Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google to Give Data To Brazilian Court

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the not-much-they-could-do dept.

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."

12 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Before you start Google-bashing... by daniil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...note that this is about Orkut, not search results.

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    1. Re:Before you start Google-bashing... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not only that, but it appears in this case they are asking for data concerning "person X", which they apparently have the equivalent of probable cause to obtain.

      Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.

    2. Re:Before you start Google-bashing... by knightmad · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, there is a probable cause, and it is a little bit worse than "promoting hate", but "conspiring to commit a crime". One (of the many) examples that comes to my head is a group of neo-nazi that harassed a particular user (a black young boy) not only online (messaging him via the site, and creating a "community" with a "let's kill him" theme), but using the info they gathered about him on Orkut to harass him on his own homeplace.

      Anyway, there are anti-discrimination laws in Brasil since the nineties, and racism (bigotry, in general) is a federal crime there. But, if I'm not wrong (IANAL), there is a difference in our law between "I hate " and "I hate you John Doe, you fucking ". The former counts as free speech, the latter doesn't. I may be wrong, I don't know.

    3. Re:Before you start Google-bashing... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lumping your former examples with your latter is a bit unfair. They're not even in the same league. Of course, they do the same thing in America, too.

      Racism shouldn't be a crime in and of itself -- freedom of speech is something every country should agree on. The same pithy claim google makes that "we have to abide by their laws!!!oneone" doesn't refuse the fact that they are legitimizing an unjust law.

      Do i expect all the employees of Orkut to destroy the data and go to prison for it? No. But it still doesn't make handing over the data justified. What's that cliche about "I vas just following orders..."

  2. Maybe they should stop warehousing data by Secrity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Maybe they should stop warehousing data by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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."

      You know what cracks me up? A number of times over the last year, I've heard people brag about how much they love Google because they 'do no evil'. They've even gone as far as to state that they plan on trusting Google until they give them reason to do otherwise. (These comments were always modded up, to boot.) I imagine lots of these people use a GMail account... which they log in with using their browser. So, while they're logged in to GMail, they use Google to browse. The potential here is that they can trace back your searches and tie them to your login. Who needs to log IP addresses when they can identify you that way?

      So why does this crack me up? By the time Google does do something 'evil', they've already handed a lot of personal goodies over to Google. Oops...

      I do hope I'm wrong, though. I'd like it pointed out if I am. (you see, I like Google as well, and I use Gmail...) I'd feel a lot more comfortable if GMail had stuck to its own domain instead of using mail.google.com.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  3. Re:This is a horrifying precedent by shystershep · · Score: 4, Informative

    By "compelled to produce," the article is talking about Google obeying a court order. If a court has jurisdiction over a company, it doesn't matter where the information is -- the company has to obey that order or face the consequences (or try to convince the court the order is invalid somehow).

    The article summary is horribly misleading (even more so than normal): this is nothing like Google refusing to give the US government access to search info. There was no court order to do so (think subpoena), and so Google told them to take a hike. IIRC, even at that time Google specifically stated that if there had been a lawful court order, it would have complied.

    --
    The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
  4. Google right and wrong by newhoggy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Google was right to comply with the court order to hand over information it had collected provided it was very specific and constitutional. We shouldn't expect corporations to be in the business breaking the law.

    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.

  5. Re:More Nonsense! by knightmad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "That way the people of Brazil would clearly know what the government is doing"

    People of Brazil (including me) know exactly what the government is doing. It is going after people that are going beyond the "free speech" concept and getting into the "conspiracy to commit crime" realm. And it is not only about hate speech (that, in a certain extent, along with racism, is a crime in Brazil) but also members of criminal organizations ("traficantes") gloating about real world crimes like drug trafficking, weapon smuggling, etc.

    This is not the government subpoena'ing for data of all users or random users, but users that broke the law in one way or another. There is probable cause, judicial oversight and a clear description of what is being searched.

    (btw, as it is evident by some previous silly mistakes, english is not my first language)

  6. We all need heroes by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  7. Re:This is a horrifying precedent by Ath · · Score: 4, Informative
    The concept of legal jurisdiction for a court is a bit more complex but not too hard to understand. There are primarily two types: subject matter and personal (or physical). Subject matter is when the court has been given legal authority based on the actual subject being covered in the legal case. Personal / physical jurisdiction is rather easy to understand. If you are in the terroritory where the court has authority, that court has control over you and any posessions you have.

    So your example is easy to deal with. While a Brazilian court may or may not under Brazilian law have subject matter jurisdiction over the specific records on your hard drive, if you go to Brazil with that laptop then all bets are off and jurisdiction is established.

    Want to hear the real rub? If you are in an airplane flying over a particular country (or even state in the USA) then they have personal jurisdiction over you.

  8. Re:This is a horrifying precedent by bigpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a choice the people of Brazil made about how they choose to run their society

    Democracy does not equal freedom. Freedom is when a society recognizes that some things are none of its business. Democracy is about what to do with everything else.