Google Brazil Pressured to Give Up Names

Kordau writes "Google Brazil is under pressure to release user info from Orkut, relating to a child porn investigation by the Brazilian government. Google Brazil maintains that the info officials want is held on US servers and if they want the info, they should talk to Google USA."

Comments

Article full of errors.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

There is a much better reuters article here - I suggest you read that rather than the linked article.

The first four paragraphs of the article contain the story (not too much there) - the rest is fluff - and inaccurate fluff at that - I'm going to go completely OT to look at some of the absurdities it contains:

The Brazilian case highlights an issue that has been brewing for sometime over the information that search engine and other internet companies keep on their databases about their users.

No, it doesn't highlight that - the cases are not similar in any form, other than both involving large internet companies

The recent blunder made by AOL in which the internet company erroneously published 20 million search requests....

Erroneously? AOL deliberately published the search requests.

Early this year, Google successfully defended a subpoena from the US Department of Justice to hand over its data in another child porn investigation case.

Calling that a "Child porn investigation case" is one of the most misleading statements I've ever heard. It was a "porn on the 'net fishing expedition."

Re:Article full of errors.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't highlight that - the cases are not similar in any form, other than both involving large internet companies...AOL deliberately published the search requests.

The cases are extremely similar in that they highlight the risks of internet companies *HOLDING* that data.

Personally, I think it's not that bad for AOL to have released the relatively limited data they had; and I think it's not that bad for Brazil to be going after actual criminals with whatever tools they have available.

The problem IS the slippery slope of governments getting search data.

• Do you want the current administration getting the emails of the Democratic Party's campaign strategists (and remember, if they get to skim all data from AT&T, they can have it) --- I know Republicans who honestly think the greatest threat to national security is if the Democrats win, so it's not too far-fetched.
• Do you want China to get all the search records of the Falun Gong and Tibeten and Taiwanese leaders; just because they pass a law that says they can?

If they cared at all about privacy Google and AOL should not be keeping this data at all.

Re:Article full of errors.

[Anonymous Coward]

These types of flagrant journalistic errors often occur in child pornography-related stories. Accurate facts seemingly become lost in a windstorm of "Think of the children!" eye-grabbing statements.

I, for one, sincerely wish that child porn never existed, not so much for any concern I have for the brats, but more because the damn stuff seems to be single-handedly ending any semblance of privacy on the internet.

Re:Article full of errors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe reuters isn't the best source considering bloggers uncovered reuters phony photos regarding Lebannon.

Re:Article full of errors.

[morcego]

I second you on that one.

Just because Google owns Orkut doesn't mean this case has anything to do with search engines.
It is Orkut the brazilian government is attacking, not Google Search. Because Google Inc owns Orkut, the government is asking it to take action.

This case has been brewing around here for about 2 years, in and out of the news and all that. This particular issue of Google Brasil (which is pretty much just a comercial branch office) refusing to hand the information is at least 6 months old. Some news.

Re:Article full of errors.

[Pat69]

The recent blunder made by AOL in which the internet company erroneously published 20 million search requests....
Erroneously? AOL deliberately published the search requests.

Just because it was deliberate, doesn't mean it wasn't also an error.

Re:Article full of errors.

[drinkypoo]

The recent blunder made by AOL in which the internet company erroneously published 20 million search requests....

Erroneously? AOL deliberately published the search requests.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Containing or derived from error; mistaken: erroneous conclusions.

Releasing the records was an error. A mistake. It was erroneous.

If you don't know what a word means, look it up before you rail against a particular use.

Re:Article full of errors.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Releasing the records was an error. A mistake. It was erroneous.

Well, that's true - in retrospect, it was a mistake. However, describing the deliberate release of the records as 'erroneous' mischaracterises the event. If I was going to sum up the deliberate release of user's data without their permission, I wouldn't use the word 'erroneous'.

Re:Article full of errors.

[binkzz]

"Well, that's true - in retrospect, it was a mistake. "

I think you mean: it was erroneous.

Re:Article full of errors.

[Jo Owen]

The bluender part covers the fact that it turned out not to be A Good Idea (TM), the positioning of the word implies that the publishing was unintentional.

Dont be a muppet.

Re:Article full of errors.

[Anonymous Coward]

But internet services purging usage records won't solve the problem - after all, if a government can pass a law forcing them to give up the information, they can also pass a law requiring them to hold the records for a certain amount of time. If Google gives in and hands over the data, then they also would give in if they were required by law to hold the records. The issue is not with the internet services, it's with the governments forcing them to do something they shouldn't have to do.

Re:Article full of errors.

[sasha328]

not so much for any concern I have for the brats, but more because the damn stuff seems to be single-handedly ending any semblance of privacy on the internet

You sir, make me sick. Sitting in your ivory tower bleating about your privacy concerns and completely forgetting the misery that the "brats" live with for the rest of their lives.
"Think of the kids" seems to have become a derisive statement when it comes to "privacy" issues here on Slashdot; but those who harp on in that vein seem to miss the point. It is not the "children" per se, but rather the weak and the helpless. Yes, there is moral responsibility to look after the weak and the helpless because they can't look after themselves. Children are the primary example, but not the only ones.
I suggest you work with some of these "brats" sometime, or at least get to know some of them before you start talking about privacy issues.

Re:Article full of errors.

[Anonymous Coward]

A-fucking-men

Re:Article full of errors.

[BigDogCH]

So, are you saying you would be willing to give up your privacy for the benefit of catching criminals?

Keep in mind, once you give the law-enforcing body supreme rights, you have lost yours.

At which point do we stop? We give the government rights to listen to our phone conversations, read our mail, watch our internet activity, put cameras in our homes?

Eventually the government hires robotic watchdogs to patrol the neighborhoods going inside and outside of homes at will, testing blood samples at will, breaking down doors with no suspicion or warrant? This is the path that this train of thought leads. A police state? Is this the world you want to live in?

I would rather take the risks involved in not having the government monitor my activities, and remove the risks of having the government monitor my activities.

Re:Article full of errors.

[tehcyder]

Wow, the best example of a fallacious slippery slope argument I think I've ever seen. I would like to think you were being ironic, but somehow I doubt it.

Going from someone pointing out that there is real world damage to vulnerable human beings (and that maybe there are more urgent moral imperatives than your imagined right to 100% freedoma nd anonymity), you end up with a paranoid fantasy of a police state with robotic watchdogs.

Re:Article full of errors.

[BigDogCH]

Yeah, the robotic watchdogs might have been brought on by lack of sleep or my co-worker continually playing the robocop theme, however the idea still remains true.

"Ironic?" What does irony have to do with it?

The moral still remains true.....many people are willing to give up their freedoms and privacy because somebody needs to "think of the children". I am not willing to give up my privacy, just so the govt can easily catch criminals. I won't even discuss why, because the counter-argument has a foundation of pure ignorance. Instead, I am going to go spend some time with my kids, guarding them, teaching them, and making sure they grow up happy and safe..... rather than expecting the government to do it for me. Let me keep my privacy, and let me raise my kids.

Then the idiot finishes with "I suggest you work with some of these 'brats' sometime, or at least get to know some of them before you start talking about privacy issues.". Thanks, I work with kids every day........and yet I realize someday they will be adults too. I want them to enjoy the same freedoms that I do.

fair play and leverage

[way2trivial]

I think they should have to cough it up, if they want to do business in brazil.

in the US, a us branch of a large company gets slammed with multiple subpeonas and searches and requests for eveything the DA can arrange to harrass the US branch (and ultimately the parent company) of a multinational when they want data held outside the country.. and in some cases, it's justified and the only leverage for a necassary investigation.

Re:fair play and leverage

[pembo13]

Why should an innocent company (forgetting that this is Google) be forced to give up information unless they are the one under investigation for wrong doing, unless the company is government funded of course?

Re:fair play and leverage

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should have to cough it up, if they want to do business in brazil.

No company can afford to lose a brazillian customers.

Re:fair play and leverage

[m0rph3us0]

It's not hard to go through the proper channels to supeona information regarding criminal prosecution. Google Brazil is a separate entity from Google USA. Google Brazil CAN'T be forced to give up the information because it doesn't have it. It's like if I moved to Brazil and they supeona'd me for information my father had. It isn't mine to give up, not to mention I don't have it.

Re:fair play and leverage

[alx5000]

They could be acussed of being an accesory to the criminals, if they are deliberately concealing information that could help find them.

Re:fair play and leverage

[diersing]

How does it differ from Telephone and Bank records being sought by investigators when the telephone or bank are the subject of the investigation?

Re:fair play and leverage

[Amouth]

you have to watch with that... why isn't the phone company an accesory do every drug deal made or arranged over the phone..

they have common carrier status.. as far as i am concerned websites should have it too as they don't discriminate on who can view it.. (if they do then they lose that status)

you have to watch out about having double standards

Re:fair play and leverage

[ack154]

I think this is what most people missing in the article... everyone is saying that they should just give up the info and be done with it.

It's not that Google Brazil WON'T hand over the info. They CAN'T hand it over, because they don't have it. Apparently the Brazillian goverment thinks otherwise though...

Re:fair play and leverage

[pembo13]

You make a good point. While I don't find this particular case worring. What is going to happen when medicine progresses to the point where a lot of treatment makes use of individuals DNA? Seems like unless there are exceptions made, a DA could just get the private company to hand over the person's DNA. However, Google needs to start letting criminals know, more formally, that there criminal activties are being logged and are subject to being called in as evidence.

Re:fair play and leverage

[diersing]

Taking it step further, is there an inherent danger in allowing Law Enforcement access to any and all DNA captured or stored by private companies?

The responsibility of the medical field (AFAIK) to protect patient information is only applicable to when something Identifying (or otherwise public like a name, DNA what have you) is correlated to something private (your diagnosis or prescriptions). If I endorse a check at the bank that requires my thumb print, I don't have an expectation that the Bank will take any extra precautions to protect it other then those surrounding the actual document I endorsed.

I guess I'm OK with DNA from a private company going to Law Enforcement since in itself, it can't prove anything (you'd need matching DNA at crime scene for the information to be valuable) and who knows, maybe it would prove someone's innocence.

Re:fair play and leverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Brazil:Google::Microsoft (Europe):Microsoft

Microsoft is fined daily for not turning over sufficient information to the EU. Google is not expected to follow the rules set down by Brazil?

Clearly, your expectations for Google!=Microsoft...

Re:fair play and leverage

[neoform]

Why should a website that tries to stop illegal activity lose that status?

If i'm a BBS admin and i see people posting kiddie porn and i take it down and ban them, i would lose my common carrier status?
I guess by your set of rules i should just say "It's none of my business" right?

Re:fair play and leverage

[DieNadel]

you have to watch with that... why isn't the phone company an accesory do every drug deal made or arranged over the phone..

Well, they do have to give phone records to assist in investigations... I can't see how different it is to Googles case at hand.

Re:fair play and leverage

[pembo13]

Consider this, possibly extreme example, your significant other, "extracts" DNA from you and plants it at a scene. Very possible. As is now, unless you have a criminal record, or have your DNA stored in some other DNA bank, the police won't find you.

Re:fair play and leverage

[voice_of_all_reason]

Because many people now beleive if you are not helping them then you can only be a criminal.

Re:fair play and leverage

[diersing]

In that scenario, I'm now more fearful of someone working at the DNA databank going on a crime spree and leaving droplets of me behind for the CSI unit (dressed all sexily with classic rock playing the background) to find me.

Re:fair play and leverage

[Amouth]

i wasn't definding Goolges case.. i was pointing out the unfocused point of the parent whom i replied to

Re:fair play and leverage

[Amouth]

taking things off a bbs because it violates a term of service would not cause you to lose the status..

taking things off because you don't like that person.. that would make you no longer a common carrier..

if you have a terms of service it more than likly includes something about content being withing the law. that would cover your kiddie porn.

Re:fair play and leverage

[DieNadel]

Doh! You think a commercial branch from Google in Brazil is so independent from our Google Inc.?

Legally that may be the case, but saying they don't have that info b/c it's stored in the US is just a way to buy some time.

The way I see it, Google is just trying to be perceived as responsible with private information of its users, but it's forgetting that it's a child porn case, with plain visible proofs of violation (no pun intended) of the law in Brazil (and also in the US for that matter).

If Google wants to show so much responsibility, they should form an Ethics Committee and ponder whether releasing info that would help put some serious criminals behind bars should be done or not. If you have the chance, take a look at some Child Porn communities in Orkut, and see how its users openly perpetuate this illegal practice.

Re:fair play and leverage

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that Google Brazil WON'T hand over the info. They CAN'T hand it over, because they don't have it. Apparently the Brazillian goverment thinks otherwise though...

Actually, it's more like the first. The justice knows that their servers are not here, they are not stupid. They just want Google Brazil to talk their headoffice and ask this information, they are telling them this for a long time.

Google Brazil is Google too, just like Microsoft Brazil is Microsoft, and Yahoo Brazil is Yahoo. It's just not in the USA. If they can open a office here to sell services and send the money back to the USA, they surely can handle the legal obligations about their company here.

Re:fair play and leverage

[pembo13]

Tru tru, I think your more paranoid than I, as I didn't think of that. Although I would like to believe the forensic scientists can cell ... somehow.

Re:fair play and leverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it would be waaaaaaay too hard for Google Brazil to place a phone call or send an email to someone at Google USA asking for the information. It's much easier to force the Brazillian law enforcement to contact US law enforcement so that they can deal with Google USA...

Fact is, if Google USA was simply willing to give up the information, it would have already done so. But they've probably been advised by council that it's somehow against their privacy policy to do so.

Re:fair play and leverage

[Anonymous Coward]

> they have common carrier status.. as far as i am concerned websites should have it too as they > don't discriminate on who can view it.. (if they do then they lose that status)

So be sure your pages render in IE, Firefox, Opera, et al, so you're not accused of controlling who can view your site.

A-C

Re:fair play and leverage

[Kadin2048]

This ignores the fact that the "branch office," while it may seem like a limb of a greater organization, is legally a separate entity, and thus has no basis to request the information from Google USA's servers.

Or, to put it the other way, the sysadmins at Google USA, who presumably have a policy of "we don't disclose data to anyone without a warrant," might get an email from someone in the Brazilian office, but they're not going to just email them a ton of confidential data. They want a warrant, valid in the U.S., because that's where the data is.

Let's assume for a moment that the folks at the server farm in California just sent data out to any Google field office that requested it. Would you want them to disclose anything in the database on the strength of a request from Google Beijing? How about Google Tehran? You can see that the policy starts to get very slippery. Rather than try and deal with and validate requests for information from every corner of the globe, they probably just have a policy that if you want them to turn over data, you have to get a warrant in the U.S. This saves them from being roasted alive by Congress for turning over data (stored in the U.S.) in response to queries from foreign governments; not to mention the loss of public opinion.

The Brazilians could probably obtain the information through diplomatic channels -- it's not as though the United States and Brazil are unfriendly. They could probably have gone through normal means (had someone from their embassy contact the State Department) and gotten a judge in the United States to issue a warrant ordering Google to turn over the information from its U.S.-based servers for use in the investigation. We probably do all sorts of cooperative drug-interdiction with them already, so there's certainly a legal and law enforcement framework for this. It probably would have been faster than what they've been trying to do, which is try and find some legal basis of obtaining information stored in the United States under Brazilian law.

There are reasons that in centuries past, we came up with a whole legal framework for this sort of thing, as it applied to physical goods and people. It's called extradition. At the moment, technology has outpaced law, and we don't have those sorts of agreements for data-sharing and discovery (although INTERPOL could be seen as an early effort in that direction). Eventually, this is going to change, but the Brazilian government is going about things in the wrong way.

Re:fair play and leverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should a website that tries to stop illegal activity lose that status?

Because by removing illegal content, you've taken it upon yourself to be responsible for the content that passes through your website. Or do you think that websites that remove copyrighted materials but don't remove child porn should be allowed to keep the common carrier status (ironically enough, the DMCA has allowed this situation)? The law has been written to only allow an all or none situation to prevent having to deal with intent; otherwise, everyone could claim some level of common-carrier status to try to avoid responsibility (I wasn't driving the get-away car; I was just a common-carrier for friends).

Re:fair play and leverage

[Qzukk]

You call that paranoid? I call that "too much trust in the cops". Try living in Houston. It ain't paranoia when they ARE out to get you.

Google won't prevail here

[neonprimetime]

Early this year, Google successfully defended a subpoena from the US Department of Justice to hand over its data in another child porn investigation case.

Brazil is by no means a totalitarian regime but its privacy laws differ from those of the US.

If a Brazilian judge decides that Google must hand over data or pay a hefty fine and shut down its local operations then it sets a dangerous precedent for Google.

I don't think Brazil's legal system is as porn friendly as the US legal system. I bet ya that Google will have to hand over something in this case, or risk being tossed out of Brazil.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that the U.S. wanted broad data about thousands of random users and Brazil wants the I.P. addresses of a few specific profile holders. If this were in the U.S. they would give it up with sopeana as long as the requests were specific. My bet is they really don't have the information like they say.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[gid13]

Heh, the country with a sex tourism trade that will probably have a penis-shaped museum certainly couldn't be more porn-friendly than the fundamentalist US. Regardless, being porn-friendly does not equate to being child-porn-friendly.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[MikkoApo]

And don't forget where "Brazilian waxing" originates.

Excellent point about the difference between porn-friendly & child-porn-friendly.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Excellent point about the difference between porn-friendly & child-porn-friendly.

Is that really a useful distinction? I mean, there aren't any places that belong in the latter group.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[Anonymous Coward]

Thailand.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[cursorx]

I don't think Brazil's legal system is as porn friendly as the US legal system.

It's far, far more porn friendly than the US legal system. Brazil doesn't give a damn about porn as long as it does not involve anyone under 18. There's no Miller Test in Brazilian law. What we're talking about here is Orkut being used for drug and child pornography transactions and racism (which is prohibited under the Brazilian Constitution - there's no free speech here as far as racism is concerned). Brazilian prosecutors want information about Orkut users involved in those crimes handed over. Google only wants to do that through Google US, which is very smart of them. This case has nothing to do with regular porn, and even the child porn component is minor. Not even racism is really an issue, what's bugging the prosecutors is people buying drugs over Orkut. It happens quite a lot.

I doubt Google is going to be thrown out of Brazil, and they're being very smart about this whole deal. Subpoenaing Google US is a bureaucratic nightmare for the prosecutors, much more of a hassle than subpoenaing Google Brasil. It's not a matter of a simple e-mail or phone call, there are procedures to be followed, and we're not used to having to deal with said procedures in bulk. A few of them a month is fine, but hundreds of probable crimes requiring us to directly deal with Google US is kind of a headache.

Google knows what it's doing, folks.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[Anonymous Coward]

...or, more accurately, the Brazilians risk losing Google as a service.

Google doesn't need Brazil.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not just about child porn but several other crimes like drug traffic, racial crimes and others. What the Brazillian justice is trying to do is simply stop the abusing of several communities in Orkut.

For instance the federal police was able to track down and arrest more than 50 mid class young drug dealers because of the non-sense party of drugs being arranged at some communities. People cant just expect that authorities at some level would start to understand a little about the Internet and start arresting people for commiting crimes behind the safety net of the information not being hosted in their local country.

As far as the office in Brazil, they are in big trouble because the amount that they are subject to pay is not to continue the operation and settle the problem. In fact they can be fined and have the close the office.

If that will be effective ? Probably not. If for some business reason its not worth to keep the brazilian office, I'm sure that they will close it and go somewhere else.

Re:Google won't prevail here

[mingbrasil]

Well, I don't think it will matter. Let's say that Brasil does shut off Google Brasil, since Orkut is part of Google Orkut will still be there, the Brasilian goverment still won't be able to get any porn information from Orkut.

If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

... they'll be hurting Brazil a lot more than they'll be hurting Google.

Archibald Buttle

[Reverend528]

Google Brazil should be careful. Before they turn anyone over to the ministry of information, they should make sure it's the right man and not just some typo.

Re:If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ..

[Nicopa]

Really? It would just create a big market oportunity for a local search engine to appear and compete. And I'd exchange all the flashy-search-engines of the world for a single child abuse less any time.

The solution is simple really

[NeuroAcid]

Don't store the data in the first place.

Re:The solution is simple really

[ShieldW0lf]

It's simpler than that. Just make it all totally public.

Re:The solution is simple really

[bitkari]

Unfortunately even if they wanted to choose not to store the data, they may be compelled to by law.

Several governments either have laws, or are introducing laws that require Telcos, ISPs and the like to retain data usually under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.

Ladies & Gentlemen, set your tinfoil hats to stun.

Re:The solution is simple really

[NeuroAcid]

You know, I never thought of that. And I probably never will again. But before you go around telling people this is your solution to this and many other problems, think about this. Because there are a plethora of laws out there, and even more ways of interpretting them, everyone is basically a criminal already. There isn't one person in this country that hasn't committed some crime or another, be it jay walking, dancing in a bar without a cabert license(nyc), littering, etc. So making everything public would be great if everything wasn't illegal.

Re:The solution is simple really

[fahrbot-bot]

There isn't one person in this country that hasn't committed some crime or another, be it jay walking, dancing in a bar without a cabert license (nyc)...

To clear, must the individual or the bar have the cabert license? 'Cause I heard that "life is a cabert" and a license would seem to confuse the issue...

Re:The solution is simple really

[NeuroAcid]

It is the bar that needs the license. Without one, dancing is illegal for anyone in the bar. If a place got busted for this, do the police arrest the dancers too? That I'm not sure. Knowing police these days, I woulnd't put it past them. It was a bad example I guess but I think I made my point. One need only look at all the blue laws on the books to find other examples.

Re:The solution is simple really

[fahrbot-bot]

It is the bar that needs the license. Without one, dancing is illegal for anyone in the bar... It was a bad example...

No, I thought is was a good, however absurd, example. Adults and their crazy laws! Pretty soon, people won't be allowed to bring beverages onto planes...

Re:The solution is simple really

[ShieldW0lf]

You're right. And as long as we all continue to participate in the charade where the laws are reasonable and we're innocent and keep our heads down, those laws will continue. As long as the Ivory Tower folks are the only one with access to the data and they can keep us all from wanting to face these retarded laws, they can freely choose to arrest anyone at any time they wish.

This is how police states are formed.

I don't understand...

[sheph]

...why they would have a problem releasing that information even from the US. I'd hate to be the American company protecting child pornography. Could be very bad for the image. Not to mention the stock price.

Re:I don't understand...

[Rob T Firefly]

What happens the next time they want the same info for some other reason? Start off playing the "think of the children" card, and things will be much easier when a foreign power wants the info for a person who is wanted for being suspected of a lesser crime, for criticising their government on the Internet, or for being someone who a corrupt official doesn't like.

Please note I have no idea what the Brazilian government is like, and the above examples may be off base for them (at least presently,) so this isn't meant to be a dig at the Brazilian administration. My point is, there are now and will always be governments out there who would really enjoy the chance to extract info on certain people through nervous US-based Internet companies.

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could use our highly evolved brains and decide these things on a case by case basis? So that way if we help with a child porn case today we won't be stuffing Jews into ovens next week? Ya think? It's not *that* hard to draw lines deliniating the crimes worthy of data extradition (for lack of a better term) and those where we should tell the foriegn power to pound sand.

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens the next time they want the same info for some other reason?

You say no!

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, Law tends to work with precedents - not in a "case by case" vacuum.

Re:I don't understand...

[BalanceOfJudgement]

...why they would have a problem releasing that information even from the US. I'd hate to be the American company protecting child pornography. Could be very bad for the image. Not to mention the stock price.

What you've just done is invoke the "think of the children" free pass to the US Constitution (and every other political system in the world based on individual freedom, of which there are several dozen).

This is exactly the tactic used by so many in power to get their foot in the door of eliminating privacy: Choose an issue that causes anyone who disagrees to look like a criminal, and get people to voluntarily give up their freedoms and privacy. Now that you have a precedent set for getting access to that information, you can do it for basically any reason - and abuse of power is just a step away.

I don't trust anyone enough to give them that kind of power in the first place.

There's a saying, and I will paraphrase because I don't remember the exact words..

"I would rather one guilty man remain free than compromise the freedoms of a thousand."

See, that's what so few people understand - the price of freedom is eternal vigilance (Thomas Jefferson). What this means is that freedom is actually an incredibly difficult social system to maintain, and still retain justice and order. But it is that struggle, that effort, that makes the ends so worthwhile - it is the very definition of honor and integrity.

And that is why so many people find freedom so frustrating [read: people we elect to leadership]... they know they don't deserve it.

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

And if all you need is to be a certain type of case before you're given the keys to the records room, there will surely be an upswing in investigations of that type of case.

Re:I don't understand...

[DieNadel]

Google should form an Ethics Committee and this committee should decide if they want to release that information or fight in court for upholding it.

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note I have no idea what the Brazilian government is like, and the above examples may be off base for them (at least presently,) so this isn't meant to be a dig at the Brazilian administration.

Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the current administration, which is generally enlightened and has more serious stuff to think about like, say, the economy. The part of the government that requested that information runs pretty much independently from anything else, as long as they follow the law (and that's the idea, that they wouldn't be intimidated by elected politicians). That works well, except that sometimes they feel lonely and have to begin some serious media whoring, which lasts for a few months and then peters away inconclusively.

This is what is going to happen here. They don't have a legal leg to stand on, and they are trying to beat Google by intimidation. They won't succeed, just like the American government could not get Google's logs.

Re:I don't understand...

[gevil]

The law in US works by precedents. The law over here in Brasil is based on the european law. I really think that google brasil telling the government that they wont release the data because they cant is bullshit. Google Brasil was created because they thought that the Orkut business was soo large over here that we "deserved" a local branch. I really love google products, and I am a Google zealot, and privacy is really important, but the way orkut looks like, its like the place for criminals to get together an plan things up. Its something really happening just over here, as the us orkut community is scarce, and you really dont get the point. The Brasilian internet users is the 5th of the world, and growing faster. I really thought the slashdot community were more globally minded.

Re:I don't understand...

[Riverman2]

You don't understand the difference between freedom and privacy. They aren't interchangable. Are you trying to say people have a right to look at child porn? Or even that people have a right to allow minors access to porn? Saying "I am over the age of 18" never worked when you were 14 and wanted a porno mag from 7-eleven, why should it work on the internet? These questions haven't been addressed yet.

Personally I don't think naked women should pop up on my screen without credit card information first. That's what's been happening lately, too. I visit a site looking for cheap computer hardware, and I see porno banners. Free porn shouldn't be a click away for any minor, like it is right now. There are a lot of you on Slashdot who think the internet is better as total anarchy, for ideological reasons, but you're not thinking of OTHER PEOPLE, let alone "the children". What does privacy really get you, anyways? Denial of service attacks, child porn, spam.... haven't you thought this through?

Your inspirational quotes on "freedom" really have nothing to do with this. Wouldn't you still consider yourself a free man if you had to jump through hoops in order to look at porn?

Re:I don't understand...

[madcow_bg]

> "I would rather one guilty man remain free than compromise the freedoms of a thousand."
Actually, the saying goes:
I would rather have 1000 guilty free than one innoscent in jail.

The americans once fought for their freedom, albeit so many years ago. They should be reminded that safety is only a PART of freedom. Besides, that is what GWB says all the time, that the middle-eastern people should suffer to get freedom. While I personally hate the way he uses that, I agree 100%.

Re:I don't understand...

[Achromatic1978]

Start off playing the "think of the children" card

All other things aside, this is a bit of a misnomer - it's a far cry from some hypothetical, vague and probably specious handwaving "it'll damage and warp their fragile little minds", to "actual child pornography and prostitution" - I have seen adverts on profiles and forums on Orkut offering up preteen children.

Re:I don't understand...

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Are you trying to say people have a right to look at child porn? Or even that people have a right to allow minors access to porn?

That's what logicians call a "Loaded question." While not a direct logical fallacy, it is still intellectually dishonest.

Were I to answer "No", I'm removing the teeth from my argument. If I answer "Yes", you make me appear terribly immoral.

So let's throw away such questions, shall we, and get to the real issue:

There are a lot of you on Slashdot who think the internet is better as total anarchy, for ideological reasons, but you're not thinking of OTHER PEOPLE, let alone "the children".

No, that's exactly who we're thinking of: ALL of the people - not just the ones the police want to catch. What we're saying is, find a way to catch them that doesn't require (or lead to, by precedent) trampling the rights of everyone else. And yes, that's a hard job to do. And yes, sometimes that means guilty people go free. But freedom was never a guarantee that the police's job would be easy - in fact it's hard for a reason: it's rather difficult to have freedom of any sort in a police state.

What does privacy really get you, anyways?

I take it you subscribe to the logical fallacy that "If you have nothing to hide, you'll share everything you know"? Because your question is the exact same statement, just using different words. In fact, I have thought this through QUITE well - it seems to be you that hasn't wondered what kind of world you'll end up in if governments have free access to anything and everything they ever wanted to know about anyone.

Saying "I am over the age of 18" never worked when you were 14 and wanted a porno mag from 7-eleven, why should it work on the internet? These questions haven't been addressed yet.

You're right, they haven't, at least not fully. Alot of people ARE trying to address them though - for example, there are several dozen adult verification services on the internet that are used by the legitimate porn industry. That does highlight a marked difference between the internet and the real world, though - regulation (and recognition) of that kind of stuff is much easier in the real world. You don't drive down a neighborhood street and suddenly get attacked by pictures of naked women.

And that's going to be a problem on the internet, for a long time. I wouldn't say it's an unsolveable problem but it's certainly a difficult one.

Wouldn't you still consider yourself a free man if you had to jump through hoops in order to look at porn?

When you realize my post had nothing to do with porn (child or otherwise), you'll understand my argument.

Re:I don't understand...

[Riverman2]

Oh I understand your post quite well. You're afraid of the Orwellian nightmare. Stalinism, fascism. Stuff like that.

The problem is your opposition is ideological in nature. It is meant to provide balance, not to be adhered to literally. When I ask you a direct question, and you can't answer it because of ho-hum philosophical reason, it makes you look bad, like you're not even thinking. You're entrenched in this ideology. When you try and blend an argument about privacy in with an argument for freedom, with no clear distinction between the two, you are making some sort of fallacy, you tell me. You may as well start preaching about any doomsday scenario, overpopulation, global warming, the likelihood of an asteroid impact. On the other hand, it's only a matter of time before someone takes advantage of certain "freedoms" to trade child porn, or commit mass murder. When the government; the only people TO be trusted with all the information, try to do anything about these crimes, you scream some irrational horror story. I always feel like I have to remind you guys that the government is people like you and me. In this country, anybody can be part of the government, and behold the responsibility. My wife works for the government, she adheres to privacy laws. My best friend does surveillance for the Air Force, NSA, he can't even tell me what his job entails, or he goes to jail!

I'll tell you, this from my own head. Capitalism and fascism don't mix. One eventually takes over the other. People aren't productive when they're living in a vice. We proved that during the cold war, it's been proven time and time again throughout history, the Renaissance for example. Morality is subservient to the bottom line in this day and age, and there is a parallell between capitalism/freedom and anti-capitalism/fascism/totalitarianism. Capitalist society is not the likely breeding ground for this sort of thing.

Re:I don't understand...

[Riverman2]

Besides, that is what GWB says all the time, that the middle-eastern people should suffer to get freedom.

What's more, it should be forced upon them, if for nobody elses benefit than our own. Whoever said the middle east wasn't "ready" for democracy was an idiot.

Re:I don't understand...

[BalanceOfJudgement]

The problem is your opposition is ideological in nature. It is meant to provide balance, not to be adhered to literally. When I ask you a direct question, and you can't answer it because of ho-hum philosophical reason, it makes you look bad, like you're not even thinking. You're entrenched in this ideology. When you try and blend an argument about privacy in with an argument for freedom, with no clear distinction between the two, you are making some sort of fallacy, you tell me.

In another post on this topic, not one directed at you, I addressed that:

The question really is not one of an individual legal case. If the demand for information would be always and forever limited to this case I would say, more power to you, give up the information.

Unfortunately, actions like these establish that irritating little fellow called "precedent." Once authorities in Brazil and other countries realize they can strong arm a company into turning over personal information (whether based on the child porn pretext or otherwise, regardless of how solid that pretext is), you can kiss privacy goodbye.

My concern is not ideological in nature, although that's the source - it's not that I'm afraid the door will be opened.. it's that I know it will. I want these people caught.. I just want the authorities to do it in a way that doesn't open the door for governments to lay claim to loads of personal data that was previously off limits to them.

On the other hand, it's only a matter of time before someone takes advantage of certain "freedoms" to trade child porn, or commit mass murder.

They already take advantage of those freedoms. And people always will.

When the government; the only people TO be trusted with all the information,

See, this is when I started to realize where you're really coming from: you trust the government way more than I do. How can they really be trusted with that information when in the past few months alone, the personal data of millions of Americans has been easily stolen from government computers not once, but several times?

But it's more than that - even if the government could find a way to perfectly protect the information they have (and I'm not convinced they can), you'd still have to trust those people way more than you trust anyone else. You're exactly right, they're people like you and me - fallible, like you and me, but worse, almost everyone can be corrupted by power of any sort, and you have to be especially wary of that because again, you're exactly right - anybody can be part of the government, like certain Homeland Security officers arrested for child pornography.

And let me make myself perfectly clear... Nobody can be trusted with all the information. And nobody should be. It should be spread out alot of different places, and no single entity or small group of entities should have all of it.

My wife works for the government, she adheres to privacy laws. My best friend does surveillance for the Air Force, NSA, he can't even tell me what his job entails, or he goes to jail!

I'm a government contractor, I work with government folk all the time and I also have a security clearance, so I know what having such a clearance entails. Unfortunately, enforcement of the secrecy pledge only goes so far as the government's willingness to do so, and we've seen plenty of instances where someone who should have been prosecuted, wasn't, because they're so well connected (i.e., STILL nobody has been charged for outing Valerie Plame [spelling?]).

I'm not so much worried about nameless workers in a government office, really; few people will ever have any interest in spilling secrets about people's personal lives or state secrets. Most state secrets are incredibly boring. I worry more about well-connected, corrupt politicians and thef

Re:I don't understand...

[Riverman2]

Yes, you take 3 people for example, they are all involved in a top secret spying program. One of them says to the others "Hey, we should use this for our own financial gain!". What do you think the odds are that one of the other two goes to the authorities? Accounting is one profession that has been good at keeping people honest (maybe not perfect). Accountants have access to information that could make them rich, and the feds have ways of identifying insider trading by harvesting information. Some people may be profiting, feds or sneaky accountants, but it's a necessary component of society. Some company explodes and the feds dig into people making huge trades before and after the event. How is that any different than investigators who identify a strange unique word people are using to trade child pornography on the internet, and they dig into everyone who's searched on that word? Is that something you or I should fear? The precedent is already there, forget about precedent for a moment. Possible alternatives, and their effectiveness?

I pointed this out elsewhere.

[krell]

"Don't store the data in the first place"

I pointed it out elsewhere that there is no good reason for Google to retain personal data. Several zealous Googlenauts came back and explained how this "enhances the user experience".

A precedent about to be set?

[RagingFuryBlack]

From the Reuters Article:

In its request, Google said its Orkut pages are housed on its server in the United States and that Brazilian authorities should request that information from its headquarters, not its Brazilian unit.

Could the Brasillian government start knocking at the US DoJ's door asking for a subpeona for the data on the servers inside the USA, or will this lead to another fishing expedition from the US DoJ in MySpace, Orkut, Facebook, Ect instead of google searches?

The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[knightmad]

Orkut is the most used and popular social networking site in my home country (Brazil), and its popularity can't be explained with words or analogies. (But I will try anyway ;) )
Not having an Orkut account there (among teenagers and young adults from the middle/upper class) is something like not having an IM account or a cellphone, there are more than 5 Million users only from Brasil there, popular enough to force Google to provide a Brazilian Portuguese translation of the site, and to make Google to open a subsidiary there, to take advantage of this unexpected success.

The downside of the site is that brazilian people are very open and trusting, and the "invite-only" aspect of the site incentived from the very beggining the users to put their real data there, like friends, habits, pictures, etc (something similar to MySpace in the U.S.), and that attracted all kind of problems concerning to racism, gang rivaltry and child harassment. Not that it wouldn't happen in the real world anyway (Brasil has a lot of problems), it only moved to a different scenario, the internet.

As it is based on the concept "Communities" (similar to groups on yahoo groups), a lot of groups with dubious/illegal subjects popped up, groups endorsing racism, neo-nazi propaganda, child abuse and other illegal activities, crimes were planned and the results posted and commented in some of thoses threads. When the perpetrator was stupid enough to use his real information (and believe me, it happens every once in a while, stupid punks, althought it would be a violation of their TOS not provide real information heh), the police had no problem to find the criminal and prosecute. But when they hide behind fake profiles, the police has no other option other than subpoena the information to try to find the culprit.

Don't let the hype make you think this is another case of a country trying to "think of the children", Orkut has became a place where crime (or apology to crime, as it is also illegal in Brasil) has became a major problem and police and the justice system are having to deal with it adequatedly. (For the ones who didn't got it, I'm brazilian and English is not my first language, so sorry for any eventual mistake)

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[knightmad]

Aw, I forgot one thing. The general tone of most of the replies is that Brazilian judicial system is trying to strongarm google in some web search related issue, what is not true. They are trying to obligate google to comply with a subpoena on its children site, Orkut, regarding to the identity (at least useful data) of a suspect. Nothing that different from what *AA does to find file sharers, but on this case, real world real criminal data is beng subpoena'd by the real law enforcement. Nothing to see here, move along

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[QCompson]

or apology to crime, as it is also illegal in Brasil

Seems like you're going to generate a lot more crime when you make it a crime to justify or defend a crime. Words shouldn't be illegal.

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[knightmad]

Lol, damn, I was trapped by a false cognate. I meant "incitement".

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[IamTheRealMike]

I'm not sure what the Brazilian police are wanting here. IP addresses? Botnets are so widespread now that anybody can claim they know nothing about this, that their PC was hijacked and turned into an anonymous proxy for criminals. And how to disprove it? Bots are designed to not be found, so it's rather difficult to prove they're lying by not finding one.

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[aralin]

I will try to add to this. Orkut is so popular in Brazil that everyone else stopped using it. It is not even possible. You create a group for people from Prague, the capital of Czech Republic, way on a different continent, and 90% members somehow happen to be from Brazil. Now you create a group for alumni of the university in the same city. Guess what? Over half of the members are from Brazil again. I cannot say how many people asked Google for a simple feature: Show me everyone, except for from Brazil.

BTW I have nothing against Brazilians that are a great bunch and the girls are just gorgeous. They are just not really playing by the rules or leaving anything alone in Orkut. I mean, I have set my languages to English, German, Russian, Czech and Slovak. Do you see Portuguese there? Neither do I. So why would you write to me in Portuguese all the time? Heh?

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[identity0]

I've never understood why they don't just build different sites for people of different languages - duh, people who don't speak a common language aren't going to be talking to each other anyways. I'm biligual, but it wouldn't bother me to have two sets of friends lists or whatever orkut uses.

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[Pow.R Toc.H]

Agreed. I'm brasilian and I've left Orkut because most of brasilian users didn't respected the rules of most non-portuguese speaking communities. Most of the communities I took place were in english, and guess what - it was just a matter of time for people appearing and discussing subjects in portuguese. Bah.

I don't discuss today as I did 10 years ago, but what the heck. Usenet is still alive.

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[rbanffy]

Hi.

I see the problem as Brazilian authorities appear to be refusing to follow proper conduct. I agree that if the servers are in the US, then the laws that apply to those crimes is the US law and Brazilian authorities have no jurisdiction.

I think it should be solved, instead, by the Foreign Relations Office, that could forward the request either to Google itself or to the local authorities - I am not sure if it would be the FBI or the DOJ. Both would be more than happy to help and, IIRC, they could even ask - and be granted - extradition of non-Brazilian citizens to the US so they could be prosecuted there. This is, of course, about the child-porn problems. Speech is more protected in the US, so, it should be safe to use a US-based server to express illegal opinions about such things as racism or neo-nazis. The server is in the US, so Brazilian laws should not apply. Not that I approve racism or neo-nazis - it's a matter of jurisdiction.

OTOH, I am quite sure any employee of the Brazilian Google office that could have access to the requested data would be committing a crime in wherever-in-the-US the servers are by giving the requested information without proper authorization to foreign (from the server point-of-view) authorities and would face possible arrest upon setting foot on the US.

As it is configured now, it looks more like a pissing contest between Google and the Brazilian authorities. I side with Google, in that the data is not under Brazilian jurisdiction and Brazilian authorities are refusing to follow proper procedures for the case.

And yes, I am Brazilian and live in Brazil.

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[cursorx]

Apology to crime is a seldom invoked crime. Defense is very, very easy under the free speech clause of the Brazilian Constitution (apology to crime is one of the relics of our ancient Penal Code, which has gone through many constitutional changes, two of the constitutions involved being "constitutions" only in the nominal sense - more like instruments of totalitarian regimes).

Prosecutors don't usually care about that crime, unless it involves apology to organized crime institutions (like the PCC - Primeiro Comando da Capital, a terrorist organization that has been burning public transportation buses in São Paulo and killing dozens of cops in orchestrated simultaneous events), and even then, rarely. The apology to crime crime is only used to intimidate people with no knowledge of Brazilian criminal law.

Journalists like to mention it, too. A lot.

Re:The devil is not as ugly as it seems

[madcow_bg]

> illegal opinions
Illegal opinions are a great danger to society.
                                  Signed by: the Chinese government.

Re:If it's on the internet...

[alx5000]

I don't know where to start.

First of all, not everything you can tack up on a wall is legal. Child porn, for example.
And not everything you can get on such a wall is legal either. Child porn, for example.

No offence, but I cannot really express how blatantly stupid seems to me what you just wrote.

Google telling the truth?

[Captain Perspicuous]

Since the data on the Google platform is mirrored around the globe for performance reasons, I'm not so sure Google is telling the truth here. I'm pretty sure the regular Google web index is mirrored in some Brazil data centre, and with Orkut having its major market share there too, I would assume that this data that is requested is already there, too.

Re:Google telling the truth?

[lcam]

You mean that information might be "proxied" at some brazilian data center?

A proxy is a type of caching system to accelerate delivery of frequently requested data. It is by no means a permanent storage system.

Information may not even be stored in the proxy's file system in a way humans can understand/navigate. But rather in a way to optimized for the machine to find and retrieve information.

If a request for a resouces not found in the cached occurs that information is retrieved from it's original source; it isn't always clear if such information served was cached in the proxy or not.

The first link you posted only suggests mirroring for data reduncancy, performed with RAID tecnology to prevent data loss due to hardware failures.

I Remember Orkut

[Schezar]

Orkut was amazing... for about two weeks. I loved it. Our entire friend group jumped in, started making communities, and generally became very active. There was lots of discussion, and everyone was very happy with it.

Then, the Brazilians came.

My inbox slowly flooded with Portugese spam, mostly asking to be my friend. All of the communities I frequented filled with Portugese spam, mostly asking me to join other communities. They ignored the "language" preferences on communitues and overran practically every non-Portugese group. They constantly spammed one another. Many times, it was just two people having a private conversation with one another, but for whatever godforsaken reason sending this conversation to EVERYONE ON THEIR FRIEND LIST AND EVERYONE ON ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS' FRIEND LISTS!

They completely took Orkut over in the space of a month. It was impossible to use the service if you didn't speak Portugese. They'd email me constantly asking me to join their friend lists and communities. It got so bad I had to remove all of my contact information from the site.

It's not that they used their native language. I'm cool with that. You're free on the Internet to speak whatever language you want. The problem was they ignored and trampled everyone else, filling English-only boards and spamming constantly.

That's my Orkut story. Seeing it in the news again reminded me of the potential, and of how annoying Brazilians can be online ;^)

I wonder if anyone outside of Brazil even uses Orkut anymore.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[mosburger]

I wonder if what you experienced is exactly how it feels to be a non-English speaker using the internet on any other English-dominated site. :-/

Re:I Remember Orkut

[giazzon]

Just change "portuguese" for "english" and "english" for native_language and we can go back several years in history..

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if anyone outside of Brazil even uses Orkut anymore.

Hell, I am Brazilian and also gave up!

The problem is that, really, Orkut has an innocent design that is mostly defenseless to spam. Spam is spam, and the fact that I can understand what is written on it just makes it worse, not better.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Mattintosh]

Screw you! The internets was written in English! We own it and you suck! You foreigners get off... err... on my lawn and cut my grass!

Sincerely,
The U.S.A.

(Notice for the humor impaired: This post is a joke.)

Re:I Remember Orkut

[RLiegh]

Who cares? That's about like my whining about "how it feels" to be a non-japanese speaker on 2ch. Your question would be a lot more poignant if you were talking about english speakers invading non-english forums.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing it in the news again reminded me of the potential, and of how annoying Brazilians can be online ;^)
Reminds me of a period on IRC when there were Brazilians who were regular pains in the ass. Actually, the same happened for various cultures after they discovered IRC. Damned annoying. Every year, there'd be a new group of troublemakers and a different language barrier.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if what you experienced is exactly how it feels to be a non-English speaker using the internet on any other English-dominated site.

There is a difference between an immigrant feeling overwhelmed by the language of the country he moved to and a native feeling overwhelmed by an influx of immigrants.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, I ran an irc server at the time. We'd have people come into several of our chans and just say "I AM BRAZIL" over and over again. We ended up banning *.br from the server.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Screw you! The internets was written in English! We own it and you suck! You foreigners get off... err... on my lawn and cut my grass!

Sincerely,
The U.S.A.

And take away jobs from responsible American youth?

When will you think of the children?!?!

(Notice for the humor impaired: This post was also a joke.)

Re:I Remember Orkut

[muftak]

foreigners have their own countries, maybe they should get their own internet!

Re:I Remember Orkut

[networkBoy]

Notice to the joke impaired, us humor impared folks didn't think that was too funny.

Carry on
-nB

Re:I Remember Orkut

[BalanceOfJudgement]

For the record, I don't buy into the argument that immigrants take jobs away from Americans, so I apologize if I offended any sensibilities. The joke part had more to do with the current topic and the 'think of the children' part.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[fsapo]

I just hope that Google doesnt hand over the data, and the brazilian government just shutdown orkut for good in brazil.

I m brazilian, but i hate this freaking thing.. and when people here ask me if i have an orkut account i say "no, and i dont want one even if you pay me".

I dont know whats so interesting in this orkut thing, brazilians by nature love gossips, so they use orkut just to talk about someone elses life, whats so interesting in gossips?

Re:I Remember Orkut

[fmoliveira]

English-speakers do it the same way. There are just fewer non-english forums able to attract them as the opposed.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF, gossip? what are you, gay? wake up, orkut is THE online tool for getting laid in brazil!

Re:I Remember Orkut

[rite_m]

Things have changed since you dumped orkut. There has been a rise of Indian and Pakistani users, not to mention american users (probably indian and pakistanis residing in USA). Orkut has taken steps to prevent spams and phishing, and they have become faster. I recommend you give it a second chance.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Anonymous Coward]

Your recipe for time travel seems to be lacking some important ingredients. Namely,

a DeLorean,
a flux capacitor,
and plutonium purchased from your favourite Libyan nationalists.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Canordis]

I'm Brazilian. I gave up on Orkut for the same reasons: Excessive spam, inane discussion, idiotic communities, and, generally speaking, MySpacification. I'm going to sincerely apologize on behalf of my people for what happened to Orkut users.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Anonymous Coward]

Como você se sente quando um chato do Brasil fala com você e te chama de babaca? Acho melhor você aprender a falar chinês antes que eles dominem a Internet. hehehehe

Re:I Remember Orkut

[/dev/trash]

Racist.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Baloo Ursidae]

I'm not sure that really works like you expect given that even most countries passports now use English instead of French for the common denominator language.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[Pope]

Sounds rather like what the Dutch did to Usenet.

Re:I Remember Orkut

[namekuseijin]

There really are completely out-of-reality nuts literally living in Orkut here. Most of my friends and family members use it and share futile photos and conversations in tons of stupid groups. Over here it's Orkut and MSN.

I must be the black sheep. I live in Slashdot instead and use Linux... :P

Re:If it's on the internet...

[giazzon]

It's not that simple. People are used to create a kind of a second life in Orkut-like websites. They use it to deal, explore and (why not?) have fun with their "deep & personal & non-acceptable" feelings. It goes from food to sex (sometimes both) and it can be as simple as a star trek addiction. But you have the extremely dark side of it, in this case the child porn. Google has the ability to unveil each and every single Orkut user, including what they use to search for in Google Search. Child porn is a crime. Those involved should have their privacy broken. But that will make clear to everyone that their secret passion for licking foot toes can also be unveiled. Will Google allow that?

Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[hummassa]

Calling that a "Child porn investigation case" is one of the most misleading statements I've ever heard. It was a "porn on the 'net fishing expedition."

Ok, can you elaborate on that? Normally, the cases where the prosecutors ask Google for Orkut user info normally involve child porn or drug distribution, and at least one case involved "virginity auctions" of ten-year-olds.
Disclaimer: I am married to a District Attorney, and I worked for two years as a paralegal in a D.A.'s office.
Now, from the article you pointed to:

"We have obeyed all the judicial orders that requested we remove undue content. Some orders demanded that we turn over user information for investigation and we complied," Nicole Wong, a spokeswoman for Google Inc., said at the time.
In anticipation of the complaint, Google's Brazilian unit petitioned a judge on Monday to name an independent specialist to determine whether it is withholding user information.
In its request, Google said its Orkut pages are housed on its server in the United States and that Brazilian authorities should request that information from its headquarters, not its Brazilian unit.
In a statement, Google's Brazilian unit said it filed the request to show that despite the "attacks from the prosecutor's office," it does not possess a data bank of its Orkut communities or any information about those users.

Bullshit and double bullshit. People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US. And Brasilian prosecutors have no authority over Google US, but they do have authority over Google Brasil, so Google Brasil is the logical "person" to ask for data they DO have access to. And even if nobody in Google Brasil has access to such data, they can ask Google US for the data -- as they already did when "hate speech" communities were taken off Orkut.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[DoorFrame]

The fishing expedition thing was referring to the older incident with Google in the US, not the current child porn thing.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Calling that a "Child porn investigation case" is one of the most misleading statements I've ever heard. It was a "porn on the 'net fishing expedition."

Ok, can you elaborate on that? Normally, the cases where the prosecutors ask Google for Orkut user info normally involve child porn or drug distribution, and at least one case involved "virginity auctions" of ten-year-olds.

FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean? The GP is right--the DOJ was fishing, and expected search engines to assist in their witchhunt to support their tenous position.

People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US.
That doesn't mean that they have the right, or can be compelled, to divulge that information.

And even if nobody in Google Brasil has access to such data, they can ask Google US for the data.
Which is what was suggested that they do.

For those playing at home: we just learned why Google is hesitant to build data centers in countries that have weaker protection for freedomes than does the US.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Chris Burke]

Right, that was the case where the Admin. wanted Google to provide them with data they could mine to determine just how much adult porn was on the net that minors could hypothetically gain access to, in order to justify passing net-porn (NOT kiddie porn) legislation in the name of "protecting the children".

That's why Google was able to succesfully refuse the subpoena, because it had fuck-all to do with actual justice.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as weaker freedom, you got as much right as you do in the US as in anyother country. But if the US government asks for data on behalf of fedaral law you have more freedom because it was the American government who asked for it? You think the US government dosen't give a damn about cyber crimes? I don't think so, think twice before posting a "self centered/world" comment.
Best

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[ThiagoHP]

For those playing at home: we just learned why Google is hesitant to build data centers in countries that have weaker protection for freedomes than does the US.

In Brazil we don't have a president that does illegal wiretaps and even admits that publicly nor companies disclosing personal information about without permission nor Guantanamo, so I feel my freedoms are better respected here than in the USA. ;)

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor do we. We have an interpretation by the Supreme Court that guarantees privacy. One that may change over time (and already has begun to, in some cases).

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[StarvingSE]

Big deal. It states this in that good ol' 200+ year old document. That doesn't mean we are getting the privacy that is guaranteed. The president is tapping into our phone conversations as we speak. Random people are having their bags dumped out and scrutinized at the airports. Arab-americans are being harassed just because of their nationality.

Our privacy is a constitutional right in the US, but we don't have it. The president won't be impeached over it. Which would you rather have, actual freedom or the illusion of guarandeed freedom?

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Arivia]

Neither does the US.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[JCCyC]

In Brazil we don't have a president that does illegal wiretaps and even admits that publicly nor companies disclosing personal information about without permission nor Guantanamo, so I feel my freedoms are better respected here than in the USA. ;)

I think likewise. Now excuse me while I go pay a beer to my 19 year old friend.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[markwalling]

flying an airplane is a privlege, like driving. in my state, if you get pulled over under a suspision of dwi, and you refuse an alchohol test, you lose your privlege to drive. if you don't want your bag searched on an airplane, don't fly.

and personally, i don't care if bush is listening to my phone calls. he would probably be bored to tears.

and i'm not touching the last part, because i agree with that one. there was a study that said (don't ask me where it was, i heard it on the radio) that people decide if someone is trustworthy with in the first .1 second. i don't think it's right, but i find my self doing it too. some of the brightest people on earth aren't american, or western european, or white, etc.

*puts soap box away*

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

For those playing at home: we just learned why Google is hesitant to build data centers in countries that have weaker protection for freedomes than does the US

'than does the US' : Dude, you had me spit out my drink on my keyboard there. Great joke.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[cursorx]

Do your research. We DO have constitutionally guaranteed privacy. It's spelled out in article 5, X, under "intimacy and private life":

X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação;

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao /Constitui%C3%A7ao.htm

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[StarvingSE]

flying an airplane is a privlege, like driving. in my state, if you get pulled over under a suspision of dwi, and you refuse an alchohol test, you lose your privlege to drive. if you don't want your bag searched on an airplane, don't fly.

Would you care if cops randomly pulled you over to search your trunk, you know, just because? Maybe your make and model of car was recently used in some terrorist exploit? Driving is a priviledge, so according to your logic you shouldn't care at all. Just don't drive!

and personally, i don't care if bush is listening to my phone calls. he would probably be bored to tears.

You don't care, but I do and so do millions of other americans. And if I was a member of the Democratic party, I certainly would care if Bush was listening to my phone calls regarding campaign strategy.

and i'm not touching the last part, because i agree with that one. there was a study that said (don't ask me where it was, i heard it on the radio) that people decide if someone is trustworthy with in the first .1 second. i don't think it's right, but i find my self doing it too. some of the brightest people on earth aren't american, or western european, or white, etc.

Agreed.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Joe U]

Of course the US does.

Read the 9th amendment. Privacy is a fundamental right.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know about Francenildo dos Santos Costa, right? And how Palocci (Finance Minister, head of the president's last campaign, possibly the most "shielded" person in the entire government) put pressure in Caixa Federal (that's a federal bank, for those outside Brazil) to release account information that supposedly proved Fracenildo had received money to present testimony against Palocci.

Ugh, that's a long phrase... :)

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Carlos Laviola]

Instead we have a teenage constitution and historically widespread corruption on all levels of government, besides the people's distrust in all institutions from all segments of society.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's *very* different from the USA privacy. There's no "anonymous speech", for example. Someone has to be accountable for it. And the general public opinion doesn't care much about it as the USA does.

And to the parent-parent comment: May I say... Palloci e o caseiro Francenildo?

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[cursorx]

That doesn't change the fact that we do have constitutionally guaranteed privacy, in even more explicit terms than the US. While it is indeed very different from US privacy, which covers up for a lot of other rights and is much broader in scope (rights which are also present in our Constitution, by other names or means, with a few exceptions - abortion being the most blatant one), there are similarities that can't be simply dismissed as you seem to wish. It's different but it's still privacy and very relevant to the case reported by TFA, as far as fully anonymous speech is not concerned. There are crimes being commited through Orkut that do not involve speech, such as drug dealing.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[keeboo]

Instead we have a teenage constitution and historically widespread corruption on all levels of government, besides the people's distrust in all institutions from all segments of society.

Ah, our little revolutionary!
Ranting, complaining, pointing fingers at everything and everyone.

Obviously, even when other countries are wrong, Brazil is even MORE wrong.
The U.S.A. could drop an A-bomb in Sao Paulo but--hey! We are a country with homeless people, thus we deserve that!

Great mentality.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[hummassa]

People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US.

That doesn't mean that they have the right, or can be compelled, to divulge that information.

as long as Google wants to have a subsidiary in Brasil and they want to make money out of their ads in Brasilian websites, yes the prosecuters have the right to compell Google Brasil to give any information about IPs of specific criminals using their website to communicate anonymously.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a president that tries to deport a NY Times reporter that mentioned his (the president's) well-known affinity to ethanol (and not only to run cars).

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[markwalling]

i didn't say that i would be happy if i was pulled over for something stupid as an excuse, and i am not saying cops should have unrestricted power. there are still laws, and should be. Everybody knows that their bags are subject to search when you fly, and if they don't agree with that, then they can take another method of transportation.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[Carlos Laviola]

Where did you acquire such impressive mind reading skills? Is there anything wrong with the content of my post?

I know you're new here, and probably just a kid with a heart of gold, but next time you post, think out aloud: "Why am I mentioning the atomic bomb and homeless people on this reply? Does it even have anything to do with anything at all?"

I don't think Brazil is the worst country in the world, by the way, far from it. I think that position is currently occupied by North Korea, and when we even think of taking measures like the ones discussed in this story I worry of even inching closer to them.

Kindly stop chasing after my posts, by the way.

Re:Do you have _any_ evidence of that?

[rm69990]

"Ok, can you elaborate on that?"

I can. You need to learn to read and comprehend the English language better :-) He was talking about the US Government subpoena, which was about children accessing internet porn, not child pornography.

Re:If it's on the internet...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not on the same wavelength. I was attempting to point out that something's visible on the net/web, it's as if you tacked it up on the wall. The (il)legality of the information's not pertinent - if you talk about X in public, you should not expect to have any confidentiality preserved, etc.

If you want such, don't use public forums...

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive my ignorance of the US/Brazillian legal systems but why not just get a warrant from a US court? If this is a legitimate investigation and the request is narrow enough (eg: not a fishing exp), where's the problem?

Re:Huh?

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Forgive my ignorance of the US/Brazillian legal systems but why not just get a warrant from a US court? If this is a legitimate investigation and the request is narrow enough (eg: not a fishing exp), where's the problem?

Eh. The only court in the United States empowered to handle international legal disputes is the US Supreme Court.

But it takes alot to bring a case before them, so it'd probably be awhile before we saw any US legal action.

[If anyone knows differently let me know. My recollection of the US Constitution says this is so but I don't know the 200 years of intervening history that may have delegated that power to other US courts]

Re:If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ..

[crazygamer]

The parent comment was talking about child porn on the internet, not someone spanking their kid. And Google leads people to find these pictures online, so them giving up information might in fact help stop the problem.

It's OK (IMHO)

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that there is a YRO camp here that has a point when suggesting that there are problems involved when such information is given to a goverment.

But it's childporn they want to fight... not possibly-maybe-terrorism.

Re:It's OK (IMHO)

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's childporn they want to fight... not possibly-maybe-terrorism.

Ahh, yes. And we all know there are no limitations in the fight against childporn. We should invade the privacy of millions in case someone has a picture of a naked 17 year old.

Re:Karma unwhoring

[giazzon]

You should include "how to read a stupid comment from UbuntuDupe and not think he's an idiot"..

Extradition

[that_xmas]

Obviously, Brazil needs to extradite Larry Page or Eric Schmidt since they are violating Brazil's laws.

Re:Karma unwhoring

[charlesrg]

I can see that you know very little about Brazil.

Child porn...

[David Munch]

I seriously can't see why people are so much against releasing any kind of info, when the cops are going after child porn abusers.. Anyone care to elaborate?

Re:Child porn...

[justinlee37]

You have to consider that if governments knew they could get a lot of information about people's personal lives by using a false pretext, such as hunting for child pornographers (or "terrorists"), they probably would, regardless of their actual intentions. Once the information is in their hands, they're free to abuse it however they want.

Re:Child porn...

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I seriously can't see why people are so much against releasing any kind of info, when the cops are going after child porn abusers.. Anyone care to elaborate?

The question really is not one of an individual legal case. If the demand for information would be always and forever limited to this case I would say, more power to you, give up the information.

Unfortunately, actions like these establish that irritating little fellow called "precedent." Once authorities in Brazil and other countries realize they can strong arm a company into turning over personal information (whether based on the child porn pretext or otherwise, regardless of how solid that pretext is), you can kiss privacy goodbye.

But more than that, you can kiss justice and government oversight goodbye. When the government can have more information on you than YOU have on you, you know the balance of power has shifted way too far in the government's favor. That's the kind of world in which you fear your own government more than any terrorist.

I am not willing to open those kinds of doors. If that means some guilty people are harder to prosecute, that's what that means - that is the price of freedom. It makes sure that the vast majority remain free. Arguing otherwise requires arguing that the vast majority of free people are in fact criminals, which is a simply ridiculous claim to make - and if one were to rely on the claim that the law makes most people criminals (even for minor infractions like jay-walking or littering), one really should consider the idea that there's something wrong with the law.

Re:Child porn...

[the grace of R'hllor]

Not really a good progression, but the idea is there:
I seriously can't see why people are so much against releasing any kind of info, when the cops are going after rapists..
I seriously can't see why people are so much against releasing any kind of info, when the cops are going after homosexuals..
I seriously can't see why people are so much against releasing any kind of info, when the cops are going after sodomists..
I seriously can't see why people are so much against releasing any kind of info, when the cops are going after communists..
I seriously can't see why people are so much against releasing any kind of info, when the cops are going after subversives..

Re:Child porn...

[fullphaser]

because you can't use the protect the children trump card every time you don't get your way. Why do they need the data so badly? You're looking for what a select group right? and you get all the search engine data? yeah that seems really sneeky to me, while you at it, why don't we start going past just the children and include anyone else we feel is "evil"

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but we can not enforce a cultural value (for instance child pornagraphy which with all do respect is a judio christian moral theory) as a law.

Re:Karma unwhoring

[UbuntuDupe]

So squatting isn't a big issue there? There's no landless workers' movement? There's no history of hyperinflation or defaulting on bonds? No desire to learn English?

What must be done:

[rice_burners_suck]

I think the free software community needs to get everyone together, along with lots of money and resources, and create a country somewhere in the world that has free software friendly laws.

This country doesn't need to be very big. It just needs to have room for some enormous data centers. Everything would be based here, and countries like Brazil or the US would have no say in what's being hosted on the servers based there.

Then, there would be no such thing as Google having to succumb to government pressure.

Re:What must be done:

[justinlee37]

At least until the USA declares that your country is harboring cyber copyright terrorists, and you end up being totally cut off from the rest of the intarwebs due to international pressure. Actually, that sounds a little bit too complicated, they're probably more likely to just send the National Guard to stomp all over you in the name of freedom. Which is funny, because your country would consist entirely of geeks, and the National Guard would consist entirely of the jocks who used to beat you up. Then there would probably be a huge international scandal about US soldiers torturing your civilians. IE, with flushies and wedgies.

Re:What must be done:

[FsG]

It already exists, and it's called Sealand.

Re:What must be done:

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with places like Sealand is that they have no government military protection.

If a country really wanted information from the datacenter all they would have to do is invade and take over the place. Or less dramatic would be to infiltrate it with spies.

It's like setting up something like this on a ship in international waters. Sure you could do it but you would be vunerable to pirates and who knows what else. You would have no protection other than your puny own crew could provide.

Re:What must be done:

[qazsedcft]

That's why we need to set it up in space.

Re:If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ..

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ... they'll be hurting Brazil a lot more than they'll be hurting Google.

Very true. Conversely, if there's no straightforward mechanism for other countries to subpoena information from Google, that's going to hurt them in every nation in the world save one.

Re:Karma unwhoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord, you really don't know anything about Brazil, do you?

Re:If it's on the internet...

[voice_of_all_reason]

Those involved should have their privacy broken.

Isn't that the million-dollar question? There's no way to break only their privacy without breaking everyone's first and then hoping they'll just go after the original "them."

what data do they want

[gsn]

I have an orkut account - some of the information like an gmail address is necessary to sign in. The rest of the information on your profile is entiely optional. They don't even have to ask google for the profile information - make a fake account and stick up a photo of some girl in a swimsuit and get a freind request and you get to see it as soon as its approved.

The stupid thing is they expect criminals to be providing orkut with any legit info - for a long time my address was in Svalbard and the Jan Mayen Islands. This violates your TOS but really meh.

I don't know if orkut keeps a record of what IP address you login from but its also probably useless with people login in from random places or using TOR. Sure there is google search info linked to your gmail account and we all know about googles 2038 cookie but delete your cookies after each session and search from the the main google page or the firefox bar or use a public computer or whatever and you avoid that.

So I'm seriously confused by what data these guys are asking google for. The profile info which is likely to be the most useful if there is some accurate information is public or easy to get once you get authorized as a friend. I suspect they just want anything they can get their hands on and want to sort through it later. This is probably more work than they realize, and they will more than likely end up buried in a mound of data. They are probably better of doing some actual on the ground detective work.

Also do Googlenauts define targeted advertising as enhancing the user experience - because my definition tends to lean more towards Adblock.

Re:what data do they want

[Anonymous Coward]

They are stupid law people in a stupid third-world country that is runned by an idiot as president that makes George Bush look like Einstein in comparison.
No, they don't really know what they are asking for. They are trying to do some PR for their department and to appear as heroes for the masses and the clueless media.
Btw, most brazilians seem not to care too much about their right for privacy. Things like what NSA has been doing that cause so much outrage in the USA are understood by the average brazilian as normal acts of government.
For some reason, the average Brazilian thinks the government has the right to do whatever it wants, and citizens rights come later. For them, is more important to have the government taking care and babysitting them, than to have freedom.
Some of the Brazilians do think differently, but the vast majority thinks just like that.

Boas-Vindas

[faqmaster]

I, para um, dão boas-vindas a nossos overlords novos de Brazillian.

Re:Boas-Vindas

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be something like:

"Eu, por todos, dou as boas vindas a nossos novos senhores brasileiros!".

But it was a nice try anyway :-)

(I'm Brazilian. I'm posting as AC to avoid loosing all moderation already done on this thread)

Re:Boas-Vindas

[computational super]

Dude, you really need to brush up on your Spanish. You're liable to insult the Brazilian culture if you get their native language all wrong.

What is the objection?

[MikeRT]

If they go to them and say "we caught this user account accessing child porn," on what basis can Google morally and legally not comply? Google is not a court, and should have to comply with the law like the average person does. Anything less and they become, as Locke feared, a law unto themselves, which is the last thing we want any rich institution to become.

Re:What is the objection?

[madcow_bg]

On a basis that the sender of the e-mail is Watergate hotel.

Re:Learn to write!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I grew up it is potagee. I'm sure all my akamai friends can relate, but stay post AC jus in case some mod decide to ack smart.

A Google Response?

[WeAzElMaN]

This was posted about an hour and a half ago. I suppose Google'll wanna pre-emptively combat any negative press on this issue.

PLEASE MOD PARENT UP, UP AND UP!

[hummassa]

This is a very Informative, +5 posting, that details correctly what is going on here. Valeu (=kudos), knightmad.

Re:Karma unwhoring

[charlesrg]

There is history of hiperinflation in all world. There is desire to learn english by amost anyone who don't speak english as the first language. And landless workers is another problem where most of the landless people aren't workers. Also squatting most of the time is organized by political organizations. Have you ever been in Brazil ? Have you ever been to south america ? I've been living in 4 different countries in the americas and I've been to many other ones, with my experience I will never say anything bad about a country without getting to know the history of it. Look at the his past and you will know his future.

It's not only child porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Brazil and the news have been reporting this for months now.

This post makes it seems like the Justice suddenly wants to close Google's office because some investigation they started now, but people are using their service to do things that are crime here, and the government just wants to know who it is so it can take the proper actions.

It's not only the child porn, but there have been other issues, like people advertising place where others can buy drugs. Another problem is with communities that are against religion, professions, colors, etc. It's not that they don't have the right to be against it, but many of them use orkut to share stories about things they did to injury people that follow that religion, or teenagers telling how they abuse their maids... and they laught about it.

Child porn is just one of the things the justice is trying to end, but there are lots of crimes that people do freely.

Orkut in Brazil have been really uncooperative, since if a company has a legal representative office in our country, this office should ask this information. It's not that hard. Microsoft, Yahoo and other companies always provide information about this kind of stuff even though their servers are in the US if it's involved in this kind of investigation.

Google on the other side have been refusing to help for months just telling "our servers are in the US, we can't do anything", and the Justice telling "You are Google too, talk to them and get this information", and they just refuse.

I like google, but they are not helping with this at all.

Re:It's not only child porn...

[madcow_bg]

Man, where should I start...
I live in Brazil and the news have been reporting this for months now.
So you're already poisoned with the one-sidedness of the media coverage. Nice excuse, though.

This post makes it seems like the Justice suddenly wants to close Google's office because some investigation they started now, but people are using their service to do things that are crime here, and the government just wants to know who it is so it can take the proper actions.
So, basically, they don't want to go wiretapping? They just want everything, now.

It's not only the child porn, but there have been other issues, like people advertising place where others can buy drugs.
Well ... they know the DAMNED PLACE and they still WANT MORE INFORMATION?

Another problem is with communities that are against religion, professions, colors, etc.
Wooooow, dude. What's all the fuss? Who the f*ck is going to tell me I cannot write about f*cking w**te j*ws? (I wouldn't, but that is my right. That is my private life.)

It's not that they don't have the right to be against it, but many of them use orkut to share stories about things they did to injury people that follow that religion, or teenagers telling how they abuse their maids... and they laught about it.
So, it is a story, then. What's wrong with that? Who the f*ck are you to come on my property (my diary, for example) and be offended for what I have written? Well, you should not read it. Aren't books protected as free speech? So should be my diary.

Child porn is just one of the things the justice is trying to end, but there are lots of crimes that people do freely.
Right. I knew that talking about children porn was a crime. So is not believing you're government.

Orkut in Brazil have been really uncooperative, since if a company has a legal representative office in our country, this office should ask this information. It's not that hard. Microsoft, Yahoo and other companies always provide information about this kind of stuff even though their servers are in the US if it's involved in this kind of investigation.
_SARCASM And I personally admire Yahoo for giving information to the Chinese government. /_SARCASM

Google on the other side have been refusing to help for months just telling "our servers are in the US, we can't do anything", and the Justice telling "You are Google too, talk to them and get this information", and they just refuse.
Ever wandered why Google is percieved in a much, much better light even in geek communities, where trust is hard to earn? Now you know.

I like google, but they are not helping with this at all.
That's why I like them.

Re:It's not only child porn...

[Achromatic1978]

So you're already poisoned with the one-sidedness of the media coverage. Nice excuse, though.

As opposed to the US, where fair and balanced reporting of this has lead to a much more informed populace. Hint: you're drawing inference. Example: "US news is covering the corruption of a Senator in Boulder, CO" - I can't see you saying "Oh, man, your views are all poisoned by one-sidedness!"

So, basically, they don't want to go wiretapping? They just want everything, now.

Wow, what a warped view you have, where instructing a company to fufill a specific request, with no extraneous information getting into the Justice Department's hands, is more nefarious than blanket wiretapping possible offenders.

Well ... they know the DAMNED PLACE and they still WANT MORE INFORMATION?

Who said the people advertising the drug sales are the dealers showing up?

Right. I knew that talking about children porn was a crime.

Talking about child porn is not a crime. Advertising a ten year old's virginity for sale to the highest bidder, complete with naked photos of her for inspection, however, is. Full marks for extrapolating out and getting histrionic about a non-existant point, though.

Re:It's not only child porn...

[keeboo]

I live in Brazil and the news have been reporting this for months now.
So you're already poisoned with the one-sidedness of the media coverage. Nice excuse, though.

So, obviously, your fairness is due to the fact you live outside the US.

It's not only the child porn, but there have been other issues, like people advertising place where others can buy drugs.
Well ... they know the DAMNED PLACE and they still WANT MORE INFORMATION?

Perhaps because they want their IPs, since not everyone puts their address with zipcode in the messages.

Google on the other side have been refusing to help for months just telling "our servers are in the US, we can't do anything", and the Justice telling "You are Google too, talk to them and get this information", and they just refuse.
Ever wandered why Google is percieved in a much, much better light even in geek communities, where trust is hard to earn? Now you know.

Bending over for the Chinese is much more acceptable, indeed.
Oh, sorry -- I forgot, there's over a billion potential consumers in China.

I like google, but they are not helping with this at all.
That's why I like them.

Exactly, now go to your backyard, get some beers and wave a big US flag so show them who's the boss!

Re:It's not only child porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the folks who think that Internet companies may lack of social responsibility outside US, I would like to share some excerpts from the lawsuit moved against google in Brazil:

Total crime noticed in the Orkut from January to August:
Child pornography 39.185
Apology to crimes against life 18.262
Neonazim 13.253
Animal cruelty and abuse 11.970
Racism 6.512
Religious intolerance 6.427
Homophobia 1.804
Xenophobia 1.014

"The responsibility of the google's office in Brazil is just to sell, to make the business grow"
(Alexandre Hohagen, Google Brasil Contry Manager, in a interview to the Estadao newspaper)

"I lose sleep just thinking the gold mine that Orkut may be"
(Alexandre Hohagen, in a interviews to the Exame magazine)

I'm a Brazilian and I don't deny that there is a lot of corruption in my country. But most of our people are struggling to make this a better place to live.

If a company want's to make profits somewhere, they should respect the country laws. Especially if the laws are aimed to protect childs and life. It's not a matter of International Laws... it's a matter of social responsibility

It seems to me very odd that Google accepted Chinese censorship, but refuses colaboration when Brazilian justice asks for IP address from pedophiles.

Damn Google/Altavista language tools:

[hummassa]

:-)

Eu, por mim, dou boas-vindas aos nossos novos Senhores brasileiros.

Re:If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ..

[Cal Paterson]

You'd give up the information age to stop soemone from spanking their kid?

Spanking a child is not quite what he means by child abuse. The phrase "child abuse" encompasses a far, far wider range of criminal activity than corporal punishment.

Also, how would Google giving up the information stop child abuse? If it is for a criminal investigation then the abuse has already occured. Thus, Google giving up the information in no way would reduce child abuse.

Not entirely. If the data is new evidence, or details offences not yet tried in a court of law, then they can be very useful. It's also useful for an understanding of the crimes and how they can be further prevented. This is one of those cases where any extra data that can be provided is helpful. I don't want to speculate on whether the data google has is relevant, but if it is, it could definatley be of some use the the police.

orkut

[jovius]

For some strange cosmic reason, Orkut means 'orgasms' in Finnish slang.. might explain why it hasn't really gotten off here :)

Re:orkut

[saiha]

"gotten off", lol

Simple: IP addresses

[hummassa]

They want the IP addresses associated with any sessions opened by . So, they'll cross-reference with the ISPs that own those guys, and get: (1) the financial info used to pay for the ISP and/or (2) the address of the phone that dialed (in the case of dial-up) or the address of the cable/adsl-modem installation, so they can grab the guys.

Re:Simple: IP addresses

[madcow_bg]

They want the IP addresses associated with any sessions opened by . So, they'll cross-reference with the ISPs that own those guys, and get: (1) the financial info used to pay for the ISP and/or (2) the address of the phone that dialed (in the case of dial-up) or the address of the cable/adsl-modem installation, so they can grab the guys.
Your post is not only insightful, but it can be used to defend both sides. :)

Re:Karma unwhoring

[UbuntuDupe]

There is history of hiperinflation in all world.

Not in *recent memory* such that someone would enter it into a search engine.

There is desire to learn english by amost anyone who don't speak english as the first language.

Okay, so that point of mine was fair.

And landless workers is another problem where most of the landless people aren't workers.

I don't understand. The difference between landless people in Brazil and landless people in richer countries is that in Brazil, it means you will live in poverty. That's why it's such an important issue there.

Also squatting most of the time is organized by political organizations.

By political organizations ... *of landless workers*.

Have you ever been in Brazil ? Have you ever been to south america ? ...

I shouldn't criticize a country until I've been there? So, I guess you had nothing negative to say about China or the Soviet Union?

Limitations

[hummassa]

We should invade the privacy of millions in case someone has a picture of a naked 17 year old.

No. Google should turn in the IP address of a specific Orkut account that posted an announcement for the auction of the virginity of a ten-year-old, with nude pictures of her.

Re:Limitations

[QCompson]

No. Google should turn in the IP address of a specific Orkut account that posted an announcement for the auction of the virginity of a ten-year-old, with nude pictures of her.

Yes, they should. As they should also turn in the IP address of a known terrorist who recently murdered innocent civilians. I believe the above posters point (and if not, it's my point) is that just as terrorism is not necessarily a black and white issue, kiddie porn is not necessarily a black and white issue. Just as a government investigation of terrorism may either be tracking down Bin Laden or monitoring harmless political activists, an investigation into kiddie porn could be looking for an auction of the virginity of a ten-year-old, or could be relating to a naked picture of a seventeen year old that she posted online herself.

Re:Limitations

[madcow_bg]

Don't you think it would be easier to just bid on that auction, infiltrate the community, and this way trace the account?
Besides, there will be more to hang him on. Literally.
For the rest, leave us alone. Maybe I want to search for such porn because now I want to know how to help combat it?

Really?

[Hrothgar The Great]

Really? People shouldn't store personal data on Orkut? That is a really interesting idea. I don't think anyone has ever built a social networking site with no persistent data before. YOU COULD BE THE FIRST!

Re:Really?

[NeuroAcid]

Hrothgar the Stupid, do you really think they want the information that is already publicly displayed on the webpages? Or do you think that they perhaps want all the data that is collected and stored behind the scenes.

Apology To Crime?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

As it is based on the concept "Communities" (similar to groups on yahoo groups), a lot of groups with dubious/illegal subjects popped up, groups endorsing racism, neo-nazi propaganda, child abuse and other illegal activities, crimes were planned and the results posted and commented in some of thoses threads ......
Orkut has became a place where crime (or apology to crime, as it is also illegal in Brasil) has became a major problem and police and the justice system are having to deal with it adequatedly.

Pedophiles and racists are chatting online. Read my lips. Big Fucking Deal. In a free society, people should be entitled both to their views, and to discuss those views with like minded individuals. The majority of society happens to find these views highly offensive. Tough Shit. Liberty isn't as selective as most mobs. I refuse to sacrafice society on the altar of public outrage because a few sickos are typing objectionable content. "Apology to crime". What kind of a fucking country is Brazil anyway!?

To those who would cry; "Oh but these groups are inherantly evil and morally wrong!", let me tell you something about "inherant" evil and morality. There are countries in the world where clitorectomies are not only considered legal, but morally correct. In fact, a grown woman with a clitoris is considered inherantly immoral. You might scoff at the notions of "primitive" societies, but let it first be noted that the US has highest circumcision rate in the developed world. You'll find plenty of people with "inherantly's" on both sides of that debate.

Morals change. Oh boy do they change. Racism, pedophilia, facism were once not only legal, but moral as well. They were regarded as virtues in many societies at one point in time or another. You want the sad truth. Morals change with the tides. I'll trust in what's legal long before I trust in what's "moral".

Left to the media and the mob, our society would embrace old status quos just as quickly as it would condenm them. Right now the media is making money from outrage against child porn. Give it a few decades and they'll be calling for "tweenage" weddings to be legalised, or for segregation to be reestablished. Will you want to listen to them then? Do you think the legligatures and companies should be so quick to kow-tow?

So fuck moral outrage. It's like a fashion fad. Google knows this. They respect peoples rights, even if they abhor their actions. And so should everyone. If you don't like it, then move to a totalitarian state. Or Brazil, where my above "apology to crime" is in fact illegal.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

> What kind of a fucking country is Brazil anyway!?

Cities are much larger than what you see in US. You can say that a neighborhood in Sao Paulo corresponds to a whole city in US. By its sheer size, these communities became unmanageable. Crime is out of control in the bigger cities like Rio and Sao Paulo. Politicians from the party currently in power are most likely feeding them specially now that elections are about to change power at the top. It is a tough game for those living on those cities. You might be right about rights. But you are not used to their non-living conditions. Maybe Brazilians could learn to take better care of their own (real) communities/cities so that the political vacuum created by missing leaderships in those communities doesn't get filled by trafficants and criminals.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[knightmad]

"Pedophiles and racists are chatting online. Read my lips. Big Fucking Deal."

Well, I stopped reading here, and I'm actually amazed by the fact that you got modded Interesting. You (and most people outside Brasil) doesn't know what "incitement" means in this context. (lol, you guys will not forgive me for the misplaced "apology", will you?). Mostly, because you guys don't have all the background stories that lead police and the judiciary system to assume this awkward move. Incitement here mean, in the case of the racists, mean that (a real case, not a hypothetical example) they choose a victim that matched their (less favourite) profile (a black young boy from a poor comunity), stalked him, harassed him and only didn't spanked him because his family was smart enough to call the police, that got the matter into their hands and sucessfully sued the leader of the group. It was not "I hate all black people, let's kill them all" kind of incitement, but "I hate John Doe profile #312312, let's trap him after school and kill him".

Brasilian judiciary system and law enforcement are very lenient (sometimes even naive) when it concerns to digital related crimes (that meaning they don't give a rat's ass to porn/warez/free speech/criticism/choose your favourite victim here), but when it crosses to the real world realm, they act with all the resources they have.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[jvital]

Mod this one up...

Re:Apology To Crime?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

You (and most people outside Brasil) doesn't know what "incitement" means in this context.

Apparently it means "apology".

(lol, you guys will not forgive me for the misplaced "apology",

It just seemed a little odd that someone with enough command of english to use correctly; "popular enough", "dubious", "endorsing", "perpetrator" and "subpoena", could mix up the words "incitement" and "apology". lol

Re:Apology To Crime?

[knightmad]

A very naive mistake, I admit. Blame it on what we call "false cognates". "Apologia", the portuguese word, translate s into "incitement", but the similarity between the words "apologia" and "apology" is just plain irresistible.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedophiles and racists are chatting online. Read my lips. Big Fucking Deal. In a free society, people should be entitled both to their views, and to discuss those views with like minded individuals. The majority of society happens to find these views highly offensive. Tough Shit. Liberty isn't as selective as most mobs. I refuse to sacrafice society on the altar of public outrage because a few sickos are typing objectionable content. "Apology to crime". What kind of a fucking country is Brazil anyway!?

Very simple, racism is considered crime in Brazil, and so is pedophily. So if you fit in any of those categories you have two options:

- never come to Brazil, or in case you are already here pack your stuff and go home;
- or be subject to the laws of this country;

I think Google should pack their stuff and go home if they are unwilling to submit to the laws of this country. Laws aren't optional.

"Dura lex, sed lex"

Orkut is widely known to be a place where drug-dealers, nazis and pedophiles meet. It was shown several times on TV people talking there what drugs they would take to parties, planing racist attacks, and so on. What amazes me the most is that there are idiots around the world that actually DEFEND such shitheads.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Canordis]

Pedophiles and racists are chatting online. Read my lips. Big Fucking Deal. In a free society, people should be entitled both to their views, and to discuss those views with like minded individuals. The majority of society happens to find these views highly offensive. Tough Shit. Liberty isn't as selective as most mobs. I refuse to sacrafice society on the altar of public outrage because a few sickos are typing objectionable content. "Apology to crime". What kind of a fucking country is Brazil anyway!? [...] So fuck moral outrage. It's like a fashion fad. Google knows this. They respect peoples rights, even if they abhor their actions. And so should everyone. If you don't like it, then move to a totalitarian state. Or Brazil, where my above "apology to crime" is in fact illegal.

Er... no it isn't. The parent poster mistranslated 'apologia ao crime' as 'apology to crime'. What he meant was incitement, which is illegal. Talking about child pornography and racism isn't illegal, but encouraging people (Online or otherwise) to commit hate crimes or child abuse is, and guess what, so it is elsewhere.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Blame it on what we call "false cognates". "Apologia", the portuguese word, translate s into "incitement", but the similarity between the words "apologia" and "apology" is just plain irresistible.

Google translates:

• "Apologia" as "Vindication".

The dictionary here give the portugese translations of:

• incitement as "incitamento, estímulo, incentivo".
• apology as "desculpa; defesa; justificação"
• vindication as "prova, defesa, justificativa"
• defense as "defesa; proteção"
• justify as "justificar, demonstrar a inocência de alguém, provar uma teoria ou idéia; justificar (tipografia: ajustar o tamanho das linhas)"

Based on this, I would guess that Apoligia means something akin to "to justify/vindicate/defend" and your original "apology to crime" means "to vindicate or justify or defend a crime", and does not mean "to incite a crime", as in various anti-hate speech laws. Rather, I strongly suspect it means that it is a crime in Brazil to say certain things, if those statements are sympathetic to perpetrators of certain crimes.

I don't speak portugese, but I do call bullshit when someone who can use the phrase "false cognates" mixes up the words for "incite" and "apologise".

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apologia" is used in English as well. Where apology implies an admission of fault/regret, apologia is a defense--specifically, an argument to support or justify--without such admission. It seems to me that incitement would frequently, if not necessarily, involve apologia.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What amazes me the most is that there are idiots around the world that actually DEFEND such shitheads.

"Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

Re:Apology To Crime?

[madcow_bg]

What you did not read from the GP is only what he wanted to say:
Shit happens all the time.

We cannot leave the police running amok like we cannot leave the terrorists running amok. What the police should do is get warants and start wiretaping the criminals using a more conventional methods - go and tap his ethernet/wifi/whatsoever. Maybe a hidden camera, you're the police.

What is wrong with their requests from google? First of all, if I am ever put befour a judge I will ALWAYS DENY the evidence they can require from google. What, IPs? Even if they find my computer, I can almost always deny that it was in my possession at that time. Go read about a random child-porn-over-the-internet case to see my point.

So, the so-called evidence is not evidence at all. Sure, it might help tip a cop where to search for evidence, but what about my privacy? In the end, the only thing the "evidence" is going to do is show that some people wrote that and that about something. Not nearly enough for a case, cannot clasify for evidence, and I hope every lawyer will try to dismiss it.

And that info I don't want in every cop's hands, for whatever reason. If they so badly want it, they can get a court order and install all kinds of stuff on my network, etc. This way they are accountable and more people are involved. This way I can trust them.

So, to sum:
1. No real help to investigation.
2. No legal weight whatsoever.
3. Invades everyone's privacy.

That is what the GP was trying to say. And your arguments are exactly the old stupid think-of-the-children desinformation. Sure, f*ck up every children's rights to privacy for a single one of them.

Shit happens all the time.
Learn how to deal with it appropriately.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[madcow_bg]

Technically you're right. But I suppose the GP wanted to point out, that with the subopenas granted merely talking about such stuff will become tracable.

With volatile media such as computers it is not easy to prove (well, 99% of the time is virtually impossible) that something written is in fact yours, especially in public forums and the like. But it is far, far harder to disprove such a thing after it has been "unintentionally" released by the police... That is what the privacy is all about.

Where some see imaginary gain in the war on chilren porn, I see very, very big and real damage to people's lifes (imagine what you're wife would think).

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Canordis]

I'm not defending the government's action in poking into Orkut for information - What information can't be obtained already by reading Orkut is most likely useless, at any rate, and as several other people have pointed out, this opens a bad precedent.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd take his word, he's the native speaker here.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are surely an example to your countrymen, of how someone can have the head stuck in the ass and still be proud of it.

http://biblioteca.uol.com.br/

Try a brazilian dictionary:

"Acepções
  substantivo feminino
1 Rubrica: retórica.
          discurso ou texto em que se defende, justifica ou elogia (esp. alguma doutrina, ação, obra etc.) "

It says "speech or text that defends, justifies or praises (especially ('esp.' ?) some doctrine, action, work etc.)"

Get a clue.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the part of "it's in the law" you didn't understand? It has nothing to do with morality.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[ray-auch]

Pedophiles and racists are chatting online. Read my lips. Big Fucking Deal. [...]

Very simple, racism is considered crime in Brazil,

Problem: In the USA, at least in terms of "chatting online" (ie. speech) not only is it not a crime, it is a right.

That this right conflicts with hate speech and similar laws in other jurisdictions is already well known - ask Yahoo about France and Nazi material. That one has been going for years through courts in France and the US, trying to settle which law applies to whom.

In this case, what we know is that some people (who could be anywhere - we're asking Google where they are, remember, and Google isn't telling yet) are chatting on US servers in a manner that is illegal in Brazil, but may well be protected in the US. Brazil wants Google to turn those people in. Or at least the IP address of the proxy they came in on...

Whose law applies ?

Now

    s/Brazil/China/

Whose law applies ?

In practice, ISPs etc. give up the info when they feel they have to. Yahoo took on France, for a while, but caves in to China. They caved in to France in the end and banned Nazi stuff worldwide because of French law.

It'll start getting really interesting if/when the US (which likes exporting its particular brand of freedom) makes it illegal for them to cave in.

"very Simple" ? - not with multiple conflicting international jurisdictions involved it isn't.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[Achromatic1978]

in terms of "chatting online" (ie. speech) not only is it not a crime, it is a right.

Fine. This I have no contention with. Tell me, though, when does freedom of speech become "conspiracy to commit..."?

Is it when a forum poster says "I have found this boy - I think we could kill him. This is his name and address, and this is the route he takes home from school. I'm going to do this tomorrow - who's with me?" and gets "Yep, I'll be there" replies and ongoing discussion coordinating times and meeting points.

Because that is how bad it's gotten on Orkut - to the point where Brazilian police have turned up at that venue and indeed arrested people.

Yes, it could easily become a slippery slope - but "conspiracy to commit" is a crime, not trumped by "freedom of speech / association".

Re:Apology To Crime?

[knightmad]

As you pointed below:

"apologia: discurso ou texto em que se defende, justifica ou elogia (esp. alguma doutrina, ação, obra etc.) "

"apologia ao crime" = "discurso ou texto em que se defende, justifica ou elogia" algum crime.

I'm a native speaker, and aware of the coloquial meaning of the word. To illustrate the word, I will point to an example:

Preso mais um jovem por apologia ao crime no Orkut (Another youngster arrested for "apologia ao crime" on orkut.com)

The article is interesting both as an illustration of the correct use of the word (and the reason for what I mixed up the words) and as an illustration of how far incitement of crimes is going on orkut.com. In short, he talked too much on orkut, drew suspicious over himself, got his house searched and arrested because he had illegal weapons and connections with organized crime.

As it seems you are a proficient portuguese speaker, the lack of english translation (and historical background for the facts showed there) will not stop you to read and understand what is being said there.

Anyway, that's semantics. I made a mistake, tried to correct it, people understood what I tried to say and, if you are not happy, that is not my problem.

Re:Apology To Crime?

[tehcyder]

(lol, you guys will not forgive me for the misplaced "apology", will you?)

Well, according to Babel Fish the Portugese words for "apology" and "incitement" are "apology" and "incitement", so it seems a litle less excusable!

And more seriously, don't forget that the extreme libertarians on /. do not consider even incitement to murder as a crime. From their point of view, all that matters is individual responsibility, so that if I pay you to shoot someone, the only crime occurs when you do the shooting. I am just exercising my right to free speech by suggesting it might be to your advantage by $5000 to shoot that person in the head. Or something.

You are completely mistaken

[keeboo]

in order to justify passing net-porn (NOT kiddie porn) legislation in the name of "protecting the children"

No, it is not.
You obviously do not know a thing about Brazilian reality.

What happens is that criminal gangs are using Orkut as forums while keeping themselves anonymous.
Google Brazil is refusing to provide data about the users involved in such forums.

Organized crime is already out of control in Brazil and Google doesn't give a shit.
I can't blame the Brazilian Government if they decide to block Orkut at IP level here.

Re:You are completely mistaken

[Carlos Laviola]

I can't blame the Brazilian Government if they decide to block Orkut at IP level here.

Yep, censorship is just what we need. Fuck you, speak for yourself.

Re:You are completely mistaken

[keeboo]

I can't blame the Brazilian Government if they decide to block Orkut at IP level here.

Yep, censorship is just what we need. Fuck you, speak for yourself.

This has nothing to do with censorship.
If a company does not want to comply with local laws, feeling it does not have to because it's based outside of Brazilian jurisdiction... Well, yes, blocking the traffic to Brazil is an option.

Now about the kind "fuck you" you wrote, I suggest you stop following those for-teenagers anarco-liberal pamflets and begin to actually _work_ for your country, its development, its democracy and its sovereignty.
Do that instead of yelling senseless political BS all around, thinking you're really doing something.

It would be really, really ironic if some gang, organized a plan using those Orkut forums, kidnapped you, demanded ransom... And after receiving the money they just shoot you in the head in order to run no risks of being identified later.
That would be democracy, yeah...right.

Re:You are completely mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

If they all voted on the plan, then yes it would be democracy.

You must be mistaken, the US is not a democracy and never has been, people just throw it around because it sounds nice. The US is a republic, in that we have voted representative that screw our shit up for us. Also, the US is not a communist country, so your quote of "work for your country, it's development, it's democracy, and it's sovereignty" is a load of horse shit. Why work for the bettering of a country who's too busy selling away our rights to the corporations? The US will hopefully collapse into another great depression soon, I can't wait for it to happen personally, and I hope that the rest of the civilized world goes with it. I don't consider myself anarchist by any means, I just think civilization has gone downhill so fast within the last century. For every step we gain we take ten backwards. We need a catastrophic event to happen in order to move forward again. Personally I'm fine with a republic, the problem is keeping the corruption *cough**cough* lobbyist *cough**cough* out.

Yes, there is complying with local laws, buy now your trying to impose those local laws outside their jurisdiction, by applying presure against someone who doesn't have the capability to fulfill your demands and just expecting them to bend over and take it. I even wonder if google would feel it at all if the brazilian branch was forced to close, they probably wouldn't, but all the people working at the brazilian branch would. Fine government work there, run a somewhat fabricated story to hide the other hand, then turn around and shoot yourself in the foot by destroying local economy. Sounds the same no matter where you go.

And yes, banning Orkut is censorship, not saying it can't be done, just saying it's wrong to do so.

Re:You are completely mistaken

[Carlos Laviola]

This is such a laughable comment I don't know where to start. Let's see.

This has nothing to do with censorship.

Oh really? What is it then?

If a company does not want to comply with local laws, feeling it does not have to because it's based outside of Brazilian jurisdiction... Well, yes, blocking the traffic to Brazil is an option.

They are saying the data the courts want are not in Brazilian soil, therefore they're not obliged to give up anything. Ordering all private companies that provide us with connectivity with the outer Internet to block Orkut at an IP level is not only overkill, but it would set an enormously dangerous precedent.

Now about the kind "fuck you" you wrote, I suggest you stop following those for-teenagers anarco-liberal pamflets and begin to actually _work_ for your country, its development, its democracy and its sovereignty. Do that instead of yelling senseless political BS all around, thinking you're really doing something.

Wow, an ad hominem attack, I did not see that coming. I take it you have already thoroughly investigated my life and can guess from a single line post that I'm an "alienated" person who spouts "political BS" like "hey, this is not something we do in a democracy". I also challenge you to find me one of these "anarco-liberal pamflets" or even explain what an "anarco-liberal" is and even further, what any of this has to do with this statement:

Blocking Orkut, or any other website on the Internet because it is being used to promote speech you or I don't agree with, is a dangerous precedent to democracy and a free society.

I do not have to work for my country at all. I pay my goddamn taxes and vote consciously and I feel that is quite enough, as I do not wish to pursue a career in politics.

Do that instead of yelling senseless political BS all around, thinking you're really doing something.

You say "senseless political BS", I say "defend democracy and freedom of speech".

It would be really, really ironic if some gang, organized a plan using those Orkut forums, kidnapped you, demanded ransom... And after receiving the money they just shoot you in the head in order to run no risks of being identified later. That would be democracy, yeah...right.

So what you're saying essentially is that without Orkut we wouldn't have favelas, drug dealing, kidnapping and hell, even famine. Interesting, I thought all of these were already endemic before January 2004.

Re:You are completely mistaken

[rm69990]

Are you a fucking retard? Re-read his damn comment for fuck's sakes. He specifically stated that he was talking about the US subpoena you illiterate god damn moron.

That's ridiculous

[keeboo]

If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ...
... they'll be hurting Brazil a lot more than they'll be hurting Google.

No they won't.

Google is not the only search engine available, nor Brazil is a irrelevant market.
Brazilians' participation in Orkut was so massive that Google thought it made business sense to provide some customization to the service, when accessed from Brazil.

Your 'everyone else are insects' attitude fits the US-citizen stereotype perfectly.

Re:That's ridiculous

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Your 'everyone else are insects' attitude fits the US-citizen stereotype perfectly

You're reading a lot more into my post than what's actually there. I don't deny that Brazil is an important market, nor that their kicking Google out would do some harm to Google's business. What I do deny is that their importance as a market is equal to Google's importance as a search engine. And this would be the case regardless of whether Google were based in the US, Brazil, Germany, India, or Outer Qwghlm; Google's importance has nothing to do with their country of origin, and everything to do with the fact that they are far and away the best search engine in existence, and likely to remain so for some time to come.

Re:Karma unwhoring

[fmoliveira]

Amerians had more problems with inflation than us in the recent past. And there was no recent defaulting of bonds. But its a pain to know that I am paying that bonds with my taxes, and that the goverment that asked for these bonds was never, ever, near to defending my best interests. I dont recognize this government as representing me, and neither this debt. And there is noone acceptable to vote this year's election too, guess we're screwed again. Immigrating to Chile? We have people immigrating to usa or to the 1st world, not to Chile nor another 3rd world country.

What are you talking about?!

[keeboo]

For those playing at home: we just learned why Google is hesitant to build data centers in countries that have weaker protection for freedomes than does the US.

What freedom are you talking about?!

Orkut is being massively used as a forum system for organized criminals, to organize kidnapings for monetary extortion, attacks to police stations etc.
Google Brazil does not want to provide the information needed in order to find those bastards.

This has nothing to do with combating conventional porn or monitoring its citizens.
Your country has more problems with government interfering with citizens' freedom than mine.

Not Brazil, a previous case in the US

[Chris Burke]

This is about this line from the article, which the OP quoted and said was BS (because it is), emphasis added:

Early this year, Google successfully defended a subpoena from the US Department of Justice to hand over its data in another child porn investigation case.

Note that this case happened in the US, not Brazil. THAT case had absolutely nothing to do with child porn. THAT case is what I was talking about. So I'm sorry, but it is you who are mistaken.

Jurisdiction

[rbanffy]

Hi.

I see the problem as Brazilian authorities appear to be refusing to follow proper conduct. I agree that if the servers are in the US, then the laws that apply to those crimes is the US law and Brazilian authorities have no jurisdiction.

I think it should be solved, instead, by the Foreign Relations Office, that could forward the request either to Google itself or to the local authorities - I am not sure if it would be the FBI or the DOJ. Both would be more than happy to help and, IIRC, they could even ask - and be granted - extradition of non-Brazilian citizens to the US so they could be prosecuted there. This is, of course, about the child-porn problems. Speech is more protected in the US, so, it should be safe to use a US-based server to express illegal opinions about such things as racism or neo-nazis. The server is in the US, so Brazilian laws should not apply. Not that I approve racism or neo-nazis - it's a matter of jurisdiction.

OTOH, I am quite sure any employee of the Brazilian Google office that could have access to the requested data would be committing a crime in wherever-in-the-US the servers are by giving the requested information without proper authorization to foreign (from the server point-of-view) authorities and would face possible arrest upon setting foot on the US.

As it is configured now, it looks more like a pissing contest between Google and the Brazilian authorities. I side with Google, in that the data is not under Brazilian jurisdiction and Brazilian authorities are refusing to follow proper procedures for the case.

And yes, I am Brazilian and live in Brazil.
--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/ [dieblinkenlights.com]

Re:Jurisdiction

[cursorx]

IAAL

As long as crimes are being committed here in Brazil (which they are), Brazil does claim and have jurisdiction. It's not a matter of where the data is located. Location of data is an entirely different issue, related to procedural criminal law and the production of evidence, and Google US has delivered and will deliver data over to Brazilian authorities if asked:

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/informatica/ult 124u20482.shtml

This is pretty smart of Google, by the way. The procedures for getting data sent from a foreign country are more problematic than simply subpoenaing a company that's around the corner, like Google Brasil. It all comes down to the volume of crimes that are being perpetrated. Five? Not a problem at all going after Google US. Hundreds? It becomes a chore.

Re:Jurisdiction

[rbanffy]

IAANAL (I am also...)

I know that many crimes (aggression based on racism and religious intolerance, drug-dealing and pedophilia) are being committed in Brazil. Yet, the mountain of evidence that resides within Google servers is subject to US laws and disclosing it without proper authorization probably is a crime.

After investigating, cataloging and summarizing the alleged crimes, I can't understand why is it a chore to ask for the data directly from Google through US authorities instead of strong-arming the local office (during an election year) - the volume of paper (or bytes) is roughly the same and we have a very skilled professionals whose job is to deal with thorny issues like this one. IIRC, the Brazilian Feds have a couple of cooperation programs with the FBI that could come in handy, if proper channels are to be used.

And, BTW, about the alleged crimes that fall under US law on freedom of expression, I totally against Google providing the requested data. Regardless of the language the ideas are being expressed, they are being expressed using a computer under US jurisdiction, so, there may be lots of racist, stupid, neo-nazi and homophobic discourse, fully protected under US law. As the article says (sorry about those who can't read Portuguese), the creation of communities to spread racist and homophobic ideas is a crime in Brazil. I do not agree with those ideas, but I am not comfortable on having someone to draw a line between what I can think and say and what I can't.

Law-enforcement in a wired world where crimes are committed in cyberspace and geography is unclear is tough and we must create the mechanisms to deal with it, but this is not Google's fault.

Re:Jurisdiction

[rbanffy]

And, while we are at it, since when being a chore is a good excuse to bypass due process?

Re:Jurisdiction

[cursorx]

No one is bypassing due process here. It's the exact opposite. All of the data requested from Google (Brasil or US) goes through the usual "quebra de sigilo" proceedings. A warrant is requested from a judge on preliminary evidence, then granted or not granted based on the strength of said evidence. If granted, the data is then requested. The MPF doesn't just go like "HEY, HEY! GOOGLE! Give us your data, man, or else!", holding a baseball bat. They have to be backed by a warrant, which can be troublesome to get in some cases. The recent suit by the MPF requests a blanket-warrant to be granted by the Judiciary to make up for the difficulties in getting Google to comply with warrants already granted on a case-by-case basis. This blanket-warrant would cover all of the previously granted (and not complied with) warrants, and would be enforced by the threat of daily fines which would be applied as long as Google BR refrains from complying.

The problem is that Google BR just can't comply with the warrants because they don't have the data. Google US can, and usually does according to Google itself (check the link I provided above). This has nothing to do with bypassing due process, since the law is actually being applied as written, and according to the usual interpretation of article 5, XII of the Brazilian Constitution by Brazilian courts. I mentioned it being a chore dealing with Google US directly because authorities have to translate a series of legal documents in order for a warrant to be even read by Google US, something that wouldn't have to be done with Google BR.

Re:Jurisdiction

[keeboo]

And, BTW, about the alleged crimes that fall under US law on freedom of expression, I totally against Google providing the requested data. Regardless of the language the ideas are being expressed, they are being expressed using a computer under US jurisdiction, so, there may be lots of racist, stupid, neo-nazi and homophobic discourse, fully protected under US law.

You are right that the Brazilian govt has no jurisdiction over the data stored abroad.
But, as I see it, what enters under the Brazilian jurisdiction is the data _entering_ the Brazilian Internet. Condidering that, the Brazilian govt could simply block that traffic.
That's not convenient for Google, so I guess it would be their interest to provide the data requested by the Brazilian authorities.

Besides that, I would find very hypocritical from Google if they came with "freedom of expression" arguments (what IMO would be BS in this case), considering what they're doing in China right now.

Re:Jurisdiction

[rbanffy]

You just said they find it a chore to translate the documents and request the data to Google US and, instead, they are opting to strong-arm Google BR into, most probably, violating US laws by giving away said data.

And if threatening Google BR, who cannot comply with an order because the data belongs to Google US, who cannot disclose that data until it's properly requested is not to cut corners, I don't know what it is. As much as I am uncomfortable with gangs, pedophiles and drug-dealers using Orkut, I know there must be a proper way. A judge holding a baseball bat does not make it legitimate as a judge ordering me to count to infinity would not make it possible or reasonable. Google BR cannot give something it doesn't have and should not be threatened this way. And, may I remind you, this show would not be happening if it weren't for the upcoming elections. This is politics at its worst. At least no presidential candidate chose to be directly involved with this. For now.

But the show is not the most important part. The more interesting issue is, indeed, one of jurisdiction. If the servers are located in the US and a Brazilian law was broken by material posted on the server, did the poster commit a crime in Brazil by posting it in the US-based server or is the material posted in the US-based server protected as free-speech?

The outcome of this dispute may define other disputes as well. Imagine, for a moment, if it wasn't for anti-black/homo/Muslim/Jew/whatever material, but something we can be more sympathetic with. Imagine if Orkut's forums were being used for organizing manifestations against Fidel Castro in Havana or in Caracas against Hugo Chavez. Imagine a government that requests access logs from Amnesty International accusing their visitors of whatever "spreading propaganda" crime is convenient. This dispute will draw a line and we will have to live with it for some time. Once drawn, it will be damn hard to move. While I do have a great deal of trust in Brazilian institutions, I have spent my first years under a dictatorship and watching Chavez (who was elected, twice) trying to amend their Constitution to allow him a third term gives me shivers. Call me paranoid, but I can trust my government, but not blindly.

And since I suspect no one else is reading this thread, we may continue this discussion in Portuguese.

If there is any non-Portuguese-speaking netizen reading this, now is the time to tell us.

Re:Jurisdiction

[cursorx]

I'm going to reply in English. Let's not unleash our Orkut ways on Slashdot =)

You just said they find it a chore to translate the documents and request the data to Google US and, instead, they are opting to strong-arm Google BR into, most probably, violating US laws by giving away said data.

It's not that they find it a chore, it's that it actually is a chore, and that Google BR would be easier to get the data from. If Google BR actually had it. No data will ever be disclosed by Google BR no matter what happens. This is the entire point (and catch). The MPF are not strong-arming Google BR, they're following perfectly reasonable Brazilian law by asking a Brazilian judge for warrants directed towards a subsidiary of an American corporation installed in Brazil, subject to Brazilian law, in cases concerning crimes committed within Brazil or by people within Brazil. They're not being abusive; they're acting on a constitutionally imposed duty of prosecuting criminal offenses. Since the state MPs and the MPF need to gather data in order to even start action against people involved in crimes that were arranged or perpetrated through Orkut, they do so by following the law, which means obtaining warrants that are only granted after analysis of preliminary evidence. We're not talking about a judge holding a baseball bat either.

The problem is: they think Google BR has access to what they need to prosecute these criminals. Google BR doesn't have access to the data because Google knows what it's doing, and purposefully arranged things in such a way that Google BR has absolutely no access to data stored in the US, even if it wanted to. Google Inc. knows that Google BR is at arm's reach of Brazilian authorities, and that Google US isn't (though it does happily comply with requests by Brazilian authorities to disclose data). Really, the Brazilian proceedings involved in this case are much less intrusive of anyone's privacy than the average DMCA subpoena in the US. This is a trivial judicial matter that's been blown way out of proportion. We should definitely start worrying if Brazilian Police broke into Google BR's headquarters without a warrant and confiscated servers, but that's not what's going on here, and that's not something that's ever likely to happen.

Nothing has been decided yet, mind you. What you call strong-arming is merely a request to a judge that may or may not be granted. And even if granted, the way things look, the warrant will be totally ineffective since Google BR simply can't comply because of the way the company is internationally structured. Google has nothing to worry about this, and the suit they just filed will probably be successful. They did their homework. They're more than willing to hand out data, but only through Google Inc., which is harder for Brazilian authorities than Google BR, but not at all out of reach. That's the beauty of Google's strategy: we simply can't complain, but it's going to be harder than it should be to access data necessary for criminal prosecution.

But the show is not the most important part. The more interesting issue is, indeed, one of jurisdiction. If the servers are located in the US and a Brazilian law was broken by material posted on the server, did the poster commit a crime in Brazil by posting it in the US-based server or is the material posted in the US-based server protected as free-speech?

Matters of free speech are indeed more complicated, but we're not strictly talking about free speech here in most of the crimes involved. Publishing child porn might fall under a free speech controversy, but sexually assaulting a child does not. Insofar as grabbing hold of the identities of people who publish child porn (a crime in itself, but let's not worry about that for the sake of this discussion) is necessary for the investigation of a rape, for instance, we're out of the free speech debate.

It bears mentioning that what really bothers Brazilian authorities is not child porno

Re:Jurisdiction

[tehcyder]

I side with Google

If it was Google v. The Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus, I think most slashdotters would side with the former.

Re:If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ..

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd give up the information age to stop soemone from spanking their kid?

Why not? Where has the "information age" really benefited mankind as a whole? All it's got to show is more social inequity (digital divide), more crime, new forms of crime, more rich people getting richer and more poor people getting poorer. The "information age" is all about personal web pages to fuel some self-aggrandizing ego, inane forums where inane people post their irrelevant views and more hollow pursuits.

Trash it. It won't be missed but by nerds which count for nothing anyway.

US legal system

[fabrica64]

>> The same thing holds true for Yahoo, Microsoft and any social networking site that chooses to operate in jurisdictions where privacy of the individual is not paramount in the legal system. I didn't know that individual privacy was parmaount in US legal system. I visited US from Europe last month and they took all of my data, fingerprint and photo at port of entry... and put on Windows systems

Re:Karma unwhoring

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, there is a surge in African and South American immigration to Brazil in recent years, including Chile, but mostly Bolivia.

I took a Colombian friend of mine who lived in DC to Rio and SP once and he said: "wow! I had no idea. Compared to Colombia, this is 1st world, we have nothing like this".

Re:If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ..

[tpv]

Hardly.

Shutting down Google Brazil will just stop google from running a commercial arm in Brazil - it won't stop Brazillians from accessing google.com
Google has clearly decided it is in their commercial interests to open an office in Brazil, they may be about to find out that they were wrong.

Thinks otherwise

[Wooky_linuxer]

Sort of. According to brazilian law (but IANAL), if a child company like Google Brasil is "subpoenaed" for info the parent company have access to, then it is obliged to comply. Google Brasil is obviously affiliated with Google US, so if they don't store the info themselves they should ask the parent company. While I understand US law might see the case otherwise, you have to comply with brazilian law if you want to have a company in Brasil. That said, there is a lot of both normal porn and child porn in Orkut; they don't enforce their own policies. Orkut is as popular to brazilians as MySpace is to americans, so communities trading publicy child porn pics is big bussiness and Orkut/Google should be more careful with dealing with this.

Obviously biased

[mangu]

People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US. And Brasilian prosecutors have no authority over Google US, but they do have authority over Google Brasil,

Your prejudice is shown, first of all, in your insistence in spelling BraZil with an "s". If you are writing in english, you should use the english spelling, just as you should avoid using unnecessary english words when writing in portuguese.

And even if nobody in Google Brasil has access to such data, they can ask Google US for the data -- as they already did when "hate speech" communities were taken off Orkut.

Which seems to be the crux of the question here. When should "hate speech" become illegal? Who should be in charge of deciding how much one is allowed to like or dislike other people, or other people's opinions?

I was born in Brazil and have lived here most of my life, and I must say this: Brazilian law is extremely, obscenely, biased against freedom of speech, even if that right is (theoretically) guaranteed in the constitution. The cases that have been judged against freedom of expression in Brazil are so utterly ridiculous that anyone it defies imagination.

For instance, there was an advertisement in television a few years ago that showed the football (soccer) star Ronaldo running with extended arms. The curch of the Vatican successfully sued to remove that ad from the airwaves, on the basis that the pose emulated the position that Jesus Christ had in the cross, and Jesus Christ (they claim) is an exclusive trademark of the church of the Vatican. If anybody not related to the Vatican church makes any statement about Jesus Christ in Brazil, that's considered "hate speech" by the catholic judges, who seem to hold many of the justice courts in Brazil. A pentecostal preacher once touched a statue of the "virgin" in a Brazilian TV program, to show that it was just a material image, he was prosecuted and had to flee the country to escape lynch mobs organized by catholics.

It's my opinion, as a native-born Brazilian, that when any Brazilian person mentions "hate speech", the whole matter should be disregarded. Our people are entirely too emotional to discuss seriously anything related to hate speech. In Brazil you can sue your bank and win if they refuse you credit, based on "moral damages". "Hmmm, no, we don't think you have enough collateral for a $100k loan" is a mortal offense in Brazil, such cases have been tried and the bank lost, all the way to the supreme court.

Poor Google, they seem to have some trouble understanding the local culture...

Re:Obviously biased

[hummassa]

People on Google Brasil have access to the data just like people from the Google US. And Brasilian prosecutors have no authority over Google US, but they do have authority over Google Brasil,

Your prejudice is shown, first of all, in your insistence in spelling BraZil with an "s". If you are writing in english, you should use the english spelling, just as you should avoid using unnecessary english words when writing in portuguese.

I'm sorry, you are not my fifth grade teacher, and you should not be giving me english spelling lessons. Save it for others. I will spell Brasil with an S all the time, and I will call natives of the USofA as USofAns to my heart's content.

And even if nobody in Google Brasil has access to such data, they can ask Google US for the data -- as they already did when "hate speech" communities were taken off Orkut.

Which seems to be the crux of the question here. When should "hate speech" become illegal?

In Brasil? In 1988. Hate speech is prohibited by our Constitution.

Who should be in charge of deciding how much one is allowed to like or dislike other people, or other people's opinions?

No one is in charge of deciding how much you can like or dislike someone else -- but you are obligated by law not to spread your hate around.

I was born in Brazil and have lived here most of my life, and I must say this: Brazilian law is extremely, obscenely, biased against freedom of speech, even if that right is (theoretically) guaranteed in the constitution. The cases that have been judged against freedom of expression in Brazil are so utterly ridiculous that anyone it defies imagination.

This is where you show your lack of legal knowledge:

For instance, there was an advertisement in television a few years ago that showed the football (soccer) star Ronaldo running with extended arms. The curch of the Vatican successfully sued to remove that ad from the airwaves,

No they did not. They asked our advertising self-regulating agency to ask the original ad agency to remove the commercial

on the basis that the pose emulated the position that Jesus Christ had in the cross, and Jesus Christ (they claim) is an exclusive trademark of the church of the Vatican.

No they did not. They alleged that it was disrespectful for Christians, which I agree is nonsense.

If anybody not related to the Vatican church makes any statement about Jesus Christ in Brazil, that's considered "hate speech" by the catholic judges, who seem to hold many of the justice courts in Brazil.

This is an outright lie and I challenge you to bring ONE such case (which court, case #, etc)

A pentecostal preacher once touched a statue of the "virgin" in a Brazilian TV program, to show that it was just a material image, he was prosecuted and had to flee the country to escape lynch mobs organized by catholics.

The guy was not prosecuted, was not lynched, and ultimately was elected for some office in Rio, check your facts.

It's my opinion, as a native-born Brazilian, that when any Brazilian person mentions "hate speech", the whole matter should be disregarded. Our people are entirely too emotional to discuss seriously anything related to hate speech.

I disagree with you. Hate speech has nothing emotional about it. As I said above, you can like or dislike whoever you want, but keep it to yourself, don't go around saying "black people smell bad" or "gay people are a plague" or "jews are the spawn of hell" and you'll be fine.

In Brazil you can sue your bank and win if they refuse you credit, based on "moral damages". "Hmmm, no, we don't think you have enough collateral for a $100k loan" is a mortal offense in Brazil, such

Re:Obviously biased

[mangu]

you can like or dislike whoever you want, but keep it to yourself, don't go around saying "black people smell bad" or "gay people are a plague" or "jews are the spawn of hell" and you'll be fine

Well, I'm sorry that I must pull a Godwin here, but people in Nazi Germany could dislike Hitler, they could hate Hitler, yet they couldn't express it in public. Unless you are allowed to express your opinion in public, no matter how offensive that opinion could be to other people, there is no freedom at all.

There was a time in Europe when merely expressing the opinion that the Earth moves around the Sun could get you burned at the stake. The difference between survival and death at the stake was in knowing when to give up, check Galileo and Giordano Bruno. In a perfect world, one should be allowed to have an opinion without being limited by relative degrees of opinion. Why should politeness have anything to do with the fact? "I disagree with you" is OK, but "you are a piece of shit" is not? Why? I believe my right to offend people is only limited by their right to ignore me.

There is no fundamental difference between saying "gay people are a plague" and "I'm a hetereosexual, I prefer the social company of people related to my own preferences", since the end result is the same, I avoid social contact with homosexuals. It's not as if I were killing gay people with a gun. Brazilian law says it's a crime to not have the salesperson's ability to tell the truth in a politically acceptable manner. Stupid.

our "moral damages" are normally low values -- there is no "punitive damages" in our legal system

Oh, no, they are limited to one hundred months of minimum wages. I know a lawyer who is a specialist in consumer protection cases, he told me he advises people who are wrongly reported by banks to the largest Brazilian credit company, Serasa, to try to get financing in at least four different companies, so they will get R$100 thousand in "moral damages".

Re:If the Brazilian government kicks Google out ..

[zanderredux]

Is it really? Google's Brazilian office is just a sales frontdesk. They do little development in the state of Minas Gerais, but they mostly make money (or try to, I don't know) from their many ad programs from their Sao Paulo office.

Closing Google Brazil only mean that Google won't have physical presence there and won't be able to collect revenue from ads (since the local law makes it very uncompetitive to pay foreign service providers in foreign currency). That's it.

What are you talking about?

[hummassa]

The GPP, while discussing the news item "Brasilian prosecutors subpoena Google Brasil for IP addresses of Orkut members", said

Calling that a "Child porn investigation case" is one of the most misleading statements I've ever heard. It was a "porn on the 'net fishing expedition."

That is what I asked him to clarify. AFAIK (and I know quite a lot about those cases) Brasilian prosecutors normally don't go on fishing expeditions... especially when it's about on-line stuff.

MODERATOR MADNESS: TIMELINE:

[hummassa]

1. Google US opens Orkut.
2. Orkut get filled with Brasilians.
3. Orkut gets used by Brasilian Criminals to plan crimes, like child prostitution, drug sales, robberies, and others, anonymously.
4. Google US opens Google Brasil, to get $$$ from online ads in Brasilian sites
5. Prosecutors' office ask judge to subpoena Google Brasil for IP address of criminals, judge grants it.
6. Google Brasil says "we don't know anything... call my papa in the US".
7. Prosecutors' office, knowing that they have no leverage to force Google US to give the IP addresses, strongarm Google Brasil, asking judge for fines and possibly the extinction of the Brasilian branch of Google.
Got it?

SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS

[hummassa]

For the sake of integrity, after some research, I will admit the following facts, that disagree with my post above:
1. The same way it's happening with the city of Paris and the Eiffel Tower, the Brasilian Catholic Church alleges that it is the copyright holder to the image of the Cristo Redentor. This would give any images of the statue, photographic or otherwise, the status of a derivative work, that must be authorized by the copyright holder. BUT... altough the Brasilian cardinal Dom Eugenio Salles has THREATENED to sue anyone who mis-use the image (like a bikini factory that was stamping their swimming suits with it), he has never come to the courts. And, in the cited Ronaldo case, the CONAR (Conselho Nacional de Auto-Regulamentação publicitária -- National Self-Regulation Advertising Council) ASKED the agency to can the ad.
2. In the case of Sergio von Helde Luiz, the bishop from the IURD (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus -- Universal Church of Kingdom of God?) that kicked a statue of Our Lady of Aparecida on TV, the bishop was never arrested, and altough he was prosecuted for the felony from art. 208 of our Penal Code ("ultraje a culto e impedimento ou perturbação de ato a ele relativo" -- "outrage to cult or disturbing of act relative to a cult", that includes vilifying objects of cult), he bargained a guilty plea for a fine.
I would like to ask other fellow slashdotters if they think all of the above as terrible limitations of the freedom of expression (I don't)

You are absolutely correct.

[hummassa]

I misread the last paragraph, or skipped the second-to-last, whatever.

Google in Brazil: Who Guards Orkut's Playground?

[josemurilo]

The big media attention to the case is in direct proportion to the scale of Brazilian participation in the virtual environment. It's really huge, and could provide an interesting laboratory on how to deal with digital identity on the web. But observers are quick to point out that Google's loose attention to Orkut development -- especially the lack of proper controls in the subscription process -- has had a decisive impact in the formation of the Brazilian user base. Everybody in the country knows that most of the users of social networks are kids, and most parents are not even aware that the site is not supposed to be allowed to people under 18. Who's to blame? Would Google pay such loose attention if the majority of users were in the US?

There must be some common ground for a positive settlement. It seems obvious that some Brazilian officials lack understanding of the web global dynamics AND Google has made equivalent errors in not paying close attention to inappropriate membership and behaviors of Orkut users until now. But the present 'tug of war' format of the debate will not help anybody. All sides should keep in mind that the case can be an opportunity bringing important insights about how to deal with identity in the web environment. Brazilians are ready (eager?) to explore these possibilities. It would be important also that Google Brazil's team should be prepared to think and move with respect for local cultural sensibilities while dealing with the implications created by such a huge experiment in social networking. It is obvious that 'adsense' sales people are not prepared to understand the deep issues that will keep emerging from the incredible digital laboratory spontaneously generated by social networking. Google's one-size-fits-all approach may just not fit everywhere, every time.

more here

Brazilian President

[meiao]

Yes, in Brazil we have a president who lets his comrades go away with hundreds of thousands of ill gained US$ in their underwear.