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.
And kudos to you, sir, for using the word kerfuffle.
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.
Ah, but "criminals" are different in each country, aren't they? From the article:
In the US, child pornography is illegal, but you can say anything you want about blacks, Jews, and homosexuals. It's not going to win you any popularity contests, but you can be as much of a racist bigoted anti-semitic prick as you want to be. Frankly, it is frightening that you can be arrested for stating your opinions - no matter how despicable. This is why the "Madonna potentially getting arrested in Germany for offending Christians" news item got so much play state-side.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yes because obviously the US Constitution is the best constitution there is.
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.
almost right.
So if AT&T had an office in Saudi Arabia, they should comply with Saudi requests for phone records concerning SAUDI who had made remarks disparaging to Saudi Arabia.
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?
So, in your opinion, is it better for AT&T (or Google) to not do business in Saudi Arabia (or Brazil), or for them to resist the authorities and get closed down? I'm a little torn on this issue, so I like to hear from people about this. In this case, Google would have had to refuse to do business in Brazil because Brazilian free speech laws are more repressive than in the US. I don't know if I agree with that. If American firms refused to do business in all countries with more restrictive free speech rules than the US, there would be virtually no US presence overseas. Or, more likely, there would hardly be any company based in the US.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
...that's a lot of orkut users!