Slashdot Mirror
Google to Give Data To Brazilian Court
Edu writes to mention a Washington Post article about Google's olive branch to the Brazilian courts. Despite previously refusing to reveal search information to the U.S. government, the company has announced they'll be releasing information on hate groups to the Brazilian courts. The move is intended to allow the Brazilian government to identify users associated with homophobic and racist groups. From the article: "Orkut pulls objectionable words and pictures from user sites, but Google stores content it feels could be useful in a lawsuit. Orkut is especially popular in Brazil, which accounts for 75 percent of its 17 million users. Legal and privacy experts said that Google had no choice but to comply with the court order. 'From the law enforcement perspective, if the records are in the possession of the business, the business can be compelled to produce them,' said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center."
...note that this is about Orkut, not search results.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
From the law enforcement perspective, if the records are in the possession of the business, the business can be compelled to produce them
Now, I may be a little lacking in the intricacies of where exactly large company data is stored on these interwebs, but just to throw out a crazy example: some Google executive visiting brazil transfers some very sensitive information from the company mainframe to do work on his vacation. Now since the information has been copied physically to brazil, it's fair game?
Wouldn't this also be a de facto legitimization of hacking in some countries? Give 'em a token punishment sure, but still use the information they obtained since precedent has already been set?
Show the world that Big Brother, Fascism and Censorship know no Left/Right wing ideology!
This is completly different than what the US gov't did. In this case it was a court order that Google was compelled to fulfil. What happened in the U.S. was the government asked google to hand over records, without mentioning the purpose.
Google's habit of logging EVERYTHING is starting to get a bit scary. EVERYTHING that a person has EVER done with ANY of Google's services has been warehoused and is subject to subpoena.
I can't wait for this to turn out horribly.
Of course they have a CHOICE! It's absolutely absurd to think otherwise as the article suggests. They could pull the plug on Okrut, and say, "Sorry, but your government wants us to violate your privacy. We have decided not to do that, and are therefore eliminating the service until government changes it's policy."
That way the people of Brazil would clearly know what the government is doing. Unfortunately that hurts Goggle, and they don't want to loose the revenue, so they trample peoples' rights. Google is again clearly stating, making a buck is more important than protecting our users.
That may be true of a typical business, but Google is not a typical business. Google can ignore the edicts of any government except America and China. What is Brazil going to do, block all national traffic to Google's websites? I'd love to see them get re-elected after pulling that little stunt.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
"Don't be Evil" was supposed to be the motto of the company. When they stood up to the Bush administration in court and defended it's user searches, I applauded them. Not because they were defending the search data, not because they were defending the people that made the searches, but rather because they were defending the end users *right* to make the search in the first place. Yet, in past months, my view of Google has started to change. Headlines like the one in which their CEO defended their policy of storing search terms (presumably for data mining operations and targeted marketing), and then this event in which they are going to turn over the data to a foreign government. I'm not defending the bad guys in any way here, but what I am saying is that there is going to come a day in the not so distant future in which the searches that you did ten years ago can be brought into question. Who knows? Maybe at somepoint some whacked law maker will make a twinkie illegal, and those searches that you made so that you could distill your own will be akin to taking a walk on the Dark Side. Philip Zimmermann said it best: "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."
However, Google was in the wrong for collecting identifying information in the first place. That is where my gripe is. They should be using technical measures to filter out identifying information before it reaches their database. That might include hashing IP addresses for instance so that equality comparisons can be made - but the original IP address rendered unobtainable.
I'd love to see them get re-elected after pulling that little stunt.
Yes, let us remember that it's a presidential election year in Brazil, and anything goes, especially for companies interested in little advantages. Plus, Google was being scalded alive by the local media. And, like I heard once: "a polemical headline exists as a bargain for a even more polemical request".
I was thinking about this general issue last night and realized the great irony that Brazil and "enlightened" Europe would have to outlaw a lot of South Park episodes because they would offend the sensibilities of some group, typically homosexuals. I'm entirely unimpressed with these countries and their "progressiveness" that says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not.
Oh don't even start that bullshit about majorities versus minorities. The minorities are just as bad as the majorities. I've met just as many gays that instantly assume I'm going to want to stone them to death because I'm technically a fundamentalist, as I have met pseudo-Christians who would probably join a mob to stone them. I'm an asshole, they're an asshole. EVERYONE'S AN ASSHOLE on these issues at some point!
You know what breeds hate and resentment? Empowering people to turn subjective feelings into a legal weapon. You instantly empower a hate group the moment you ban it. I bet the KKK would grow 50-100% every year if it were outlawed. It's just a way for societies to brush their issues under the national carpet and pretend that all is well.
Well guess what?! It isn't! All manner of bigotry is rampant around the world and the force of law is not going to change hearts. Law has been used to smooth these things over time and again in the past and it **always** fails. The only thing that changes bigotry into love is a spiritual rebirth and that is something that cannot be legislated.
The faggot google should just move to Brasil. Obviously they care more about racism then the mega terror threat to the USA( gods chosen Country after Israel). I hope the DHS gives each google employee and shareholder a full cavity search and lists them as no fly for this outrage.
You hate coins?
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Actually, the United States is not a member to any international, multilateral, or bilateral treaties on the recognition of foreign judgments (it is on recognition of arbitral awards - the Geneva Convention). That isn't to say you can't enforce foreign awards, but it will be based upon domestic law and not treaty law. See http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial _691.html/. What the domestic law is, I am not sure and don't have time to research.
Yes, I refuse to treat them all as equal. Some clearly have more value than others. Especially those pennies. You know how they are.
But google is not it. Seriously, why would anybody put any corporation up on a pedestal?
Google will do what's best for google. End of story. If that means digging in their heels because a legal request is over reaching and would comprimise some aspect of their operations, so be it. If, in another case, it means they hand over the data, that's fair too.
You want a hero? Go hug a firefighter, or a police officer. Or a doctor, or a vet. Not a corporation.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Despite previously refusing to reveal search information to the U.S. government, the company has announced they'll be releasing information on hate groups to the Brazilian courts.
This is nothing like the situation in the United States. Just looking at the first paragraph of TFA, we get "Google Inc. ... said yesterday that it was complying with a Brazilian court's orders to turn over data ..." In the US, the data was asked for, and Google said no. In Brazil, the court is forcing them. Yes, Google's going along with a court order, but if there hadn't been such an order, they wouldn't have given the data, just like they didn't hand it over in the US.
Of course, a lot of people will say, "Well, they shouldn't be collecting it!" To me, if you're using the service, you agree to the ToS, and those records are part of how Google operates. If you don't like it, either ensure your anonymity by taking the appropiate measures or use a different service... like MSN. Because we all know that they don't record the same data.
How can any of you seriously expect Google to take a stand and not turn over information about a guy trading child porn on Orkut?
This is not some questionable case where the person is a political dissident, or something. They have records of this person's account, trading child porn. They want to know who he is.
Do you honestly think there is any sane way to take a stand on this issue and not look like a complete monster?
If they don't turn over the information, people will say they are protecting child molesters.
If they do turn over the information, people will say they are violating people's privacy.
I maintain it'd have been much easier to get this information by having someone actually add the suspect as a friend on orkut and then communicating with them to get their personal information - after a court order so its not entrapment. So the logs that Brazilian law enforcement wants are very limited but the point was this could have been avoided all together.
Google needs to take a good long look at what information it collects and how it matches up your google account information to your google searches and how long it retains copies of your gmail. Don't be Evil is nice and all but the potential for massive damage because of a privacy breach is too great. Since they collect the information and you supply it I feel you have a right to see exactly what they collect at least. That will probably change the usage patterns of concerned users but most people don't care so their data would still have value.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
This is just another reason to behave on the web as if everyone knows who you are and what you are doing. As long as companies like Google, your ISP, and thousands of other players, are logging your login ids and search habits via cookies, or your IP address, governments have few barriers to finding out who you are. So while there are techniques that the technically knowledgeable can use to cover some of their tracks, unless you have a price on your head, it's ultimately not worth the effort. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to place it in plain sight. The real solution to problems like this is not technical, but socio-political.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
They are only 4 bytes big. You could exhaustively search the plaintext space for the resulting hashes very quickly, and store them all in a database of a few gigabytes for random access.
This reminds me of the content of Orkut and why I stopped using it ages ago.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
As a fellow Brazilian, the parent post sums up precisely what's going on here.
This is not about Google's search logged information. This is about information posted by users at Orkut, which are meant to be visible to all Orkut's users. The summary is terribly misleading.
You're right - shouldn't have assumed it was treaty based. In fact, it appears to be strictly common law, based on the principle of comity. See, e.g., Hilton v. Guyot, 159 US 113, 40 L ed 95, 16 S Ct 139 (1895) (enforcing on the basis of comity, but only where there is reciprocity).
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
This is what happens when Political Correctness becomes a matter of law.
Political Correctness is nothing more than totalitarianism in the world of ideas. What's worse is that it is almost transparently so, making its presence in a supposedly free society all the more puzzling and maddening. Those who promote it are quite simply intellectually bankrupt.
The best discription of political correctness I know of comes from Theodore Dalyrimple:
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You are a misanthrope.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I was talking about a law, called 'Natural Selection.' At least I have a basement, while fucktards like you and the rest of the shitdot sheeple rarely get out of your parent's basements. If you want to get out of your parent's basement, here is what you and the rest of the shitdot sheeple can do about it.
Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere, then take your entire fucktarded family.
Have all of them jump off to theirdeaths, and after that jump to yours. Problem Solved!
GO AHEAD, FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR WASTE YOUR GOD DAMNED MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!
I believe we are entering the end of the "Age of Anonymity".
/were/ anonymous on the 'net - anyone with sufficient interest and motiviation can eventually track someone down.
It has always been known, at least among the geeks, that we never really
But for the last 10 or more years it really hasn't been an issue. Online users have been largely "under the radar" in terms of society, commerce, and justice, unless you really went out of your way to draw attention to yourself.
But now that the Internet has become "mainstream", it has attracted the eye of government, businesses, everyone. The Internet, long a tool to "find out information about "stuff", has now become an excellent tool to "find out stuff about _people_".
I think we are on the cusp of a global realization that just taking out a "handle" to use on the internet does not constitute anonymity. It doesn't matter anymore how "careful" you are about what you choose to reveal about yourself online anymore - the very act of being online is going to become like a billion-watt beam of light shooting out of the roof of your house, or wherever you happen to be when you are connected.
Oh, there will continue to be lots of attempts to obscure where you are connecting from, Tor, etc., but ultimately, you have to have an address on the 'net. That address is where you are. And that address can be found, otherwise you couldn't receive any data there.
But here's why all those attempts will fail: All the people who control the data don't care about you. The people who's web sites you visit, the people who own the pipes that the data flows over, they don't care about you. And they will give up the information about you just as fast as they think their's a buck in it for them to do so, or penalties if they do not.
These few early cases of Google, Yahoo, etc. handing over data being used to try people in court are just the first few drops of rain in what is going to become a downpour. Soon it will be obvious to all that anything and everything you do on a computer will, though accident or intent, be visible to anyone.
The age of anonymity is over.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Most hate speech laws in europe no longer require any incitement to violence or similar act to constitute a criminal act - merely expressing derision towards whatever group the left has given protected status for the moment.(In the case of Sweden, the threshold is the infinitely elastic "disrespect" (religious, sexual, ethnic, racial, whatever).
My personal view of freedom of speech is based on the dual value of non-violent politics and reciprocity. Hence, I see no real principle-based problem in denying speech rights to groups who are themselves opposed to free speech. (I.e. why allow them to speak out when they would throw you in jail if they were in power?)
However, in practice, giving politicians the power to ban those who annoy them at will has a tendency of ending badly, with the politicians giving in to temptation. In practice, this means nazis get banned but communists get a pass, despite both being quite ready to seize power by force and silencing all opposition.
Finally - Free speech is valuable and a major civilizational achievement because it is at its core a cease-fire treaty between political actors not to use the power of the state (when in power) to silence minority opinions using force. In return, political minorites pledge not to use force if they grow into a majority, and to refrain from insurrection and subversion.
Sadly, this is often forgotten, especially by fanatical moralists.
Google WILL BE North Central Positronics
Choice 1: Stop keeping data on Brazilians
Choice 2: Change their unofficial slogan to
"Do no evil*
*except where required by law."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
US Government demanded information from Google, government had no legal right/autority to such information
Here the brazilian courts demanded the information, they have the legal right and powers to demand such information in persuit of information in regards to a ongoing case. Google had no choice but to hand over the information or close up shop in Brazil and warn all it's employee's never to go there again(or to any country that might extridite them there), even for a vacation
If the US courts had demanded that information from google it would have had no choice but to hand it over (once they had used up all other legal alternatives, aka appeals/supreme court) if they had not they would have faced doing the same they would have faced in Brazil for non compliance
Refusing to comply with the demands of a countrys bureaucracy is one thing, refusing to comply with the demands of a countrys judiciary is something else altogether, first can cause you some difficulties (lost contracts, audits from hell so forth) latter lands you in jail.
I promise to keep this short.
Orkut is widely popular here in Brazil, particulary among the younger audience. There has been pedophilia problems, as the service allows for easy approach to victims.
Refusing to give information about brazilians to brazilian justice would be pretty much like being a digital Switzerland, covering up crimes under the false guise of being a neutral entity.
I do understand the concerns about people's privacy in Google services, however this should not be extended to criminals molesting innocent children. If a brazilian is involved in racist, pedophile or homophobic groups, he should be arrested according to his country's laws.
I'm sure it's much too late for Google to do this, but there's a huge vacuum in the market for a new company to offer similar services but with strong privacy protections. To be worth a flip, such services would need to use technological means to secure users' privacy; strong policy alone is insufficient.
Data warehousing has obvious benefits to me as a user. I like having my mail archive on a server where it's accessible from anywhere. I like having personalized search results, and having personalized plugins on my homepage. I don't like neo-Nazis, but to me, the threat of the loss of speech and privacy rights is far more dangerous than the harm that can be caused by those taking advantage of same for nefarious ends.
I'd like to see EFF (or some similar organization) sponsor a coding contest for creating strong privacy systems within a personalized data warehousing environment. I could see building blocks in such a system consisting of encrypted data, client-side only keys, and encrypted keys or hashes maintaining the links between user accounts and their data.
The problem that needs solving is that any company which maintains and can access user data on its servers may at some time be compelled to divulge such data at the request of a government. By storing the data in the clear, the company may well have sacrificed its prerogative to differentiate between "good" and "evil" government requests. On the other hand, a company cannot divulge data that it cannot access. It could forward a subpoena or similar instrument to an anonymous user on behalf of a government, but a truly secure system would not allow it to inspect, cross-reference or mine the data without the user's knowlege and consent.
Who might be up to such a challenge?
Pi Ran Out
One way is "Google extends olive branch". Another way would be "after some arm-twisting, Google finally gave up".
It is aaall spinning, dudes and dudettes, it is aaaall about spinning.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.
While Google is a US company they still operate in Brazil and as such they need to obey Brazilian law, just as they, MS, and Yahoo do in China. I may not like it but if they don't want to follow the rules then they don't need to be there. Or they can work to change the laws. As for "promoting hate", it depends on how it is being promoted as to whether it should be legal or not. Simply speaking out or nonviolently demontrating shouldn't be illegal, and if it were then that law is unconstitutional. Inciting violence, yes should be illegal. I recall years ago, in the 1980s 0r '90s, groups of neonazis, skinheads, and/or other hate groups were being barred from having a march in I believe it was Skokie, IL and the ACLU defended their right, I do myself. I may disagree with what someone says but I'll defend their right to say it nonviolently. You don't counter hatred with laws you counter it with reason, or making hate speech illegal but with more speech.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Google could have chosen to 'Be Good' as their motto. They have decided to use 'Don't be Evil' instead. Being a listed company their position is driven by short term profits on the obviously gliding scale from 'good' to 'evil', regardless of the original intentions of the founders. Controlling cognition and behaviour by unsollicited collection, monitoring, analysis and filtered feedback turns us into robots that maximise profits. That's science not fiction.
My question is this: Would you feel the same way if this was MSN in the exact same situation?
without permission. You may get sued for assault.
Maybe after this post I should consider applying for political asylum in the US or maybe Switzerland...
Do you live in Brazil now? In a few years I'm hoping to go to Brazil, as part of a study abroad program for a year. Before I can go though I need to take two years of Portugese and I don't know when I'll be able to start taking it, hopefully next year but I'm not sure. Switzerland? My brother-in-law was talking about buying an inn and starting a Bed and Breakfast there. Myself, I'd rather go to either, Corsica, Italy, or Portugal.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually, the United States is not a member to any international, multilateral, or bilateral treaties on the recognition of foreign judgments (it is on recognition of arbitral awards - the Geneva Convention). That isn't to say you can't enforce foreign awards, but it will be based upon domestic law and not treaty law. See http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial _691.html/ [state.gov]. What the domestic law is, I am not sure and don't have time to research.
It may not be the law you're thinking of but foreign entities can use the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 to sue US companies in US courts for actions taken in other countries. There are now or were recently lawsuits filed in the US based on the act against Chevron, Coca Cola, and Exxon amoung others.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And if original texts do turn up at a later date, translations are often not corrected out of fear of shocking the readership with a more accurate (but unexpected) rendering. And that's even without counting deliberate forgeries.
Ah but even if "original texts" are found the church can turn around and call them blasphemous as the Vatican did with the Nag Hammadi texts. If anything threatens their grasp they will call it blasphemous.
FalconShould there be a Law?
But your history is stored forever, making sure that evenutally you will become a criminal and have the man come visit you.
Great precident we have here. Grrr
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Recently, there was an article here about a website that was trying to incite people to attack researchers using animal models. The general consensus here (if I may summarise) was that they shared responsibility for vigilante attacks, although they disclaimed it. This is a summary I agree with.
I reckon this is a very difficult issue.. should people be allowed to incite violence and hatred (be it religious or homophobic, racist, etc) under the guise of 'free-speech'? Personally I think free speech is very important in a free society, but I think there comes a point when one person exercising their right to free speech impinges on the freedoms of lots of other people.
I guess I'm saying that there are rights that are more important than freedom of speech (such as life, liberty and happiness) and that they should have precedence.
Please, keep in mind that in this Brazil vs Orkut case they have chosen the most evil path. They don't want to risk losing the $$$ they get from adwords in Brazil, even if that's just a very small percentage of their total sales.
You shouldn't think in terms of the US Constitution, because the Brazilian "constitution" doesn't have any teeth. Even if there is a nominal protection for "freedom of expression" in the Brazilian constitution, it's so weak and there are so many exceptions that the only freedom of expression we, the Brazilian citizens have, is to agree with those who are more powerful than us. Some specific examples:
1) The catholic church:
They consider anything related to Jesus Christ their own trademark. They actively fight by any available means anything that could be considered derogatory to them. For instance:
-They are very active in the carnival celebrations, no costumes or decorations containing anything related to religion is allowed. There was a carnival parade in Rio de Janeiro once when one of the samba schools floats were censored by black plastic, under an injunction obtained by the church, because the theme for that parade mentioned religion.
-A televangelist preacher was prosecuted once because he touched a statue of the Virgin Mary in his TV show, to demonstrate that it was only a material image. The act of touching that statue and saying, "look, this is just a clay statue" fell under the Brazilian law that prohibits "promoting religious hatred".
-A TV ad showing soccer player Ronaldo was removed from Brazilian airwaves because he was shown with stretched arms, and the church claimed it was an image that resembled the pose that Jesus had in the cross.
2) "Apology of crime":
Anything that may be considered as a defense of criminal acts is prohibited by Brazilian law. This is specially prosecuted when artists mention drugs.
-Members of a rock band called "Planet Hemp" were arrested a couple of times, just because of the band's name.
-Any music whose lyrics could be considered an implicit mention of drug use is prohibited. Songs like Peter, Paul, and Mary's "Puff the Magic Dragon" or Bob Dylan's "Tambourine Man" would be illegal in Brazil, if the words were in the Portuguese language.
3) Homosexualism:
Homosexual groups are very active in censoring anything they consider "homophobia". A comedy show was recently removed from the airwaves under a court order because they showed some "candid camera" clips where actors pretending to be gays accosted men in the street.
4) Racism:
There are two actions that are crimes related to racism under Brazilian law. One is "racial discrimination" and the other is "offense caused by racial prejudice". You can go to jail in Brazil, either for denying a job to someone because of his race, or for using the Brazilian equivalent of the "N" word, which is "crioulo". None of the cases being prosecuted against Orkut fall under the true "racism" issue, they are all "N word" cases. Amazingly, reverse discrimination is totally legal in Brazil. There are popular music bands called, for instance, "Mama Africa" and "Cidade Negra"(Black City), but calling your band "Mama Europe" or "White City" will put you in jail, with no bail allowed.
5) Other manifestations:
You cannot say anything that pisses anybody off in Brazil, no matter what, under a general "defamation" law. One rather funny example: a book on soccer star Garrincha was removed from the bookstores under a court order granted by request of his daughters. The reason: the author, mentioning Garrincha's sexual exploits, wrote that his penis was about 25cm long. The book was allowed to be sold, because a hgher court judge considered that saying
Brasilian government: "We need this data. Here's a subpoena."
Google Brasil: "We don't have it. It's on our parent company's servers in the U.S.A. Go ask them."
Slashdot: "Your Rights Online: Google says No to Brasilian government datamining! Good old Google!"
(Later...)
Brasilian government: "We need this data. Here's a subpoena."
Google USA: "Okay, here."
Slashdot: "Your Rights Online: Google sells out to foreign gummints again! Google == teh asshats!"
I saw this coming days ago.
So, you think that the mere fact that a court orders something makes it automagically right?
Have you tried to look at the facts behind the news? Brazilian laws are so ridiculous that people in more civilized countries have no idea of what happens in this case.
I'm a Brazilian user of Orkut, but I have nothing at all to do with those prosecuted people. I am neither a law enforcement officer or involved in any way with those alleged "crimes". But let me tell you this: Brazilian law is *extremely* biased against freedom of speech. Most if not all of those people which the Brazilian government is trying to catch are teenagers who are trying to shock their elders. They are saying things like "yes, I smoked pot once, and I liked it", "I'm straight and I hate gays", "I'm white and I don't like niggers", or "I'm a Baptist and I think Catholics are stupid".
Saying any of those sentences is a *felony* according to Brazilian law. What do you think is worse, trying to do a fishing expedition in search records or imprisoning people for speaking out their minds?
BTW, the slogan is stolen from M$.
And you wont get bit by this crap. Its free as in beer. http://www.blackboxsearch.com/
When Yahoo gives in to a government notice to give up information on a user, the Slashdot community gets its panties in a twist.
Why the double standard?
Zonk using a questionable heading on Slashdot. Are you surprised? ;-)
So Paul knows what the "arsenokoite" term means. But does he also know what hypokrytos means? (sorry for the Greek spelling, this is not my first language).
And how does Ephesians 5:29 rhyme with 2 Corinthians 12:7 ? Even if we disagree about what that mysterious "thorn" actually is, there seems to be some contradiction between both verses, unless Paul considers himself to be nobody.
Don't want to loose Karma as redundant, but yeah, MOD PARENT UP!
Regarding reply:
But that does make a lot more people happy, isn't it? You cannot just bump into somebody and fear that they may be some one who hate you or vice versa, which is very unlike US where there is a prevalent distrust throughout the country, a general attitude of 'i don't care about them, they don't care about me'; while in Europe the society plays has 'some' role!
junglee_iitk
That's one way to structure freedom. Another way is when a society structures itself such that no one comes to harm in the case of no secrets.