Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Brazil Exec "Detained" For Refusing YouTube Takedown Order

Posted by timothy on from the taking-one-for-the-team dept.

h00manist writes that, as promised, "The police executed an order to detain Google's top executive in Brazil (Original in Portuguese), Fábio José Silva Coelho. Google refused an order to remove a YouTube video which accused a mayoral candidate of several crimes. Police say he will be released today; Brazilian law for the case allows for a one-year max sentence. Streisand Effect, anyone?"

11 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. When in Rome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your company policy requires you to break local laws, you have two options:

    1) break local laws, and go to a local jail.

    2) quit your job.

    There are, of course, ways of changing the laws and such...but until such time as those happen, the two above options are basically your only options.

    1. Re:When in Rome... by DL117 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      3) Break local laws and flee home before they arrest you

    2. Re:When in Rome... by mooingyak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      #2 may get you fired, but that's not a guarantee.

      Surely it's illegal to fire someone for refusing to break the law? Everyone's first duty is to the law, not his employer.

      Probably true in most countries, but not being familiar with Brazil's labor laws I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what would happen to this guy. In the US, if they wanted to get rid of the guy, they'd come up with a paper reason that wasn't necessarily the *real* reason for the firing.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    3. Re:When in Rome... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, the US will arrest foreign nationals in foreign countries who have no presence in the US whatsoever. Not to mention the assassinations of US citizens without any due process. There are vanishingly few circumstances where the US government can claim any sort of moral high ground.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:When in Rome... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone's first duty is to their conscience.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:When in Rome... by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the US did this, you would be championing the company and condemning the US for trying to extend its
      laws to other countries.

      You may be content to allow Brazil or perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to dictate to the world what information might be shown, but nobody else is.

      Jump to conclusions much? Try focusing on what I say instead of what you imagine I might mean.

      The location means that the Brazilian Government can't physically storm the data center and do what they want with it. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Google Exec from Brazil has authority to block a video. That is entirely a matter internal to Google. I don't claim to know what Google's rules on the matter are, but if they gave him the OK to block videos, then he can do it regardless of where the servers are.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    6. Re:When in Rome... by slartibartfastatp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it's illegal here to fire someone for refusing to break a law. However, we're smart as hell and we don't need to tell why we're firing someone.
      Like anywhere else in the world, I guess

      --
      -- --
  2. Re:Streinsad Effect? by bruno.fatia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not how you do business and this is not a reason for not operating in some country. They earn money in Brazil and they would just lose that revenue by skipping a large economy just because of some silly youtube video. Having a local office helps you receive payments and is a major deal breaker expecially when dealing with corporate customers.

    If, during american elections, people posted videos saying Obama is a rapist and favors abortion I'm sure it would be removed.

  3. Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do you know they are lies? And as far as I can see, the accuser does identify himself (unless he's using a fake full name as his YouTube username). I'm also Brazilian and I understand the need for this kind of law, but under Brazil's electoral law, it should be the accuser who is prosecuted, not the owner of the platform he's using to make the accusation.

    Brazil has a recurring problem with this - not sure how much it's the judges' fault or the prosecutors' fault, probably taking advantage of the fact that judges know nothing about how the internet works. Hopefully, our Internet Bill will be passed in Congress soon and end these bullshit interpretations of the law...

    (Definitely agree with you on record companies though - Google is always quick to comply with theirs and Hollywood's take down orders.)

    (Oh, and I'm not an Anonymous Coward, I just can't find where to identify myself! :P)

  4. Re:Streinsad Effect? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.

    And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.

  5. Re:Streinsad Effect? by Reschekle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google closed down their China office because of government harassment, what makes you think that they wouldn't do it in Brazil?