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.
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting (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:3, Interesting)
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.
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, scratch China... Do No Evil my ass)? If the precedent is very explicitly restricted to pedophiles, then expect find out that everyone the CCP doesn't like are pedophiles.
Unfortunately, such applies to any corrupt authoritarian government. If you have any means of handing them data, they will abuse it to their own ends [Insert standard link to Bush administration here]. So the question becomes, how to hand data over to Brazil to help them hunt down child predators while NOT helping Saudi Arabia jail and murder dissidents.
And overshadowing this is the fact that perverts and hatemongers who are NOT idiots don't talk over plaintext for obvious reasons (like the local government rightfully hunting them down). Given the wide availability of encryption and anonymization tools, it's easily possible to hide from any government you want.
Might I suggest a registry to distinguish between governments that can reasonably be trusted not to misuse requests for identifying information, e.g. Brazil, and corrupt dictatorships like China or Saudi Arabia. Never going to happen because certain dictatorships have America by the economic balls (Thank you, Federal Government, for sending all our industry to China and setting up a $10e11 trade deficit! And for spending $5e11 on Iraq instead of alternate fuels!) and wouldn't take kindly to being disfavored because of their crimes. And if it were created, good like keeping it from being turned into a tool to protect criminals instead (look at the nations that are on the UN Human Rights council). But it's worth dreaming about...
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
China? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (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 people with similar and different viewpoints, applying logic, etc.
And especially, recognizing knee-jerk reactions, demagogy and populism for what they are.
> do you support legalizing all controlled substances to all people on this planet?
This is a gross oversimplification and somewhat of a straw-man.
I am opposed to criminalizing mere "possession". Surely you can see the difference.
> Coke? Heroin? Anthrax? Plutonium?
Yes. Provided it dos not endanger others (which would be difficult to achieve in the case of Anthrax and Plutonium, but then there are other laws dealing with that).
> Do women fall into your definition of everything?
That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this conversation.
If I had a weapon in my house, it would constitute "possession" in the legal sense and could be a criminal offence (depending on the jurisdiction).
I usually have a woman in my house (more than one if a child falls under your definition of a "woman"). It is usually called "having a family" and, as far as I know, is legal.
> your defense of "it is just wrong" won't work on US soil, as possesion is illegal
Please try to pay more more attention. I did not classify it as a "defense" but as a "viewpoint".
There is a huge difference between "illegal" and "wrong" however, and most nations had their share of unjust laws (they are often, but not always, struck down or revised at some time).
Now, disagreeing with a law does not make make an act any less illegal and, the way societies work, there are usually negative consequences to such acts.
In such cases, a dissenter has two choices: either obey the law regardless of one's convictions or disobey it and be prepared to accept the consequences (civil disobedience).
Neither of these choices preclude the option of advocating and working towards the goal of removing or changing said law.
Just to illustrate a point, let me present a simple example why criminalizing possession of even child porn is wrong (there are many other reasons).
Assume that one of your friends (let's call him bob) gets a virus on his PC. The virus examines his email box and finds your address. It then sends you a message, allegedly from Bob, with a link to a particularly nasty child porn site.
When you get this email, you have no cause for suspicion (after all, Bob's your friend) so you click on the link and Wham!... You immediately close the browser, contact Bob and discover the problem.
However, your browser cache now has a copy of a very illegal picture. Congratulations! You now possess child porn. If a law enforcement agency has any reason to examine the contents of your hard drive and finds this, you will be in quite a fix.
Similarly, consider typosquatting [wikipedia.org] sites.
> If you had a fourteen year old daughter, is that enough age for you to be ok with her giving her own consent?
I live in Canada. When my daughter reaches the age of 14, I sincerely hope she will be able to give or withhold her informed consent. Otherwise, that would indicate my failure as a parent.
She was able to successfully deal with the fact that her allergies prevent her from enjoying the pizza and cake at her friends'