Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Stratfor is a bad example (Score 1) 106

By authorizing and inducing the hack of Stratfor we came to know about many things private companies and the government are doing (of course they are not going to answer for their crimes). They should encourage more people to commit crimes like invading and damaging companies like this.
Of course the rest of the FBI's entrapment activities is just for the worst of your country (and of the world with the "war on terror").

Comment Re:Freedom of speech (Score 1) 132

I think you might have misquoted me (because your argument is on the basic utility point). The part where you quoted me holds true. I was always talking about how things actually work here in Brazil 1. Phone companies cannot choose what people say. 2. the same applies to Facebook, etc 3. Facebook is effectively replacing them.

On the point you made:
We do not regulate or argue that they are a basic utility. The point about regulating as utility was only a comparison with the American law. It seems that in the US only utilities cannot choose who they serve and cannot censor content, that's why I said the thing about regulating it as utility, but they do not resemble basic utility in any way. I hope that the confusion is fixed, and I'm sorry if that was not clear. I don't think they are basic utility, essential nor a necessity.

Over here companies doesn't have the "right not to serve". Companies from any sector and not just basic utilities. To refuse service a company must provide a reasonable justification. E.g.: on a store: "he didn't provide proof of means for paying for it", on a park: "he cannot do it safely", on the Internet: "he is committing crimes on the platform" (like in this case because crime incitement is illegal here).

These companies actually like the Brazilian law, because unlike in the US, they cannot be sued for what the users say. There is no army of moderators and "moral" (financial) dilemmas on the corporation's opinions and stances, just profit. They can leave it on until the judiciary provides them with a link to remove. And it's the judiciary, not a dark DMCA lawyer company with thousands of automatic questionable removal requests.

Brazil is almost 2/3 the size of the US, it's a decent market that pays premium for shit. The Facebook Brazilian subsidiary is a Brazilian subsidiary (since 2011) under Brazilian law. Brazil was already like this when Facebook came in our direction. They do obey our laws and are not threatening to leave the country.
If Tweeter really has a problem with some types of comments (and it's not just a liability thing), they will be fine too because so far it seems that they only dislike the things that are illegal here anyway.

Offtopic: I lived in China, living without Facebook is great (I still do, but here I have to explain why they are evil and why I don't compromise).

Comment Re: Freedom of speech (Score 1) 132

I'm not sure exactly were they draw the line. Letters to the editor are up to the editor to choose, I'm sure of that. I'm not sure about comment sections in a news website, but they do censor those so I guess it's still in their domain, but I cannot be sure because someone would have to sue and (un)fortunately we don't sue as much as Americans. I did a duckduckgo, google and jusbrasil (a legal cases database) search and couldn't find anything relevant, it might exist, but must be buried very deep. It's all Facebook cases.

Foreign companies working in Brazil are bound by the same laws as everyone else here, so yes they forfeit the rights they have at home (like the right not to serve without explanation). The fact is that Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc (the companies that actually would get any attention), all have subsidiaries here that deal with their local legal problems. In theory any company serving a Brazilian is supposedly under our laws, but if the company does not have any subsidiary here, it would be very complicated to sue and hard to enforce any decisions.
The kind of thing that Twitter is removing is illegal here (terrorist incitement), so we won't see a Brazilian suing to get their account back. Plus, they can refuse service if they provide a valid explanation, like "he was using the platform for committing crimes".

I think the fact that companies cannot refuse service without explanation is what makes this approach "doable". We don't have to regulate the company as an utility or anything else, they are providing a communication service for people and if the users are not committing crimes with it they simply cannot refuse the service. If you publish an article on the Internet, you are not providing any services, there is no contract, so no protection for people's comments under it (I guess/assume).

I actually worked in a case were Google was being sued because of a blog on blogspot, their defense was on the lines of the "only the judiciary can decide what shouldn't be written" and "we are a service provider". They won, it was fast and cheap, a "no-brainer" type of case. I estimate they have spent from 15 to 40 USD in the case (I'm an office clerk in the judiciary, it's a good estimation).

I completely agree that the implementation is rather fraught with legal complexity (specially when it comes to comments on forums or foreign companies), there are plenty of things here that are like that. And I'm sorry I'm not sure of were they draw the line. Even being in the judiciary, that's not my line of work...
OTOH, consider that the American way were Twitter, Facebook and Google gets sued because of terrorists is also rather problematic.

While each company does have moderators that review content, The Next Web notes that it's a statistical impossibility to maintain that any company of such a size can review, or even find, all instances of offensive content.

So these companies are answering legally for things other people said. With our method you are only sued for what you say. And don't have to hire an army of censors just to make it look like you shouldn't be liable when things go wrong in life. If someone is offended by some content, get the urls and ask the judiciary, they are legally required to know what shouldn't be allowed. It's free to do that BTW, people don't need lawyers for simple cases like these.

Comment Re:Freedom of speech (Score 2) 132

I understand your point and agree partially with it. Since I'm Brazilian, and grew with different laws and slightly different values, I'll make some points that might add to the subject.
We had a dictatorship not long ago and our post-dictatorship constitution and laws developed in a way that if you are in the communication business you cannot choose what people say. If some speech is illegal (like racism or crime incitement), then you should either get a court order to remove it (pretty fast), or alert the authorities and if they do their job, they'll order the take down.
That is, if you have a house, you choose what people can write in the wall. If you have a newspaper, you choose what you publish. But if you have a phone company, you cannot choose what's in people's sms messages or calls. The same applies for Facebook, etc, that are effectively replacing the phone companies.

No one thinks or claims (here) that an user's tweet expresses Tweeter's opinion or something they agree with. Hosting someone's opinion is not agreeing with it. If you don't want to host certain opinions, you should be in the publishing market, not in the communications market (here with our laws, that match my opinion, and of those that are against this kind of private censorship).

The logic is that as means of association and communications change, people should still be able to associate and communicate, as long as they are not doing anything illegal. Otherwise we would let private entities that get a prominent position in the communications market choose what people say and, by consequence, think. We don't consider this an infringement of other rights, on the contrary, because of the position they get in the market. Being banned from these communication services is a severe limitation on one's association and speech capabilities.

The upside on this position is that we can be subjected to gays, weapons, abortions, terrorists, republicans, democrats, etc on the communication services we effectively use, and end up thinking about the issues and the points they present. In American law to achieve something similar to what we have I think you'd have to regulate these communication platforms as utilities (IANAL, think based on the net neutrality debate).

Comment Re:Freedom of speech (Score 1) 132

The first post of this thread is by danbob999, and doesn't mention the first amendment. When Kierthos misunderstood the concept for the American constitutional use of it, danbob999 corrected him. This thread is not US law, it's freedom of speech (it's written right there in the subject).

BTW, Americans are allowed to use "Freedom of speech" as a concept too, they don't have to be limited by the American constitutional/legal use of the expression. The company is against freedom of speech in their lawn, and that is not illegal in the US (but it is in other countries), as we are all tired of reading whenever this subject comes up. Just because it's not illegal to block speech on their property, it doesn't mean people are wrong to say they are against freedom of speech, they would be wrong only if they claimed that this behavior is illegal in the US.

Tip: if a post starts with "Re:" its probably not the beginning of the thread.

Comment There is no jurisdiction issue (Score 1) 75

They were running a child pornography website in their own jurisdiction, if that's illegal over there, then they should be prosecuted by their authorities (I think they should, it's disgusting to think police is distributing cp).
They sent links that directed people outside of the tor network to a "clear web" cp website they also run. People that accepted to go to that website were subjected to the same "privacy" they are subjected to when visiting any other website. If recording visitors ips and sessions is hacking, then facebook is hacking everyone.
They knew it was illegal to posses and distribute cp in the US, they knew some people with US ips were doing it, so they informed the proper authorities (the FBI) that had jurisdiction to investigate based on the evidence that was handed over and later prosecute. The proper authorities did that.
The only problem I see in this is that it's becoming common for law enforcement to run cp websites. It's entrapment. If there was no website, the "criminals" wouldn't have the pictures they are being charged of possessing. In this case, even the prosecution for the pictures the users uploaded is questionable, since sharing them was enabled by the police. If they manage to link the users to the pictures they uploaded before the police was running the website, then we have a crime that was not created/enabled/encouraged/requested by the police. Pictures sent when the police was requesting them from the user should be dismissed.
But in the end, this should be thinkable ONLY if law enforcement had the consent from the children in the content, and, of course, they are adults capable of understanding it. Otherwise they are just exploiting those kids abuse for a different end.

Comment Re:TOR was developed by... (Score 1) 69

If it didn't have a backdoor when it was developed in the mid 1990s, it surely does by now.

The fact that the FBI had to use it''s own malware to get to those Playpen people, and that they had to subpoena the Carnegie Mellon researchers to get their attack method that led to the closing of the Silk Road 2 should be indication enough that up to a very short time ago there where no backdoors (just vulnerabilities).

Comment Re:CloudFlare is proudly aiding these criminals (Score -1, Offtopic) 97

It's funny that people advocating to take down "criminals" websites and "hate speech" are never talking about political parties that are either advocating for war (republicans - that also started the last official wars) or actually engaging in murder and terrorism financing/training (democrats - see drone papers and Global Intelligence's Syria insight emails).
That's the main problem with limiting speech, the ones doing the limiting are most likely the biggest criminals, otherwise they wouldn't have the power to do it.

While Germany is a somewhat good country (I'm not aware of recent state violence against large groups - please correct me) with, as far as I know, reasonable "limited freedom of speech", let's remember what they did to Greece financially. Shouldn't the speech of "you should destroy your people's lives to pay debt" be forbidden too? That's pretty hateful and extremist to me. So if there is good limiting, when should it stop? The correct answer is "when I think so". That's another problem. For you it would be some DDoSers and some Muslin murderers (but not the moderate murderers that your country finances), for me it would be your country's main political parties.

Comment It's a spying device (Score 1) 140

It listens to everything you and your family are saying, all the time. Then Microsoft reports to the murderers at NSA. Even if you "have nothing to hide", on principle alone, you should refuse to buy this kind of product.
Plus, if you have kids, you never know if they are not going to do some good deed, worth of punishment. If they say something "wrong", the FBI might send someone to turn them into "terrorists", entrap and arrest them.

Eric and "Anna" is a short about one "eco-terrorist" made by the FBI.

Years after McDavid's conviction, the FBI released thousands of pages of FOIA requested documents not disclosed at trial (...)
In January 2015, after serving nearly half of his 20 year sentence, Eric McDavid was released from prison. As a condition of his release, he waived his right to sue the government for any wrongdoing in his case.

Wouldn't you feel terrible if your kids ended up in jail because of FBI entrapment started because of something they said close to the video-game that you bought? It's not tin-foil since we know they are really doing it.

Comment KickAss used to follow the DMCA (Score 3, Interesting) 105

They used to remove content when receiving DMCA letters from supposed copyright holders, just like google.
It seems (to me) that the reason why he was not hiding much is that he was complying with DMCA.
This means that:
1. the Department of Homeland Security is part of the copyright police, as is the IRS (these are new for me - used to think it was just the FBI);
2. complying with the DMCA won't save you from trouble;
3. they will make up charges to get you extradited and harsher punishment (money laundering???)

Comment This alone is reason to fight copyright (Score 1) 103

If copyright owners are actively trying to stop freedom and privacy, we should do everything in our power to reduce theirs, both politically and with our wallets.
If not getting any money is the price artists have to pay for partnering with censorship lobbyists, so be it. I'll pay only for concerts and DRM free independent content.
Good thing is that some game developers are already getting the hang of it and fighting piracy the right way: with decent prices and a better service.

Comment Re:In Soviet America (Score 1) 166

You know, 50 years ago your country (US) made a military dictatorship happen in my country (BR), and they supported the dictators during that dictatorship. The claim at the time was that we could turn into communists, and we as a people shouldn't be allowed to choose.

While I see that the US is turning to shit even for Americans, it's important that you know you weren't better as a country before. It's just that instead of just fucking others over, your own people is getting screwed too, and we are getting to know it better thanks to the Internet and to whistleblowers.

PS. my country is pretty shit too, we currently are under another coup that is succeeding because it might stop investigations on corruption. Most countries are (this post was about how shit Russia is). Don't feel offended that I criticize your country. Patriotism is BS, people should try to fix their countries, not love them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Failure is more frequently from want of energy than want of capital.