Google to Give Data To Brazilian Court

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."

Re:Before you start Google-bashing...

[voice_of_all_reason]

Not only that, but it appears in this case they are asking for data concerning "person X", which they apparently have the equivalent of probable cause to obtain.

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.

Re:This is a horrifying precedent

[shystershep]

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:Got news for ya - election year indeed

[kusanagi374]

I'd love to see them get re-elected after pulling that little stunt.

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:Google right and wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Brazil and have been following this for a couple of weeks.
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 Brazilian office.
That office said that they only sell ad's.

Look, I am totally against information being delivered to the government, because that goes against internet freedom, to begin with.
But, legally, it seems that they have no choice, other than shutting down the brazilian office - and the are no willing to do that.

So, do the math: Google doesn't want to lose money, no matter what it takes.

Rui

Re:Before you start Google-bashing...

[knightmad]

True, there is a probable cause, and it is a little bit worse than "promoting hate", but "conspiring to commit a crime". One (of the many) examples that comes to my head is a group of neo-nazi that harassed a particular user (a black young boy) not only online (messaging him via the site, and creating a "community" with a "let's kill him" theme), but using the info they gathered about him on Orkut to harass him on his own homeplace.

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:This is a horrifying precedent

[Ath]

The concept of legal jurisdiction for a court is a bit more complex but not too hard to understand. There are primarily two types: subject matter and personal (or physical). Subject matter is when the court has been given legal authority based on the actual subject being covered in the legal case. Personal / physical jurisdiction is rather easy to understand. If you are in the terroritory where the court has authority, that court has control over you and any posessions you have.

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.

Re:Liberty versus Libertine

[14CharUsername]

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 can still go ahead and hurt anyone's feelings you want. But if you encourage people to commit crimes, you can get yourself into trouble.

Re:Before you start Google-bashing...

[franksands]

They said it from the start. The problem is that Google was refusing the give this info saying that since they are a company from the US, they are did not need to obey Brazilian laws.