Slashdot Mirror
Google Denies Data In Brazil Orkut Case
mikesd81 writes, "The AP reports that Google filed a motion in response to a Brazilian judge's deadline to turn over information on users of the company's social networking service Orkut. An earlier AP story gives the background: 'On Aug. 22, Federal Judge Jose Marcos Lunardelli gave Google's Brazilian affiliate until Sept. 28 to release information needed to identify individuals accused of using Orkut to spread child pornography and engage in hate speech against blacks, Jews and homosexuals. Google claims that its Brazilian affiliate cannot provide the information because all the data about Orkut users is stored outside Brazil at the company's U.S.-based headquarters. Google maintains that it is open to requests for information from foreign governments as long as the requests comply with U.S. laws and that they are issued within the country where the information is stored.'" Eight million
Brazilians, about a quarter of the country's Internet-using population, are members of Orkut.
That's going to be quite a kerfuffle, I would imagine.
Kudos to google for protecting user's rights, though.
Brazilians love Orkut.
stick it to the man using the man, that's what i say. force the world to regulate the internet! thanks google.
I heard about this new site called myspace, you should check it out.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
So then, what are the laws in the U.S. - can Google legally deny the Brazilian Government access? It seems like keeping such a huge userbase's data completely private would be a great PR stunt for Google. They can claim that there are so many people in their userbase, that there is no feasible policing possible. Or claim it goes against their policy, and/or guarantees from their user agreement, etc...
On one hand, the Brazilian government wants the IPs to go after pedophiles and racist hatemongers. I think we can all get behind throwing such people in very small cells with no windows and melting the key down as they watch.
On the other, this is an American company receiving a demand from Brazil. If they comply with this demand to hand over IPs, who's to say such wonderful democratic places as Saudi Arabia and China won't start demanding information on dissidents and getting it via this precedent (Ok, scratch China... Do No Evil my ass)? If the precedent is very explicitly restricted to pedophiles, then expect find out that everyone the CCP doesn't like are pedophiles.
Unfortunately, such applies to any corrupt authoritarian government. If you have any means of handing them data, they will abuse it to their own ends [Insert standard link to Bush administration here]. So the question becomes, how to hand data over to Brazil to help them hunt down child predators while NOT helping Saudi Arabia jail and murder dissidents.
And overshadowing this is the fact that perverts and hatemongers who are NOT idiots don't talk over plaintext for obvious reasons (like the local government rightfully hunting them down). Given the wide availability of encryption and anonymization tools, it's easily possible to hide from any government you want.
Might I suggest a registry to distinguish between governments that can reasonably be trusted not to misuse requests for identifying information, e.g. Brazil, and corrupt dictatorships like China or Saudi Arabia. Never going to happen because certain dictatorships have America by the economic balls (Thank you, Federal Government, for sending all our industry to China and setting up a $10e11 trade deficit! And for spending $5e11 on Iraq instead of alternate fuels!) and wouldn't take kindly to being disfavored because of their crimes. And if it were created, good like keeping it from being turned into a tool to protect criminals instead (look at the nations that are on the UN Human Rights council). But it's worth dreaming about...
Google are acting the political entity they are complete with foreign policy and juridical independence.
Google is no longer an ongoing enterprise, folks.
Without a doubt if Google loses here it will set a precedent for other governments to invade our privacy.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
I thought it was just Orkut, but they're the same way on IRC. It's some fucked up cultural thing. I'm an op on a book sharing channel on an IRC network and I've banned so many Brasilians it's ridiculous. The other ops have suggested setting a .br K-Line, and if it keeps up we probably will.
The Brasilians can have Orkut. They're going to need it when they alienate the rest of the world.
> But Brasilians are the most fucking rude, arrogant, self-righteous
> people on the planet. They move into every community and drown out
> everyone else all the while insulting those who can't speak Portugese
> and ignoring any community rule that doesn't suit them.
Boy oh boy does that sound familiar. Thank God no one else has described citizens of any other country in such disparaging terms.
Clearly you have NEVER delt with Brasilians, otherwise you would not make such an assinine statement.
Google Denies Data In Brazil Orkut Case
Good.
pedophiles and racist hatemongers. I think we can all get behind throwing such people in very small cells with no windows and melting the key down as they watch.
Pedophilia isn't a crime, and neither is hating someone. So, no, not everyone wants to live in your Orwellian fantasy where thoughtcrime is a common reason to throw someone in jail.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If Google kept their servers in space, or on the moon, or somewhere where no country really has claim, could they just ignore any request by any government to hand over data?
If Google owns the data then one option they have is to simply destroy it. No government can compell them to hand over something they no longer have.
I think the reason Google isn't releasing the data is because it would open up a new wound for them. The last thing they want is people in other countries thinking that Google not only collects private data on them, but will release it at the drop of a hat to aviod a long and complicated law suit. They're trying to protect their intregity with this move. I think its a good thing, in this day and age, we don't need more companys like Verizon, Bellsouth, and AT&T giving away our personal information to the government. If we haven't done any thing illegal that they're trying to persue, then our personal information shouldn't be released without our prior knowledge and concent.
Umm I may stand corrected, but while Google has agreed to block some content for China. I am quite sure they have maintained and stuck by their policy of not providing any Data to China, something Yahoo and other companies have done.
I dont think I can get behind locking people up for their thoughts or speech. sorry.
Please look up what pedophilia actually means. It's irresponsible to imply that pedophiles are automatically criminals. Most people don't get to choose their sexual orientations and fetishes and almost all pedophiles (there are more than you think, what with all that pressure to keep it secret) never actually act on their fantasies. No, I'm not a pedophile, but that stigma is quite a terrible thing for many people.
It's difficult to live up to "Don't be evil.". On one hand protecting users' privacy fits in well with this but on the other taking actions to protect those who clearly aim to do the complete opposite of this doesn't seem to live up to this lofty principle.
Why did then the "oh-so-dont-do-evil-company" comply with China's demand of removing search results... wtf..
Please note that Google is asked not for IP's but for the identity of the persons. Users of Google "products" such as Orkut, gMail, Google Checkout, customized homepage, etc., gradually provide increasingly explicit information on who they are.
/. link to a Google image search for Child Porn. (No, I'm not a pedophile; the link was posted on /. to prove that there *was* child porn out there.)
I don't know if it's for better or worse, but Google is very likely able to provide names and addresses, not only IP's.
I use enough Google gizmos that I'm damned paranoid. They know specifially who I am, what I read, my searches, etc. Hell, I even clicked on a
And just how are you going to melt the key while they watch, if their cell has no windows?
Maybe they're pissed because you can't spell portuguese in your own language?
yes, that's right.
Amen to that! Hating someone may be immoral. (I certainly think it is.) But hating someone is *not* a crime. Crime is in the action, or at least attempted action. Wanting to hate someone or rape someone or kill someone or blow up a building, etc. is *very* different from actually doing any of those things.
"If you want to do business in our country you must agree to store data in a manner that allows the local judicial system to subpoena it."
If Brazil says its request is to stop child porn ...
On one hand, the Brazilian government wants the IPs to go after pedophiles and racist hatemongers. I think we can all get behind throwing such people in very small cells with no windows and melting the key down as they watch.
You think wrong.
Pedophiles are criminals all over the world, however in most of the civilized world it's not a crime to be a racist or a homophobe. Simply put, it's not a crime to be an asshole. When you drive such ideas underground, they fester. When that ugliness gets exposed to the light of day, it's easier to control it by countering every lie with the truth.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Who said I'm speaking "my" language? Not everyone is so rude as the Brasilians as to be unable to conform to local customs.
In case anyone was curious about how a court in Brazil would go about asking for production of US documents in a criminal case, here is your answer. This treaty entered into force on February 21, 2001.
Not normally too big on racism or stereotyping, but this must certainly be the greatest trolling in history!
In Brazil, racism IS a crime. A good article abaut that: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lafer1 .
Pedophilia may not be a crime. However, as a potential employer, it would not violate the law to discriminate against a pedophile.
While 'being a pedophile' might not be a crime, are none of you aware that possesing child porn, as well as sex with a minor is a crime?? I assume one, while 'being a pedophile', would break one of those laws would he not? The law on 'being a pedophile' I do not know, however, I am very aware, having lived there for quite a while, that hate speech is a punishable crime. Hate speech IS ILLEGAL in Brazil! Did nobody hear about the soccer player from Argentina who was arrested at the end of a game for calling a Brazilian player a monkey???? Of course we all have different opinions about this type of legislature, whether or not it is just, but that has no affect on it's existence. Would I rat out a guy in another country because he broke a foreign law that I might not agree with? I don't know... I just know I'd kill him if he was 'being a pedophile' with my daughter!!
And just in case anyone is wondering, the Federal Government can (and does) codify by regulation that some people "must...be of good moral character". Pedophilia is really an issue of morality. So, while pedophilia is not explicitly prohibited by law, it is explicitly not protected from discrimination.
Anyway, that's just my take on the CFRs. I am not a liar^H^H^Hawyer.
So, they may be pissed because you can't spell "brazillians" in english?
I know I was annoyed when I read "portugese" while being portuguese...
Actually I think being a pedophile is legal most places. It just becomes illegal if you act on those urges.
At that with the USAs freedom of speech it must be fine to talk about molesting kids or dressing up young looking adults as sexy children.
Speech is Speech whether talking hate or sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Despite being I-want-to-cut-your-tongue-you're-so-goddamn-noisy noisy, brazilians seemed like good people. However, I can't speak well of any blog or space by people in my country (well, we're near brazil... does that count?)
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
...that's a lot of orkut users!
the problem is: the Brazilian prosecutors subpoened Google's Brazilian office.
m mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003739&intsrc=new s_ts_head
the Brazilian office doesn't have access to the data stored in the servers, based in the USA. Google's brazilian office is a law firm, probably there are no techies there.
when the brazilian prosecutors present their request properly to Google in USA the data will be handed over. It has been done before:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?co
I totally agree that if Google, or any other company, were to hand over IPs to a country soon all others would start requesting for similar data. However the concept of a League of Democratic Nations that could ask these data is really complicated. The judiciary and the police work in very, very different ways from country to country, even among democratic ones.
Take Brazil and USA for instance. The US justice system is relatively quick and, as far as I know, it values freedom and privacy far more than brazilian justice. Because of this the investigative police in the US is trained to work within different restrictions than in Brazil. Requests for overruling privacy rights in criminal investigation are made by brazilian investigators in situations where it wouldn't be normal elsewhere. So instead of making better investigations (like creating fake communities on Orkut or going after known friends) they take the easier path.
I won't even mention other problems of the brazilian judiciary like a common unprofessional desire for media exposition, which I think is the main reason for this specific brazilian demand (in case the reader hasn't noticed, I live in Brazil). The point here is that judiciary systems simply don't match everywhere, so a list of nations allowed to make some requests for data for investigation wouldn't help that much. I believe that if a country wants data kept in another country, it should first ask the keeper, and then ask the local justice system. There could be a specific court to handle these cases, but it would comply to local law.
If you send your money to Switzerland looking for privacy and security you would expect that demands for data about your money would be judged by the swiss justice. Well, I believe that user data works the same way. If stored in the USA it's protected by local freedom of speech and privacy rights. It could even be good for business: "keep your private data private, keep your speech free for a reasonable price".
^[:wq!
I bet you are Argentinian.
Slashdot is a place to discuss technology, politics, and the philosophy of living.....not for being a racist dumb*ss... I use Orkut. I talk to my Brazilian friends. I have no problems. As for being arrogant and self-righteous, it is apparent that you have never talked to a Brazilian. They are some of the warmest, kindest, and open people on the globe. Perhaps that's why they share great relations with every nation. Yes even some of our enemies, but let's not get into our own 'flawless' foreign policy and alienating techinques... You are an arrogant and ethnocentric fool. I wonder how you know so much about this culture, you do speak Portuguese, right? Farewell coward, and thank you for not returning
Why is this in the YRO section? Shouldn't it be BRO (Brazilian Rights Online)?
First, I have no pity for the child porn distributors. Theoretically it could be very borderline material, but it is probably terribly vile stuff that requires long prison sentences.
The hate speech issue on the other hand is very serious. What is determined to be hate speech in this situation? Is it calling for the genocide of a particular group or is it an offensive joke? Who gets to make a call on this? If someone from Brazil states that affirmative action should be overturned, are they committing a crime? What about concerns about violence in a particular neighborhood? Is implied hate enough for a conviction? If someone believes that homosexuality is immoral and openly say their opinion, do they go to jail? What if they never tell anyone, but they write a journal on their computer which happens to be discovered by the government. Should they go to jail? If the U.S. government turns over this information when such speech is protected in the U.S., it weakens the right of all Americans to speak freely. I'm also concerned about other governments following the example.
A lot of people are against politically incorrect speech, so I'll give an example which is more politically correct. Imagine a woman in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi system for tracking all of her online activates is not logging material as well as it should. She has a sexually explicit chat with a foreigner. The Saudi government's tracking system becomes aware that a chat took place and it had forbidden content, but can't track who made the chat on the Saudi side. That information is stored in a server in the United States which is owned by a company that also does business in Saudi Arabia. Let us say that the woman will face fifty lashes if she is caught. Should the United States government allow that information to be passed to the Saudis?
"Google's Brazilian affiliate" I would imagine that this affiliate is charted in Brazil, so then it should be expected that it should comply with Brazillian law otherwise they could/should just pull their charter.
Where the data actualy resides is interesting because wouldn't it be cached in several locations in Brazil? Perhaps even on equipment owned by said affiliate?
I don't think it would be un-thinkable (unreasonable?) for a country to insist that data entering the country, reside in the country for some specified amount of time to allow it to fall within their jurisdiction.
I am not in favor of limiting information flows, however we are still a world of nations and those states have an interest in, and a right to be able to enforce their laws wether those laws were made by dictate or democratic legislation. Before I hear anyone say that some regimes are invalid because of their nature, I would suggest first checking to see if they are currently recognized as states by the US or other western nations.
I for one, wrote letters to keep harmfull information out of Canada, but they gave FoxNews a broadcast license anyway.
At that with the USAs freedom of speech it must be fine to talk about molesting kids or dressing up young looking adults as sexy children.
Speech is Speech whether talking hate or sex.
Within the past week a woman in my state, PA, was indicted by federal authorities for posting sexual stories online that included sex with children. My personal feelingis that as long as it was just words she shouldn't have been indicted, but the feds pretty much get to do whatever they want.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So no, they are not preserving user rights, they are preventing the investigation to go forward.
Nor Canada, Australia, a slew of European countries, and Jewish groups(ADL, blah blah other alphabet soup acronym Jewish groups) are pushing for the same in the US. "hate crime" laws. AKA criminalized speech, aka criminalized thought. It's not a slippery slope, it's free fall.
A pedophile wants to fuck kids. Fucking kids is illegal. Wanting to fuck kids is weird, but not illegal. Pedophilia is not a crime. Raping kids is a crime. One is a sexual desire, and weird. The other is the act of carryingout that desire, and bad.
> Frankly, it is frightening that you can be arrested for stating your opinions - no matter how despicable.
IANAS (I am not a Senator) but I _think_ it's not that simple. One doesn't get arrested for stating her/his opinion; it's the fact that that opinion effectively hurts someone.
It's akin to defamation, for which you can prosecuted in Brazil (I'm Brazilian). E.g., I can freely say to anyone "you're dumb", but I may not say "you're dumb because you're a negro". That's not the same as saying "negros on average have higher blood pressure" (this is a known fact, for historic reasons).
What the Brazilian law forbids is to diminish someone and defamate based on prejudice. One can say, prejudice in Brazil has been outlawed. And, yes, people do go to jail and/or pay fines when they say terms equivalent to "nigger".
Of course, let's not be naïve here: people do break the law often, because bystanders rarely enforce the law. We have a "live and let it live" way of thinking over here. But it's a great source of pride to know there are severe restraints to hate mongering among us.
Now, regarding Orkut, it's very complicated. Google -- and I really like it, specially the beating it's giving Microsoft -- has an utmost respect for privacy, but my relatives and friends can see a public area of mine with comments ("scrapbook") which has lately been filled with ads for porn services.
This is not going to make my life brighter...
I have found that, long after cancelling an Orkut account, the information is still on the site.
I receive messages from people that I cannot respond to, because while they get my information from the
old entry, I have no access to it. Repeated attempts to contact Orkut have been met with silence.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Yes we are aware of that.
However, consider the following viewpoints:
* Criminalizing "possession" of anything is just wrong.
* The age of consent is different in many countries.
According to Wikipedia, it is 14 in Canada, Austria, Brazil, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Chile and some Eastern European countries; 13 in Argentina, Japan Spain and Guyana.
The Age of consent sitehas some different figures, ranging from 12 to 21.
You mean like drugs, or stolen goods? Restricted weapons? Do you really think that it's ok for the guy down the street to have a bunch of PCP and grenades, just because he probably wouldn't do anything bad with them? Suppose one day your car was stolen, and your neighbor had it in his driveway the next day. Do you really think it's better to just go buy a new car, since there's no evidence he stole it, he may have bought it from the person who did.
Yes, I agree that matters like the age of consent are different from country to country, but child pornography often doesn't bother with things like 'consent'. I hope that you aren't condoning child rape in the interests of pedophile's rights.
I wonder if you have a wikipedia article that supports that outrageous claim that criminalizing anything is just wrong!!! I don't want you, Alexo, to think I am attacking you, but where does this viewpoint come from? do you support legalizing all controlled substances to all people on this planet? Coke? Heroin? Anthrax? Plutonium? Do women fall into your definition of everything? I could own some of them too? I am curious why you think this.... and unfortunately for you, if you were to posses child porn, which I do not accuse you of doing, your defense of "it is just wrong" won't work on US soil, as possesion is illegal, and in my opinion, wrong. I would never say that desiring a child for your own sexual fantasy is illegal, just sick. And so what if the age of consent in Brasil may be 14? If you had a fourteen year old daughter, is that enough age for you to be ok with her giving her own consent? Besides, the government is pursuing charges that did not include statutory rape, (which is illegal, whether or not it was consensual, btw!) Please don't feel that I am attacking you, I just disagree. Strongly.
I don't remember calling brazilian a race. I did, however, call you racist. Perhaps you are right. Let's forget 'race'. All humans are one race, as you, being very inteligent, already know. Or perhaps you could better define the word "Race"?? Brazil is a nation, made up of many diverse ethnicities. Which, therfore, would make you xenophobic and prejudiced. And I am very glad to see that you would judge a nation based on it's teenagers in chat rooms. You are obviously a very classy guy. I could conclude that whatever country you are from is stupid, as proved by it's representation: you. I stated 'our', because I was referring to U.S. foreign policy, which I, a californian, represent abroad when I travel. Now will you leave slashdot? (say no to hate)
Google maintains that it is open to requests for information from foreign governments as long as the requests comply with U.S. laws and that they are issued within the country where the information is stored
SWIFT process the majority of fund transfers in and out of the EU.
I wish that SWIFT had acted the same way as Google. Instead they gave the US govt full access to their entire database. SWIFT is a Belgian company, and the Belgian government's investigation into the matter said that SWIFT broke Belgian (and also EU) laws in giving full access.
The Belgian government decided that they would not take action aginst SWIFT as they were between a rock and a hard place, since they coldn't comply with both the US request and EU laws.
Good on Google for standing up for peoples' rights.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
There is a "Google Brasil" branch, located in S Paulo.
The court asked (due process and all) Google Brasil for the IP of the perps (no materiality of the crimes in question).
Google Brasil says "go ask Google US, they have the records".
Predicted outcome: in six months, Google Brasil is no more. This is some information that, even if Goog BR does not store, it has access to.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
No, you don't automatically break laws if you have certain attractions.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Pedophilia is a crime. A crime against children, a crime against the parents and a crime against God.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
I hope you're not endorsing or supporting pedophilia in any way. Is so, you're mentally ill and should seek help immediately.
Most messages here are saying brazilian authorities are seeking data because of hate-pages. This isn't the true!
Living here in Brazil I can tell that the Public Ministery i(prossecutors) are looking against pages like scheduling meetings to hit or kill people during football (aka soccer) games, traffic using orkut to sell drugs, defending people who comits crimes - there was even a community for raising funds to free a drug dealer from prison with 1 million reais - child pornografy, fake profiles that hurts people's honror, etc. Hardly they are caring for anti-semitic or anti-black groups, if they don't contain things like "let's join and kill them", apology to crime is a crime around here. Basically people are using orkut to organize crime.
I'm a bit with both sides in this case. I belive google should cooperate with justice in Brazil to prevent people using orkut as a plataform for crime development, and for that they shold obey the brazilian laws, because it's about brazilian people (don't worry, they aren't asking for foreigns data). At same time public ministery is being too hard, they should know that because google is a american company the orders for data release should come from a federal judge, it's not google fault that justice here is very slow and asking for a federal judge help coul in meantime erase all the crime data or being too late for preventing it.
Also, what they are asking is that the orders should have to go to the brazilian representation of google instead of a lawyer google has designated as a representant, what is a bit of arrogant, because the law allows google to use a legal representant instead of the company working group in the country and google can answer to law in any way law allows it to do so.
Just some info from someone who is watching carefully the case because I'm studying Legislation for Informatic this semester in Computer Science, I hope it helps a bit :)
So that6's why you are a anonymous coward!!
That's an opinion and wikipedia doesn't (or tries not to) deal in such things, so no you won't find any.
The woman thing is rediculous (it's just like saying it would make stealing legal...), but apart from that (and cases where your possession of something poses a grave danger to others like radioactive materials, although not for everyone even there), many people feel that criminalising possession of substances or information itself is wrong, including all forms of chemicals one can ingest, or series of 0s and 1s that happen to form an image of a child if interpreted in some way. Your body and possessions, your choice and all. I'm not saying I agree with all this; most, but not all... One of the biggest argument in favor of decriminalisation is that it isolates people and makes them less likely to seek or obtain help to change their hurtful behaviors, since doing so could land them in jail. So instead of seeking help while their behaviors is still only hurting themselves, they are more likely to continue their behavior until they becomme a danger or a burdon to society e.g. by stealing to buy drugs or acting on their sexual impulses.
Of course disagreeing with the law doesn't make it disapear, any 3rd grader knows that. But you switch to arguing that you don't want to respect laws when it comes to your daughter's rights so I'm a bit confused by where you are going with this...
Lastly, the definition of statutory rape is having sex with a consenting person under the legal age of consent, so your "even if it's consensual" is a bit weird.
I was on Orkut during the Brazilian invasion. They made a concerted attempt to take over the service, posting in Portuguese everywhere, even on communities that were marked as English language. The English-speaking users left by the thousands, and Orkut basically became a Brazilian system. I haven't logged in in months; last time I did I got a bunch of Brazilian spam and that was it.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
No, you are correct. But we are talking about people who are being prosecuted by the Brazilian govt., who were using Orkut, an online service. Now would you concede that there is probably criminal activity going on? Possesion and passing of child porn? soliciting sex with minors? chances are, the accused were not merely writing poetry about the joy of stealing the virginity of a pre-pubescent child. And also, why are so many people on slashdot hell-bent on defending pedophilia?
The connection still has to go through an International provider ; that connection to the backbone would be on US or EU soil ;
as well, their representation offices are spread over the world; which could be a problem too.
So many loopholes and so many ways to catch a fish...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
> I wonder if you have a wikipedia article that supports that outrageous claim that criminalizing anything is just wrong
First, not "criminalizing anything" but "criminalizing possession".
Second, Wikipedia is no place for opinions, including right/wrong values.
Incidentally, "outrageous" is also a value judgement.
Third, the AC reply (post #16264725) presents a good case.
> where does this viewpoint come from?
Thinking about the society we live in and, analyzing where it is headed, talking to various people with similar and different viewpoints, applying logic, etc.
And especially, recognizing knee-jerk reactions, demagogy and populism for what they are.
> do you support legalizing all controlled substances to all people on this planet?
This is a gross oversimplification and somewhat of a straw-man.
I am opposed to criminalizing mere "possession". Surely you can see the difference.
> Coke? Heroin? Anthrax? Plutonium?
Yes. Provided it dos not endanger others (which would be difficult to achieve in the case of Anthrax and Plutonium, but then there are other laws dealing with that).
> Do women fall into your definition of everything?
That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of this conversation.
If I had a weapon in my house, it would constitute "possession" in the legal sense and could be a criminal offence (depending on the jurisdiction).
I usually have a woman in my house (more than one if a child falls under your definition of a "woman"). It is usually called "having a family" and, as far as I know, is legal.
> your defense of "it is just wrong" won't work on US soil, as possesion is illegal
Please try to pay more more attention. I did not classify it as a "defense" but as a "viewpoint".
There is a huge difference between "illegal" and "wrong" however, and most nations had their share of unjust laws (they are often, but not always, struck down or revised at some time).
Now, disagreeing with a law does not make make an act any less illegal and, the way societies work, there are usually negative consequences to such acts.
In such cases, a dissenter has two choices: either obey the law regardless of one's convictions or disobey it and be prepared to accept the consequences (civil disobedience).
Neither of these choices preclude the option of advocating and working towards the goal of removing or changing said law.
Just to illustrate a point, let me present a simple example why criminalizing possession of even child porn is wrong (there are many other reasons).
Assume that one of your friends (let's call him bob) gets a virus on his PC. The virus examines his email box and finds your address. It then sends you a message, allegedly from Bob, with a link to a particularly nasty child porn site.
When you get this email, you have no cause for suspicion (after all, Bob's your friend) so you click on the link and Wham!... You immediately close the browser, contact Bob and discover the problem.
However, your browser cache now has a copy of a very illegal picture. Congratulations! You now possess child porn. If a law enforcement agency has any reason to examine the contents of your hard drive and finds this, you will be in quite a fix.
Similarly, consider typosquatting sites.
> If you had a fourteen year old daughter, is that enough age for you to be ok with her giving her own consent?
I live in Canada. When my daughter reaches the age of 14, I sincerely hope she will be able to give or withhold her informed consent. Otherwise, that would indicate my failure as a parent.
She was able to successfully deal with the fact that her allergies prevent her from enjoying the pizza and cake at her friends'
Well, I hope that you believe that I do understand your viewpoint, and all of its implications, and that I am not misinformed. I just choose not to build my viewpoints from wikipedia, which is more like a blog than a real encyclopedia. To legalize the possession of everything would be outrageous. It would be plain stupid. That is not a value judgement, it is truth. A convicted murderer is denied possesion of all types of weapons, while in prison, for very good reason. Second, you failed to deal with that statement, which you disregarded; You have stated that possesion of ANYTHING ought to be legalized, and therefore legal possesion of people logically follows as just, by your argument. That is not a straw-man, nor a slippy slope, or any other type of fallacy. It follows. If I wanted to buy or sell sex slaves, or wives, or any person for that matter, you would have no problem? you did say everything. I do pay attention, I did read where you said it was viewpoint. You obviously misunderstood my analogy of using your 'viewpoint' in a legal defense. I merely stated it wouldn't work. That is because it assine and wrong.
there's a compelling answer which is clear, simple and wrong.
Google Brazil needs to ask Google USA for this info. Google USA is an entity outside of Brazilian jurisdiction. The federal judge should see this instead of insisting on a populistic-simplistic act of jurisdictional bravado.
First: I don't think it's up to the information pipes to help us catch criminals. I think they should say no to everybody. But there's an asymmetry here. Google participates in reducing freedom of speech in China (even if it's not quite as far down the slope on that as Yahoo). But when it's a matter of catching pedophiles, then suddenly their principles are inviolable?
You are indeed correct. Of course, "die Gedanken sind frei" (thoughts are free), and it's very impractical to establish a thought police (like the ill-famed Gestapo). Yet persecuting people based on their ideas is illegal in Brazil, but please notice IANAL, curiously because that itself would be a form of prejudice.
Actually, there is extensive law (see, e.g., http://www.soleis.adv.br/racismo.htm , unfortunately in Portuguese) which punishes actions (like "refusing service" which is not a right at all over here) more than speech. But even this is punished.
Especifically:
Art. 20. Pratice, induce or incite discrimination or race, color, ethnic, religious ou nationality prejudice.
Penalty: one to three years of detention (jail) and fine.
Thanks for correcting me.
There is an article on Praise to Allah about how the islams feel about orkut. It's actually a good read.
PraiseToAllah.org
Those are the Venezuelans, not the Brazilians.
I'm from Brazil. Excuse my english mistakes.
They are beggining to sue ordinary people who simply participate on "hate" communities (they consider "hate" even when it's a community against the goverment, for example) and people who do things like pasting a song wich they consider "offensive". But it's being baked by the major TV station, who nearly monopolize TVs here. Yesterday a popular program from this channel offered to receive denunciations about the "crimes on Internet". What I think is happening is that this influential TV channel doesn't like the competition from the Internet. They know that in countries like US and England the Net is already taking over TV. And the government, especially at a elections year, want this TV channel to support them with propaganda.
I do support Google in deniing the data. We don't want to become the next China. We want freedom of speech.
For the people who complain about "brazilian invasion of Orkut", it's simply the same that occurs with us on the "english language invasion", but on smaller scale. BRazilians beggin talking in portuguese in "english only" communities -believe me- without realizing that! It's simply because the majority of users on any given community on Orkut is brazilian, so when they know it they beggin talking in portuguese naturally. You can't ignore that Orkut was never a success on the US.
I hope brazilians start to use MySpace (the fact that MySpace is dominated by americans make it impossible for the effect of the "brazilian invasion" to occur again) because then the brazilian government will have a much harder work to censorship us.
Oh, come on — "priority"? Any time a policeman writes a traffic citation, does it mean, his priorities are wrong, and he should concentrate on fighting terrorism instead?
I mean, you may be a genius nearing a breakthrough on eternal life and happiness. So, can I question your priorities, when you go to a toilet?
I'm sure, there is a fancy word in Ancient Greek (or Latin) for the logical fallacy you have just displayed, but I'm not that well schooled — you'll have to look it up yourself.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.