to court. Even if they don't like, and take to court, they'd never win, because, like her or not, it was kind of a complim
promoting hate (Score:2)
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.
While Google is a US company they still operate in Brazil and as such they need to obey Brazilian law, just as they, MS, and Yahoo do in China. I may not like it but if they don't want to follow the rules then they don't need to be there. Or they can work to change the laws. As for "promoting hate", it depends on how it is being promoted as to whether it should be legal or not. Simply spe
Start Google-bashing... right now!!! (Score:2)
Please, keep in mind that in this Brazil vs Orkut case they have chosen the most evil path. They don't want to risk losing the $$$ they get from adwords in Brazil, even if that's just a very small percentage of their total sales.
You shouldn't think in terms of the US Constitution, because the Brazilian "constitution" doesn't have any teeth. Even if there is a nominal protection for "freedom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
This is a horrifying precedent (Score:1)
Now, I may be a little lacking in the intricacies of where exactly large company data is stored on these interwebs, but just to throw out a crazy example: some Google executive visiting brazil transfers some very sensitive information from the company mainframe to do work on his vacation. Now since the information has been copied physically to brazil, it's fair game?
Re:This is a horrifying precedent (Score:5, Informative)
By "compelled to produce," the article is talking about Google obeying a court order. If a court has jurisdiction over a company, it doesn't matter where the information is -- the company has to obey that order or face the consequences (or try to convince the court the order is invalid somehow).
The article summary is horribly misleading (even more so than normal): this is nothing like Google refusing to give the US government access to search info. There was no court order to do so (think subpoena), and so Google told them to take a hike. IIRC, even at that time Google specifically stated that if there had been a lawful court order, it would have complied.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a little chilling we google starts keeping stuff about people because they think it might be useful in a law suit or for what ever other reason they might consider economically advantageous.
Google should start
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jurisdiction isn't based on the quality of the legal system.
Unfortunately, though, you are right about the legal system in under-developed countries having a negative impact on investment: a company would rather operate somewhere there is danger of physical violence but can count on the legal system to be fair and consistent (enforce contracts, protect property rights, etc. - think Iraq at the moment) than to operate in a country that might be peaceful but where the legal system is arbitrary and can chang
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious?
Iraq has a functional legal system?
Just search Google News for 'Iraqi Judges'
The first article:
"These judges drive to work every day knowing there is a strong possibility they will not get to court without an assassination attempt. In the past three years, 47 judges have been kil
Re:This is a horrifying precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
People in diferent coutries have different morals, some people believe that the laws should reflect their religions, other takes pride in making their government non-religious. The core of this question is that your morals are different from mine, they may even be similar in some aspects but they are different so you can't judge how good is a legal system for me based on your morals.
Re: (Score:2)
That's all well and good, and foreigners setting up shop in another country certainly must "do as the Romans do."
Howeve
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clarify, I am not stating that. I believe that if google had not a branch in Brazil it could simply raise his middle finger to the brazilian govern, since it is not his business, in the same way that I believe that the american government should not be exporting his "let's make the big corporati
Re: (Score:2)
Its a system where the people who decide what the rules are for society are, are the exact same people who decide in a case by case basis what those rules mean when applied to a particular set of facts, and are the exact same people who enforce those rules upon the people. In otherwords, the same person is lawmaker, enforcer, judge and executioner all at the same time.
Such a society has an inferior legal system.
Alternatively a society where any one
Re: (Score:2)
Given that in the United States, your property can be seized and sold on the mere suspicion it might have been the proceeds of (or even partially paid for) drugs money, does that make the US system inferior?
Re: (Score:2)
Our legal system is one of the most progressives of the world, the only problem is that it is not followed to letter. The main problem is that we 'import'
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't be the least surprised to find out that, if a data cable crosses through a country's territory, that country can follow its own
Re:This is a horrifying precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy does not equal freedom. Freedom is when a society recognizes that some things are none of its business. Democracy is about what to do with everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the US there is a process for doing that [cornell.edu].
But really it is the individual who gets to decide what is their right, which is what sometimes leads to conflict. The two thirds majority requirement is an implicit understanding that some things are important enough that even if just a third of the population disagrees strongly enough, then they can cause an awful lot of trouble if they are well motiva
Re: (Score:2)
You asked who decides what is society's business... not who decides for society. But either way, it all s
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the issue presented was more related to the law that the people are accused of violating, not the law that allows the government to subpeona records. Of course governments can compel the production of evidence related to a crime by court order.
In this particular case, we have what, as far as I know, is a functioning representative democra
Re:This is a horrifying precedent (Score:5, Informative)
So your example is easy to deal with. While a Brazilian court may or may not under Brazilian law have subject matter jurisdiction over the specific records on your hard drive, if you go to Brazil with that laptop then all bets are off and jurisdiction is established.
Want to hear the real rub? If you are in an airplane flying over a particular country (or even state in the USA) then they have personal jurisdiction over you.
Yes, Round Up the Homophobes & Racists! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, Round Up the Homophobes & Racists! (Score:1)
"It is by data alone I set my life in motion. It is by the Net that thoughts acquire speed, my data acquires tracks, the tracks become a warning. It is by data alone I set my life in motion."
Re:Yes, Round Up the Homophobes & Racists! (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You hate coins [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are a misanthrope.
Different than the US (Score:1, Interesting)
Cangaroo courts in Brazil (Score:2)
So, you think that the mere fact that a court orders something makes it automagically right?
Have you tried to look at the facts behind the news? Brazilian laws are so ridiculous that people in more civilized countries have no idea of what happens in this case.
I'm a Brazilian user of Orkut, but I have nothing at all to do with those prosecuted peo
Maybe they should stop warehousing data (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Same goes for GMail.
Re: (Score:2)
But then, still be careful not to do your "interesting" searches from an IP address that you've used before to check your adsense, or they still can tie a name on it.
And be careful you never do searches about your name (or other identifiable info) from the same IP than you do your "interesting" searches.
Oh, and even if you restart your DSL, beware of cookies!
Or, alternatively, don't bother, and consider google the first p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe they should stop warehousing data (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what cracks me up? A number of times over the last year, I've heard people brag about how much they love Google because they 'do no evil'. They've even gone as far as to state that they plan on trusting Google until they give them reason to do otherwise. (These comments were always modded up, to boot.) I imagine lots of these people use a GMail account... which they log in with using their browser. So, while they're logged in to GMail, they use Google to browse. The potential here is that they can trace back your searches and tie them to your login. Who needs to log IP addresses when they can identify you that way?
So why does this crack me up? By the time Google does do something 'evil', they've already handed a lot of personal goodies over to Google. Oops...
I do hope I'm wrong, though. I'd like it pointed out if I am. (you see, I like Google as well, and I use Gmail...) I'd feel a lot more comfortable if GMail had stuck to its own domain instead of using mail.google.com.
Re: (Score:2)
Or anonymize / encrypt it (Score:2)
Data warehousing has obvious benefits to me as a user. I like having my mail archive on a server where it's accessible from anywhere. I like having personalized search results, and having personalized plug
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the personalization data that is necessarily a problem, a person can identify themselves simply as a nym. The problem comes in when searches and all of the other information is warehoused and can be tied together along originating IP addresses, cookies, email, and nyms.
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope someone is up to the task though; any gua
Got news for ya (Score:1)
That may be true of a typical business, but Google is not a typical business. Google can ignore the edicts of any government except America and China. What is Brazil going
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, no, Google cannot just ignore the laws of countries in which it
Re:Not really correct (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the United States is not a member to any international, multilateral, or bilateral treaties on the recognition of foreign judgments (it is on recognition of arbitral awards - the Geneva Convention). That isn't to say you can't enforce foreign awards, but it will be based upon domestic law and not treaty law. See http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial [state.gov] _691.html/ [state.gov]. What the domestic law is, I am not sure and don't have time to research.
It may not be the law you're thinking
Re:Got news for ya - election year indeed (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, let us remember that it's a presidential election year in Brazil, and anything goes, especially for companies interested in little advantages. Plus, Google was being scalded alive by the local media. And, like I heard once: "a polemical headline exists as a bargain for a even more polemical request".
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true of a typical business, but Google is not a typical business. Google can ignore the edicts of any government except America and China. What is Brazil going to do, block all national traffic to Google's websites? I'd love to see them get re-elected after pulling that little stunt.
Wrong, as long as Google, or anyone else has a physical presence in Brazil or anywhere else they have to obey the laws there.
FalconMemories... (Score:2)
Brazil (Score:2)
Maybe after this post I should consider applying for political asylum in the US or maybe Switzerland...
Do you live in Brazil now? In a few years I'm hoping to go to Brazil, as part of a study abroad program for a year. Before I can go though I need to take two years of Portugese and I don't know when I'll be able to start taking it, hopefully next year but I'm not sure. Switzerland? My brother-in-law was talking about buying an inn and starting a Bed and Breakfast there. Myself, I'd rather go to eit
No Evil. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ease up on the distilled twinkies and RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the groups in question were little more subtle than "Hey guys, let's get together at 5pm tonight and go kill some gays" or worse still "Hey, that sucker we killed at 5pm is one less gay in the world!".
The Brazilian police were, not surprisingly, rather pissed off that criminals could communicate in anonymity like this, which was having a very real impact on the Brazilian communities those gangs operated in. If Google did not hand ove
Google right and wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Google was in the wrong for collecting identifying information in the first place. That is where my gripe is. They should be using technical measures to filter out identifying information before it reaches their database. That might include hashing IP addresses for instance so that equality comparisons can be made - but the original IP address rendered unobtainable.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Here's what is happening:
- The brazilian law does not allow promotion of rage.
- There is a google office down here.
- This office sells ads to brazilian compannies - remember: 75% of Orkut users live here.
- Since that google office is a brazilian branch of the google companny, it is subject to brazilian laws.
- The brazilian law requires that any companny in Brazil report such cases.
Then, the investigators requested the info from the Brazilia
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that discrimination may also happen to those who don't flaunt it, and even to those that are trying to hide it. Or worse: to those that only appear to be of a certain orientation without actually being.
I'm an asshole,
Don't advertise that too loudly if you don't actually enjoy it, he!
Re: (Score:1)
Would you deny that there's a chance that whoever posted that on Orkut did the actual beating? What if it was your son that is hospitalized?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Europe doesn't says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not. It says that even considering something like colour or number of people in a community for anything other than statistics is retarded; and that people should rather have fun. I don't think that is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
If the intention is to stop acts of violence and discrimination, then the solution is quite simple: Outlaw acts of violence and discrimination.
Most governments desperatly want to
Re: (Score:2)
Nope... Relations between different ethnic groups are a lot better in the United States. Every day it seems like someone is bombing a synagoge in Europ
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think you're over simplifying the issue here. Hate speech isn't something that hurts someone's feelings, its something that incites someone to commit a crime.
"I hate niggers" is not hate speech. "black people deserve to be lynched" is hate speech. Do you see the difference there? Its not the words you use, its that you're encouraging racial violence.
If you find homosexuals disgusting, its fine for you to say so. But when you start talking about committing a violent act you're crossing a line.
You ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, there are assholes in all groups, but there is a difference between what is happening
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was thinking about this general issue last night and realized the great irony that Brazil and "enlightened" Europe would have to outlaw a lot of South Park episodes because they would offend the sensibilities of some group, typically homosexuals. I'm entirely unimpressed with these countries and their "progressiveness" that says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not.
Nice - you jumped right to the "homosexual agenda" in the first sentence. Watch out, or they'll get
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The literal truth of whichversion of the Bible, of which translation [religioustolerance.org]? In many cases, originals are lost, and all we can go by are later translations, which may be faithful to the original, or which might not be. And if original texts do turn up at a later date, translations are often not corrected out of fear of shocking the readership with a more accurate (but unexpected) rendering. And that's even without counting deliberate forgeries.
In other
original texts of Christianity (Score:2)
And if original texts do turn up at a later date, translations are often not corrected out of fear of shocking the readership with a more accurate (but unexpected) rendering. And that's even without counting deliberate forgeries.
Ah but even if "original texts" are found the church can turn around and call them blasphemous as the Vatican did with the Nag Hammadi [gnosis.org] texts. If anything threatens their grasp they will call it blasphemous.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent place to get the the raw data is to find a Greek NT and read the notes on the textual apparatus. The scholars who edit -- Aland, Metzger, etc. -- are not fundamentalists by a long mile, and their work is highly regarded in the *academic* community. Looking at the textu
Thorn in my flesh (Score:3, Interesting)
So Paul knows what the "arsenokoite" term means. But does he also know what hypokrytos [beliefnet.com] means? (sorry for the Greek spelling, this is not my first language).
And how does Ephesians 5:29 rhyme with 2 Corinthians 12:7 ? Even if we disagree about what that mysterious "thorn" actually is, there seems to be some contradiction between both verses, unless Paul considers himself to be nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the GP, but I think I understood what he meant. The term "Fundamentalist" has morphed a long way from its original meaning [wikipedia.org]. Therefore, it is possible to affirm the five fundamentals (thus, being technically a "fundamentalist") without affirming other items of faith commonly attributed to "fundamentalists" -- such as young earth Creationism, for instance, or more to the point, without affirming that gays should be executed.
We all need heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
Google will do what's best for google. End of story. If that means digging in their heels because a legal request is over reaching and would comprimise some aspect of their operations, so be it. If, in another case, it means they hand over the data, that's fair too.
You want a hero? Go hug a firefighter, or a police officer. Or a doctor, or a vet. Not a corporation.
I highly suggest you don't hug them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not to say it's a bad thing really; Money is what this world runs on, whatever OPEC may say. It's just that as far as morality is concerned, it's not exactly a high ideal to aspire to.
This is about child porn (Score:2)
This is not some questionable case where the person is a political dissident, or something. They have records of this person's account, trading child porn. They want to know who he is.
Do you honestly think there is any sane way to take a stand on this issue and not look like a complete monster?
If they don't turn over the information, people will say they are protecting child moles
on the ground detective work (Score:2)
Google needs to take a good long look at what information it collects and how it matches up your google account information to your google searches
Everything's Public Now (Score:2)
PC strikes again. (Score:2)
Political Correctness is nothing more than totalitarianism in the world of ideas. What's worse is that it is almost transparently so, making its presence in a supposedly free society all the more puzzling and maddening. Those who promote it are quite simply intellectually bankrupt.
The best discription of political correctness I know of comes from Theodore Dalyrimple:
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my stud
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that google assisted in the pursuit of drug dealers, pedophiles and jaywalkers. The problem is that they assisted in the prosecution of "thought-crime." Had they limited their assistance to the pursuit of real criminals then I never would have said anything.
Lee
The end of the Age of Anonymity... (Score:2)
It has always been known, at least among the geeks, that we never really
But for the last 10 or more years it really hasn't been an issue. Online users have been largely "under the radar" in terms of society, commerce, and justice, unless you really went out of your way to draw attention to yourself.
But now that the Internet has become
There are many ways to put it (Score:2)
It is aaall spinning, dudes and dudettes, it is aaaall about spinning.
Legal today, illegal tomorrow (Score:2)
Great precident we have here. Grrr
promoting hate (Score:2)
I reckon this is a very difficult issue.. should people be allowed to incite violence and hatred (be it religious or homophobic, racist, etc) under the guise of 'free-speech'? Personally I think free speech is very im
Wait... (Score:2)
When Yahoo gives in to a government notice to give up information on a user, the Slashdot community gets its panties in a twist.
Why the double standard?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In all likelyhood, that act would serve to further expedite the siezure of their assets and possibly charges of obstruction of justice against workers. After all, they wouldn't refuse to help the nice policemen unless they had something to hide, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More Nonsense! (Score:5, Insightful)
People of Brazil (including me) know exactly what the government is doing. It is going after people that are going beyond the "free speech" concept and getting into the "conspiracy to commit crime" realm. And it is not only about hate speech (that, in a certain extent, along with racism, is a crime in Brazil) but also members of criminal organizations ("traficantes") gloating about real world crimes like drug trafficking, weapon smuggling, etc.
This is not the government subpoena'ing for data of all users or random users, but users that broke the law in one way or another. There is probable cause, judicial oversight and a clear description of what is being searched.
(btw, as it is evident by some previous silly mistakes, english is not my first language)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to Google's Press Release [google.com]: