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.
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.
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.
And just how are you going to melt the key while they watch, if their cell has no windows?
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.
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.
...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
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
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.
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
> 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'