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?"

12 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 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.
    2. 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!
    3. 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!
    4. 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.
    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 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.

  2. 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/

  3. 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)

  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?