Google Denies Data In Brazil Orkut Case 183
mikesd81 writes, "The AP reports that Google filed a motion in response to a Brazilian judge's deadline to turn over information on users of the company's social networking service Orkut. An earlier AP story gives the background: 'On Aug. 22, Federal Judge Jose Marcos Lunardelli gave Google's Brazilian affiliate until Sept. 28 to release information needed to identify individuals accused of using Orkut to spread child pornography and engage in hate speech against blacks, Jews and homosexuals. Google claims that its Brazilian affiliate cannot provide the information because all the data about Orkut users is stored outside Brazil at the company's U.S.-based headquarters. Google maintains that it is open to requests for information from foreign governments as long as the requests comply with U.S. laws and that they are issued within the country where the information is stored.'" Eight million
Brazilians, about a quarter of the country's Internet-using population, are members of Orkut.
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Kudos to google for protecting user's rights, though.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Kudos to google for protecting user's rights, though.
And kudos to you, sir, for using the word kerfuffle.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you posit that in order for Google to comply with its "don't be evil" motto, they have to grant their users more protection than they're granted by law?
Or, to put it more precisely, you think Google should fight for their users's right to privacy even when it is illegal for them to do so?
Would you care to explain this to me in some more detail?
Re: (Score:2)
Google is being Neutral here, not Evil; they don't actively assist either side - actually, assisting either side actively, without proper legal procedure would be Evil in itself, either because of helping paedophiles escape justice or because of potential screwing up of their future users because of a set precedent.
And since they're forcing the proper legal procedure, that makes them Lawful as well.
Lawful Neutral is quite a decent alignment, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice straw man. Can I play? How about, consider someone who is openly critical of the President through online forums. W decides to declare that person an "illegal combatant" and sics Alberto Gonzales on him. Gonzales then subpoenas identifying information from Google. (Hmmm... sounds a little like what happened to some dissidents in China wrt. to Yahoo [google.com], doesn't it?)
Which is more evil: Google complying with the dubious request of the US Executive Branch (which may end up being "law" here in a mome
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also Google isn't defending the users rights, they are simply saying "Send the request to Mountain View, not to our local affiliate," whether they are doing that as a delaying measure or not remains to be seen.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The morality of their actions is open to opinion. So-called "hate speech", for example, is not only not illegal in the US, but is actually protected by the US Constitution. While Brazilians obviously aren't governed by US law, it still shows that Google "protecting criminals" isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some level of maturity needs to be applied though. I'd hand over the logs if serious crimes were committed, but some data must have gone past Brazilian ISPs before google. Why aren't they made to respond first?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am... though I see your point. Free speech is always under attack in the US by those who wish to push their brand of morality on the whole population. It's a form of fascism, and when cast in that light most people are against it.
All I know is that my Saturday nights involve a lot less beer since I had my daughter!
Re: (Score:2)
The beautiful thing about "political correctness" is that it is a very strong force in the US that came about without government getting involved at all. It is an unwritten societal standard that actually gets imposed on those who seek political office. There is no need to codify it, because if you aren't "politically correct", you really have little hope of winning an election.
The net effect is that people in the US generally do not use racist language in public any more than people in countries with an a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that it's kept us democratic and free for 219 years, without a single military coup in history, I'd say it's a darned good one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this were not a functional democracy, that would not be the case. Then again, it's not over till the fat lady sings and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between rumours of elections being rigged versus actual evidence. Secondly, while the Slashdot crowd is particularly left liberal and you might see anti-Bush sentiments, that is not necessarily so throughout
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
When exactly in the last years?
There is a difference between rumours of elections being rigged versus actual evidence.
I'd say the evidence [rollingstone.com] is there [google.com] just nobody seems interested in picking it up. Might be because some KGB^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Federal [rense.com] institutions [thinkprogress.org] are [commondreams.org] actively [post-gazette.com] persecuting [boingboing.net] people [cjrdaily.org] who have
Re: (Score:2)
Those are some funny links you posted. "DHS Gestapo ... poisons a cat"...
The story about the Rubik's vs. Magick Cube was particularly reeking with suppression of dissent:
I mean, was not that awful?
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, Hitler followed this exact procedures. The majority of the German Reichstag gave him the "Auftrag zur Regierungsbildung" in a free and
Re: (Score:2)
However, sheds an interesting light on the priority of your "government", doesn't it?
"Priority"? (Re:Interesting) (Score:2)
Oh, come on — "priority"? Any time a policeman writes a traffic citation, does it mean, his priorities are wrong, and he should concentrate on fighting terrorism instead?
I mean, you may be a genius nearing a breakthrough on eternal life and happiness. So, can I question your priorities, when you go to a toilet?
I'm sure, there is a fancy word in Ancient Greek (or Latin) for the logical fallacy you have just displ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there was the small issue of a civil war, so i reckon there's probably a couple of constitutions with a beter track record.
The part about democratic is also flawed: i suggest that investigate "gerrymandering" to see how politicians make sure they get reelected whether or not they do a
Re: (Score:2)
If you make it possible to criminalize any statements that you don't like, someday someone may decide they don't like your statements. "Common carrier", anyone?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, but "criminals" are different in each country, aren't they? From the article:
In the US, child pornography is illegal, but you can say anything you want about blacks, Jews, and homosexuals. It's not going to win you any popularity contests, but you can be as much of a racist bigoted anti-semitic prick as you want to be. Frankly, it is frightening that you can be arrested for stating your opinions - no matter how despicable. This is why the "Madonna potentially getting arrested in Germany for offending Christians" news item got so much play state-side.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but I'd still side with Google if they decided to break Saudi law in order to protect a political dissident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, they can't release user information stored in USA without a proper court order (eg. an US court order). If they do so, they are risking themselves to lawsuits. I guess Google wants the evidence gathering done in a perfect (legal) manner, protecting users rights (according to US law), rather than protecting the cri
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So if AT&T had an office in Saudi Arabia, they should comply with Saudi requests for phone records concerning SAUDI who had made remarks disparaging to Saudi Arabia.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, in my opinion, it IS better for AT&T (or Google) to not do business in Saudi Arabia (or Brazil), if the 'ideals' (and laws) of said coun
Re: (Score:2)
I think that I WANT to go in that direction, but then how far do you take it? Should AT&T only operate in states that have favorable privacy laws? What if an, ahem, administration comes to power that demands they spy on their customers... should they just close up shop or keep operating while they fight the order? Should Google simply refuse Brazilian ad money, or should they actively block Brazilian IP addresses? I'm not sure that morality can necessarily be thrust upon corporations.
I guess the main p
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand American law. You can say whatever you want about "homos" or blacks. You cannot go to jail, and no one does go to jail for what they say. Child pornography is illegal, however. I didn't say that I thought the US was "the best", just that speech is freer here. The only restrictions on free speech are immediate danger (such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater) and calls for violent action (such as "Everyone meet me outside the courthouse so that we can burn it to the ground!").
Re: (Score:1)
That is not at all what Google has said
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"it is not relevant that the data are stored in the United States, since all the photographs and messages being investigated were published by Brazilians, through Internet connection in national territory."
Then they should be taking Brazilian ISPs to task and requiring them to intercept the traffic inside the country, or block Google, whatever. That's not Google's business. I live in Switzerland; racist and neo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're making a bit too much of a hero out of Google. If anything, I'd strongly suggest they're doing what they're doing in CYA mode, not "
cool (Score:1)
National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophiles? (Score:1, Interesting)
On the other, this is an American company receiving a demand from Brazil. If they comply with this demand to hand over IPs, who's to say such wonderful democratic places as Saudi Arabia and China won't start demanding information on dissidents and getting it via this precedent (Ok, s
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:2)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:5, Insightful)
Pedophilia isn't a crime, and neither is hating someone. So, no, not everyone wants to live in your Orwellian fantasy where thoughtcrime is a common reason to throw someone in jail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we are aware of that.
However, consider the following viewpoints:
* Criminalizing "possession" of anything is just wrong.
* The age of consent is different in many countries.
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], it is 14 in Canada, Austria, Brazil, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Chile and some Eastern European countries; 13 in Argentina, Japan Spain and Guyana.
The Age of consent site [ageofconsent.com]has some different figures, ranging from 12 to 21.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, not "criminalizing anything" but "criminalizing possession".
Second, Wikipedia is no place for opinions, including right/wrong values.
Incidentally, "outrageous" is also a value judgement.
Third, the AC reply (post #16264725 [slashdot.org]) presents a good case.
> where does this viewpoint come from?
Thinking about the society we live in and, analyzing where it is headed, talking to various peopl
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't automatically break laws if you have certain attractions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, that's just my take on the CFRs. I am not a liar^H^H^Hawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:3, Informative)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:1)
I don't know if it's for better or worse, but Google is very likely able to provide names and addresses, not only IP's.
I use enough Google gizmos that I'm damned paranoid. They know specifially who I am, what I read, my searches, etc. Hell, I even clicked on a
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
At that with the USAs freedom of speech it must be fine to talk about molesting kids or dressing up young looking adults as sexy children.
Speech is Speech whether talking hate or sex.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Speech is Speech whether talking hate or sex.
Within the past week [thehometownchannel.com] a woman in my state, PA, was indicted by federal authorities for posting sexual stories online that included sex with children. My personal feelingis that as long as it was just words she shouldn't have been indicted, but the feds pretty much get to do whatever they want.
LK
Orkut Policy .vs. ongoing enterprise (Score:2)
Google is no longer an ongoing enterprise, folks.
Good. (Score:1)
Good.
A serious question: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
loopholes ? (Score:2)
as well, their representation offices are spread over the world; which could be a problem too.
So many loopholes and so many ways to catch a fish...
Re: (Score:2)
No, because as long as the company is based on Earth, they're still subject to whatever laws the government of the country they're in impose on them. Uhm, well, this might depend on the laws in that country as well...
I remember a while ago that a Norwegian company was sued because of some hardcore (illegal) porn that they served from a
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if a company *did* want to put up a lunar installation, they could probably just have current access locally, and dump their logs offplanet. The gov't could request info, but only for the last few days in their jurisdiction.
Who owns the data? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would generally be called obstruction of justice, which would expose individuals inside Google to the possibility of spending some time in a Brazilian jail. If a court of law has asked you for information, it's illegal to destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that obstruction of justice is one of the crimes covered by the US-Brazil extradition treaty. Are you willing to stake your freedom on the United States government caring more about you than their relations with the largest country in South America?
Re: (Score:2)
They would have to prove you distroyed it interntionally. You know, hard drives crash, backup routines fail for mechanical and human error reasons...
Google protects consumer information (Score:1)
Google motto (Score:1)
China? (Score:1, Interesting)
brazilian orkut users? (Score:4, Funny)
Google is refusing for now... (Score:2)
the Brazilian office doesn't have access to the data stored in the servers, based in the USA. Google's brazilian office is a law firm, probably there are no techies there.
when the brazilian prosecutors present their request properly to Google in USA the data will be handed over. It has been done before:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003739&intsrc=new s_ts_head [computerworld.com]
The downgrading of freedom (Score:2)
The hate speech issue on the other hand is very serious. What is determined to be hate speech in this situation? Is it calling for the genocide of a particular group or is it an offensive joke? Who gets to make a call on this? If someone from Brazil states that affirmative action should be overturned, are they committing a
Re: (Score:2)
But as it's a case-by-case situation, and a judge have to study it, only in flagrant cases - for example, when being stopped by a policeman black saying that he's doing this because he is a dirty black pig, what is a crime in most countries anyway - or when involving planning actions against someone or a group - like for example "let's meet at sunday after the soccer game to hit all those yellow-bastards - are being taking in care.
But yes,
It is very simple (Score:2, Insightful)
So no, they are not preserving user rights, they are preventing the investigation to go forward.
Compare this to SWIFT and the US govt (Score:2)
SWIFT process the majority of fund transfers in and out of the EU.
I wish that SWIFT had acted the same way as Google. Instead they gave the US govt full access to their entire database. SWIFT is a Belgian company, and the Belgian government's investigation into the matter said that SWIFT broke Belgian (a
You are wrong! Speech isn't the cause of this. (Score:2)
Most messages here are saying brazilian authorities are seeking data because of hate-pages. This isn't the true!
Living here in Brazil I can tell that the Public Ministery i(prossecutors) are looking against pages like scheduling meetings to hit or kill people during football (aka soccer) games, traffic using orkut to sell drugs, defending people who comits crimes - there was even a community for raising funds to free a drug dealer from prison with 1 million reais - child po
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
> people on the planet. They move into every community and drown out
> everyone else all the while insulting those who can't speak Portugese
> and ignoring any community rule that doesn't suit them.
Boy oh boy does that sound familiar. Thank God no one else has described citizens of any other country [wikipedia.org] in such disparaging terms.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not (just) trolling (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Does the company have a local presence?
2) Does the company actively target or avail itself of this market?
3) Does this action arise out of the company's contacts with this market?
In this case, the answer to all three of these questions would be yes. Were the tables turned, a US court would certainly order
Re: (Score:2)