Slashdot Mirror


Google Brazil Exec "Detained" For Refusing YouTube Takedown Order

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?"

20 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 icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google has no data centers in Brazil.

      So your Pass the buck is the only true course. I'm sure that is exactly what the hapless Google employee did.
      He has no control over datacenters. He's probably a marketing droid.

      But Brazil decided to take hostages any way.

      So next time you travle to Brazil you can expect to be held accountable for anything your employer might do
      anywhere in the world.

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

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. 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.
    4. 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!
    5. 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!
    6. Re:When in Rome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm brazilian. The law here in this aspect is simple: if a judge commans something in a court order, whoever is ordered to must comply. Probably Google Brazil had the court order served, but didn't comply for some reason (slack, or someone at a lower position had forgot or intended to prank his manager for the kicks). As ultimately the responsible is the head of operations, the police went right to the guy. I believe it's not wise to mess with a judge anywhere on this planet. If it makes people more relieved about Brazil, Google's executive wasn't arrested, but detained (these aren't the same thing in Brazil). He was called to take responsibility, not to be punished.

    7. Re:When in Rome... by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He didn't comply because he couldn't comply.

      Are brazillian companies run in such a way that it is normal to expect a Janitor at a Sales office to be able to over rule the head office?

      If A US judge decided to hold a secretary of Embraer's US office hostage until the parent company nuckeled under to some unreasonable demand would Brazillians shrug? Or would they be burning the flag at the embasy gates.

      Why the the double standard when it comes to this type of behavior?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. 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.
    9. Re:When in Rome... by taupter · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm the guy who posted comments before yours.

      Google complies with brazilian court orders by the thousands every year, and it should be no news. Google complies with court orders from every country it has a headquarter.
      Mr. Fabio, a brazilian citizen, Google employee and top executive, may not be able to obey the order by himself, but he's capable to command another Google employee to do so. So ultimately he is the main responsible person.
      I don't know how Google Brazil is run, but every company around the world with 10+ employees needs an hierarquical structure where someone at the top delegates to his tenants and it goes down under to the cleaning guy. And people make mistakes, get dismissed and so on. Someone messed up and will have to take the heat. And Mr. Fabio wasn't imprisioned, he just had to go to a police department to answer some questions and to be made aware of the problem and act upon.
      If an USA judge issued a court order the police must comply, be the target BillG, the elusive Embraer secretary or whoever. If the secretary is an USA citizen, that's it, if not the diplomacy will take place, as every UN member would expect to act.
      Burning flags is not a brazilian national sport. We're pretty orderly (fanfare to the common man playing in the backgound) and working people.
      There are no double standards here. Brazil respects international laws pretty much as everyone else. Please remember Flight 1907, when USA pilots downed a Boeing full of brazilian citizens just because some USA senator didn't want to be tracked in brazilian airspace by brazilian airspace authorities. Nobody burned USA flags, the pilots were repatriated to USA and propably nothing wrong happened to them, despite reaping more than one hundred brazilian souls. Because we respect the law.
      Brazilian judges aren't pluripotent tyrants in constant tantrum spree. They're accountable and overviewed by the legal system, that can punish the judge and overrule him/her if appropriate, just as every really civilized western country with representatives elected by the people.

      Sorry, but nothing to see here. Move along.

    10. 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 icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not like the Brazilian court is trying to hide something with this order that now it will be 10x public, you know?

    I don't like most of limitations to free speech, but you know, I also don't like transnationals corporations acting like they are above the law of the (several) countries they operate.

    A court order in Brazil gave an order, and google was in contempt, don't like it? change the law or don't operate there.

    Hints:
    Google works on the internet. The internet works everywhere (Except Iran, apparently).
    Google has no datacenters in Brazil.

    So Brazil was trying to enforce ITS laws in OTHER countries, something everyone here is quick to condem when the US does it.
    Failing to force the US to change its laws, Brazil takes hostages.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. Re:Streinsad Effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It doesn't matter where the datacenter is located (good luck trying to enforce your rigths to your information based on that)

    What it does matter, is that google is incorporated (twice apparently) in Brazil

      Google Belo Horizonte
    Google Brasil Internet LTDA
    Av. Bias Fortes
    n 382 6th floor, Lourdes
    Belo Horizonte
    30170-010
    Brazil
    Phone: +55-31-2128-6800
    Fax: +55-31-2128-6801
    Google São Paulo
    Google Brasil Internet Limitada
    Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima
    n 3900 5th floor, Itaim
    São Paulo, 04538-132
    Brasil
    Teléfono: +55-11-3797-1000
    Fax: +55-11-3797-1001

    http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/

  4. 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.

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

    Really, i'm completely against any kind of censorship and when i read about this the first time i tough it was something abusive. But after looking at some of the videos... they are just a bunch of lies about the guy, with fake "documents" that doesn't exist showing things he didn't do it. Here in Brazil there's a law that says something like this: if you accuse some candidate about anything during election you have do identify yourself. That's to protect people against things like this. Google did not comply with the law, they were asked to remove and done nothing, now they say excuses like they aren't responsible about user content. When it' s major record company thay don't even ask.. google has their legs open to then. Ridiculous position from a company that i have a lot of respect, hope they apologize their attitude.

    1. 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)

  6. Re:Streinsad Effect? by bruno.fatia · · Score: 3, Informative

    They don't have a datacenter but they do have a local office and Google is a registred company in Brazil so they either (a) comply with local laws or (b) close the company local office. It really is that simple.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. Google has complied before by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google is known to comply with local law and not display video's that are in violation of several nations laws, when requested to do so by the local authorities. After Thailand blocked youtube, they removed any video that could be insulting to Thailands king Bhumibol, to give an example. Similar actions to remove or at least block content have been taken in several countries after legal and sometimes economical pressure from the country. I'm sure that a next step from Brazil would be to name Google a criminal organization and block all their services for the entire country. It may not be the very next step, but eventually it will get to that point.

    The most likely thing that will happens next is that Google will then comply because they can't afford to loose the business if it gets to that. Don't be evil, unless you are losing too much money. My analysiss of Google leaving China is that it wasn't about censorship, they complied to that for quite a while, but about too much effort for the money they were allowed to make by the Chinese government. They were being forced to censor *and* squeezed for the amount of cash they were allowed to pull out of the Chinese economy. The latter made applying the censorship just too much work to be profitable enough.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?