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:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (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:Interesting (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 criminal users.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (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: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.
Who owns the data? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (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:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, that's just my take on the CFRs. I am not a liar^H^H^Hawyer.
It is very simple (Score:2, Insightful)
So no, they are not preserving user rights, they are preventing the investigation to go forward.
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:1, Insightful)
That's basically the whole point of a policy that states, specifically, "do no evil ".
Otherwise it would just be "do nothing illegal"—and for crying out loud, that's only promising the same level of morality as a used car dealership.
Re:Interesting (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 good job and "proportional vote" to see how a real democracy (all votes are equal) really works.
As for freedom, i suggest you check the latest couple of laws passed in the US - more specifically the ones about torture and indefinite detainment of foreign non-combatants and how a US citizen can easilly be declared a non-combatant and stripped of his/her citizenship and thus become subject to those laws.
----
It's really entertaining to see how people can get brainwashed into ignoring the flaws of the political/social systems under which they live (and they all have flaws) and into spewing propaganda about how "my country is the greatest of them all".
I guess never having lived in another country (vacations don't count) and being surrounded by media which almost exclusivelly spews country-centered news probably makes one especially prone to believing nacionalistic bullshit.
---
If you want to be a real patriot, then be proud of the good things of your country, do your best to improve those that are not-so-good and always suspect the sleazy politicians that go around patting people on the back and saying "we live in a perfect country, the best there is, nothing needs changing".