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.

Comments

Interesting

[B3ryllium]

That's going to be quite a kerfuffle, I would imagine.

Kudos to google for protecting user's rights, though.

Re:Interesting

[Korin43]

I think the point is that Google isn't going to give away information to just anyone who asks, they have to fill out a form and stand in line just like everyone else.

Re:Interesting

[Ducho_CWB]

If you want open just 'only a marketing office' at foreign countries, you really need obey the foreign contries laws. If you not agree with this, pack your stuff and go out. well, about protecting user's rights, exist a list with exact names to be show. There's not the entire orkut or the entire brazilian database at orkut.

Re:Interesting

[Dachannien]

Yes kudos to Google for protecting criminals.

The morality of their actions is open to opinion. So-called "hate speech", for example, is not only not illegal in the US, but is actually protected by the US Constitution. While Brazilians obviously aren't governed by US law, it still shows that Google "protecting criminals" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Re:Interesting

[fmobus]

Methinks Google is trying to avoid wasting a precious evidence (ips of the offenders) on processual grounds. Someone could try to defend himself challenging the way the evidence was obtained.

Also, they can't release user information stored in USA without a proper court order (eg. an US court order). If they do so, they are risking themselves to lawsuits. I guess Google wants the evidence gathering done in a perfect (legal) manner, protecting users rights (according to US law), rather than protecting the criminal users.

Re:Interesting

[claes]

Yes because obviously the US Constitution is the best constitution there is.

Re:Interesting

[russotto]

I see. So if AT&T had an office in Saudi Arabia, they should comply with Saudi requests for phone records concerning Americans who had made remarks disparaging to Saudi Arabia, if those records were requested in accordance with Saudi law? Opening an office in a country shouldn't subject your entire opetation to that countries' laws.

Re:Interesting

[Plutonite]

Good point. Many of the recent wars and political stand-offs have been driven by a sense in infallibility in American politics. They need to realize that even if leaders imply action is based on American principles, these principles may not be good enough to impose on other people.

Some level of maturity needs to be applied though. I'd hand over the logs if serious crimes were committed, but some data must have gone past Brazilian ISPs before google. Why aren't they made to respond first?

Re:Interesting

[metlin]

> Yes because obviously the US Constitution is the best constitution there is.

Considering that it's kept us democratic and free for 219 years, without a single military coup in history, I'd say it's a darned good one.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, to put it more precisely, you think Google should fight for their users's right to privacy even when it is illegal for them to do so?

Would you care to explain this to me in some more detail?

That's basically the whole point of a policy that states, specifically, "do no evil ".

Otherwise it would just be "do nothing illegal"—and for crying out loud, that's only promising the same level of morality as a used car dealership.

Re:Interesting

[Aceticon]

> Yes because obviously the US Constitution is the best constitution there is.

Considering that it's kept us democratic and free for 219 years, without a single military coup in history, I'd say it's a darned good one.

Well, there was the small issue of a civil war, so i reckon there's probably a couple of constitutions with a beter track record.

The part about democratic is also flawed: i suggest that investigate "gerrymandering" to see how politicians make sure they get reelected whether or not they do a good job and "proportional vote" to see how a real democracy (all votes are equal) really works.

As for freedom, i suggest you check the latest couple of laws passed in the US - more specifically the ones about torture and indefinite detainment of foreign non-combatants and how a US citizen can easilly be declared a non-combatant and stripped of his/her citizenship and thus become subject to those laws.

----

It's really entertaining to see how people can get brainwashed into ignoring the flaws of the political/social systems under which they live (and they all have flaws) and into spewing propaganda about how "my country is the greatest of them all".

I guess never having lived in another country (vacations don't count) and being surrounded by media which almost exclusivelly spews country-centered news probably makes one especially prone to believing nacionalistic bullshit.

---

If you want to be a real patriot, then be proud of the good things of your country, do your best to improve those that are not-so-good and always suspect the sleazy politicians that go around patting people on the back and saying "we live in a perfect country, the best there is, nothing needs changing".

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil

[GigsVT]

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.

Who owns the data?

[cryfreedomlove]

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.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think I can get behind locking people up for their thoughts or speech. sorry.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil

[bcat24]

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.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil

[jshackney]

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.

It is very simple

[franksands]

• Racism and child pornography are crimes in Brazil.
• The subjects who the Brazilian goverment are after are in Brazilian territory.
• Denying this information so the Brazilian police can prosecute these criminals is obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

So no, they are not preserving user rights, they are preventing the investigation to go forward.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil

[Anonymous Coward]

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.