The End of Net Anonymity In Brazil

DieNadel writes, "The Brazilian senate is considering a bill that will make it a crime to join a chat, blog, or download from the Internet without fully identifying oneself first. Privacy groups and Internet providers are very concerned, and are trying to lobby against the bill, but it seems they won't have much success." From the article: "If approved, it will be a crime, punishable with up to 4 years of jail time, to disseminate virus or trojans, unauthorizedly access data banks or networks and send e-mail, join chat, write a blog or download content anonymously."

Comments

Re:Don't Brazil Bash

[rcastro0]

>What is PSDB-MG, anyway? Piece of Shit Damn British MG?

This is slashdot, and you didn't think a question like that would go unanswered, did you ?

PSDB is Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (http://www.psdb.org.br/) translates to the Brazilian Socio-Democracy Party. MG stands for Minas Gerais, the state Senator Azeredo represents.

As a Brazilian I should add:
* PSDB is the leading opposition party in Brazil. Its candidate just lost the presidential race (39% to 61%).
* Normally I wouldn't think this sort of thing to come out of PSDB (usually more liberal than the government). But heck...
* Mr Azeredo has been involved in an unrelated corruption scandal after proposing the law ("valerioduto").
* I also do not agree with such a law, as many brazilians don't (babelfish this, for instance: A Liberdade da Rede corre Perigo)
* This law may not pass (be approved) -- I hope it won't.
* Even if it does, it may not be enforceable, as someone here already pointed out -- Freenet comes to mind.

Re:I am very serious

[quentin_quayle]

Assuming the country also allow freedom to express and identity thief, what is such a bad thing of removing annomity? Yes, I really want to know and read the assumption. So, educate me.

If you mean "assuming the requirement is not abused", that would not be a serious question. Every coercive power over others is always abused, to the greatest degree that interested parties can get away with. The whole problem of freedom is minimizing the opportunities for such abuse.

Of course no one objects to a prohibition of spreading malware. Here are a few of the more obvious problems with the removal-of-anonymity part.

1. Government doesn't like opinions you express, you get hassled, prosecuted or worse on some other pretext.
2. Employer doesn't like opinions you express, you lose the job (on some other pretext).
3. This law is later followed by laws restricting what may be said - e.g. against racism or offending certain groups, as in Europe.
4. Chilling effect on what people are willing to express, because of above items (self censorship).
5. It later leads to an "internet license" requirement which is designed to keep disfavored people offline.
6. Cyber-bullying, as in Korea recently, by hostile people who can find out your physical address.
7. Site operators make deals with advertisers, and then your entire online history is sold and lives forever in corporate databases.
8. Someone uses your credentials and whatever they do is legally attributed to you.
9. When you complain of others' behavior online, the authorities say "Sorry we can't help; despite the law we couldn't identify that person" - maybe they just didn't want to take the trouble. But if you break the law you are prosecuted.
10. ... too many more but I don't have time. Others can follow up.