Brazil Announces Plans To Move Away From US-Centric Internet

trbdavies writes "The Associated Press reports: 'President Dilma Rousseff ordered a series of measures aimed at greater Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into the state-owned Petrobras oil company's network and spied on Brazilians who entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook and Google. The leader is so angered by the espionage that on Tuesday she postponed next month's scheduled trip to Washington, where she was to be honored with a state dinner.' Among Brazil's plans are a domestic encrypted email service, laying its own fiber optic cable to Europe, requiring services like Facebook and Google to store data generated by Brazilians on servers located in Brazil, and pushing for 'international rules on privacy and security in hardware and software during the U.N. General Assembly meeting later this month.'"

Comments

Well, obviously

[hsmith]

It makes it much easier to spy on your own citizens when you do that. They are just mad they don't have a piece of the action.

Re:Well, obviously

[geek]

It makes it much easier to spy on your own citizens when you do that. They are just mad they don't have a piece of the action.

Regardless of their ability to spy on their own people I think this is a good thing and I say that as a red, white and blue American citizen. I don't like that we control the whole ball of wax. Its time other countries stepped things up and built on what the US started. The internet is supposed to be bigger than any one country.

Re:Well, obviously

[s.petry]

It makes it much easier to spy on your own citizens when you do that. They are just mad they don't have a piece of the action.

Well, they could just be trying to imply that they didn't have a piece of the action. Like the Canada, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc.. all acted shocked and appalled until it came out that their people were cooperating and collaborating with the US Agencies.

At least Brazil in this case appears to have some intestinal fortitude. The others I listed are just praying the stories all go away and maintaining business as usual.

Re:Well, obviously

[AmiMoJo]

Not every state is obsessed with spying on its citizens. Most, but not all.

Re:Well, obviously

[Sir_Sri]

The internet is supposed to be bigger than any one country.

The Internet isn't supposed to be tied to country at all.

Oddly, I agree with Eric Schmidt on this - the big risk is if every country starts making their own internet fiefdom and it becomes harder to operate and connect internationally. Of course Eric Schmidt said this, as one of the companies responsible for helping with the spying he's worried about the ripple effects from.

Re:Well, obviously

[gmuslera]

And how that is worse than being spied, controlled, and manipulated by a foreing country, one that had no problem supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected president in Brazil in 1963, and that don't have clear hands on the recent revolutions in the middle east. Remember, they are reacting to what US is doing, place the fault where really is.

Re:Well, obviously

[argStyopa]

Another American here, and I entirely agree. And I don't really mind the NSA spying stuff. I've just always thought that distributing the infrastructure is a good idea - even if that means that parts of it become shady, dangerous places, other parts are run by their governments, etc. Universality is better than monopoly.

Re:Well, obviously

[X.25]

It makes it much easier to spy on your own citizens when you do that. They are just mad they don't have a piece of the action.

You are an idiot and you don't realize that NSA has been intercepting SMS messages (by means of breaking into mobile operator network(s) in Brazil) of Brazilian president. And probably much more (other targets were not named).

Where does that fit into?

War on terror? War on child pornography, perhaps?

Intercepting Brazilian oil company mails/traffic is required in order to fight... terrorism?

Americans still do not understand the consequences of their actions (well, NSA's and government actions). People have given their trust to US government and their agencies, and USA has betrayed them at all possible levels.

USA has now publicy said that they are ok with what NSA has been doing - things that USA themselves consider to be 'acts of war'.

I presume now everyone else will consider it to be okay too.

Re:Well, obviously

[Obfuscant]

At least Brazil in this case appears to have some intestinal fortitude.

Brazil, as a whole, seems rather uninterested in the matter. The Brazilian leader is making hay while the sun shines, as the saying goes. While the concept is interesting, the truth is that once a packet leaves your own wires you have no real control over where it goes.

This is the same kind of action that Brazil took in response to the US creation of a VISA processing fee. Brazil was quite up-front in admitting that their fee of the same amount was a direct response to the US fee for Brazilian citizens going to the US. Us old folks would say they cut off their nose to spite their face.

I'm particularly worried about the statement that they may require servers to keep data in Brazil. I manage a lot of data from Brazil, and their network infrastructure is so shaky as it is that it would be impossible to manage it remotely.

Re:Well, obviously

[FatdogHaiku]

I think the move is very enlightened and by having a more Brazilian internet I look forward to seeing many, many more Brazilians on the web... Heck, I'm hoping everything ends up wide open!

Re:Well, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't think of it as a fiefdom, think of it as a jobs program for Brazil's tech sector. If the big players want a piece of the Brazilian market, and I think they probably do, then they have to have a physical presence there. Ditto the fiber connections to Europe. That has the added effect of making the Internet itself more robust. More transatlantic bandwidth is better, period.

Re:Well, obviously

[s.petry]

I agree with you. I was merely pointing out that Brazil may not be innocent in the NSA spying ring. As far as we know they are, but a few of those countries on the list of collaborators (like Germany) I did find rather disturbing.

Re:Well, obviously

[tlhIngan]

It makes it much easier to spy on your own citizens when you do that. They are just mad they don't have a piece of the action.

Regardless of their ability to spy on their own people I think this is a good thing and I say that as a red, white and blue American citizen. I don't like that we control the whole ball of wax. Its time other countries stepped things up and built on what the US started. The internet is supposed to be bigger than any one country.

What happens is that the internet gets fractured - you'll have the "US Intenret", the "Brazil Internet" just like we have the "Iran Internet", and to a lesser extent, the "China Internet". All little networks running separate and independent.

Today the internet is bigger than any one country - even the NSA can't tap all of it, and it's likely the stuff they tapped they did things like running TOR exit nodes and monitored the data that way.

But tomorrow, the internet will shrivel up (hey, we don't need IPv6 anymore!) as every country runs its own version of the internet, and wanting to connect to the bigger part around it well, you're a terrorist.

Re:Well, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is supposed to be bigger than any one country.

The Internet isn't supposed to be tied to country at all.

Oddly, I agree with Eric Schmidt on this - the big risk is if every country starts making their own internet fiefdom and it becomes harder to operate and connect internationally. Of course Eric Schmidt said this, as one of the companies responsible for helping with the spying he's worried about the ripple effects from.

What Brazil is doing is creating more direct links to other countries instead of having to route through the US. This increases Brazilian privacy, and helps make the the 'net more resilient (and possible faster) for everyone.

It's not about fiefdoms, but about each country being properly connected through their own resources instead of relying on others. It's just in this case there are other benefits to all the extra fibre as well.

Re:Well, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians have a tendency to hire people to enforce their laws for them.

Re:Well, obviously

[NatasRevol]

Maybe Mr. Schmidt should encourage the US government to stop forcing people into fiefdoms just to have some security.

Re:Well, obviously

[nurb432]

I don't like that we control the whole ball of wax.

In reality we don't. That is part of the problem. And we are no worse/better than anyone else. We just got caught with our hand in the jar, that everyone else is pulling cookies out of too.

Re:Well, obviously

[jc42]

It makes it much easier to spy on your own citizens when you do that.

Well, yes and no. The main thing to worry about is typified by this comment:

Among Brazil's plans are a domestic encrypted email service

It's possible that what this means is that Brazil's domestic email service will do the encryption. This would be no security at all, since it would mean that the email service has everyone's keys and can decrypt everyone's email. And possibly sell it to interested customers, such as the US government.

If they're serious about local security, what they'll do is study various end-to-end email encryption packages, and recommend the best ones to their citizens. End-to-end encryption is the only way to get actual security in email. And they'll want a public education campaign to teach people about the "gotchas". For example, you don't ever store your keys in "the cloud".

There have been proposals in the US that email encryption be done by the low-level IP software. This was rejected back in the 1960s by the ARPAnet folks (the military predecessor to the Internet), on the grounds that low-level encryption is inherently secure, since it's typically installed in a way that the user can't control or even see into. It could easily be sending your keys and/or decrypted email to arbitrary third parties, and most users would have no way of knowing about it.

Anyway, it could be interesting to know what the Brazilian planners are planning. Are they really aiming for a domestic email service that "handles" the encryption (i.e., no security at all)? Or are they planning to actually do it right?

Here in the US, we know the answer to that question as applied to our own government (and telecom companies ;-). Is the Brazilian government any better?

Re:Well, obviously

[NatasRevol]

Per NPR this morning, she cancelled it because she was pissed. As in not rescheduling it. That's about as big a slap in the face as a diplomat can get.

Re:Well, obviously

[Em Adespoton]

Hmm. A physical presence? No, they just need a VPN service in country so it LOOKS like they are there. Isn't that what all the users do so that it looks like they are in Canada and can watch all the curling events that aren't allowed outside of Canada? Or maybe that was TV shows that aren't allowed outside of the US. But anyway, Google and Facebook can just rent a nice, fast, VPN service in country and they will have a presence there as far as these politicians will ever know.

This is Brazil we're talking about -- the politicians might not know, but their tech advisors will -- it's trivial to trace where the bulk traffic to sites like Google and Facebook is being routed. They'll actually need to set up a datacenter there. Management has no need to be in the country, but the data sure does. If that data goes to a VPN and then is routed out of the country to the US, that'll show up in the routing logs (traffic in = encrypted traffic out, and vice versa).

That kind of thing would likely work in many countries, but Brazil has been intentionally beefing up their tech sector over the last decade, and now they generally know what they're doing (and what their citizens are doing).

Interestingly, Facebook Brazil is based out of Ireland, not the US; where the actual data is stored, I have no idea -- but I bet Brazil does.

Re:Well, obviously

[fast turtle]

You mean like we already do? I'm an american and let me tell you, if it isn't in english, it's of little to no interest to me except pron then I don't care what langauge because what do they say most times? Oh! Oh! and such is about all I want to hear from them.

Re:Well, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

and I say that as a red, white and blue American citizen.

Wow, you're 1/3 native amerindian, 1/3 european, and 1/3 smurf? That's quite a mix.

Re:Well, obviously

[Turbio]

It's really easy to rob someone on the street. You just hit hit the guy on the head with a bat from behind and take his wallet.
With some skill and a different technique, you can take his wallet without him noticing.
The point is, is it OK to do that?

Re:Well, obviously

[epine]

This would be no guarantee of security at all, since it would mean that the email service has everyone's keys and can decrypt everyone's email.

FTFY. The game theory matrices are completely different for capabilities routinely exploited or just held in reserve.

Such an approach would shift the risk profile from ad hoc to systemic. The major surveillance powers actually do manage not to blab everything they intercept onto public networks, which is is not guaranteed with ad hoc interception. There's that word again.

I really wish we took more of a belt and suspenders approach and encouraged encryption at multiple levels. That will never happen if we continue this business of casually equating insufficiency with irrelevance. Wouldn't it be nice if clear text didn't flood onto public wires at the first transient misconfiguration of the The One Armoured Pipe To Rule Them All?

Re:Well, obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

So Brazil will tap and decrypt all internet traffic to enforce this rule?

Re:Well, obviously

[Guy Harris]

It makes it much easier to spy on your own citizens when you do that. They are just mad they don't have a piece of the action.

Regardless of their ability to spy on their own people I think this is a good thing and I say that as a red, white and blue American citizen. I don't like that we control the whole ball of wax. Its time other countries stepped things up and built on what the US started. The internet is supposed to be bigger than any one country.

What happens is that the internet gets fractured - you'll have the "US Intenret", the "Brazil Internet" just like we have the "Iran Internet", and to a lesser extent, the "China Internet". All little networks running separate and independent.

Or not. TFA says:

Most of Brazil’s global Internet traffic passes through the United States, so Rousseff’s government plans to lay underwater fiber optic cable directly to Europe and also link to all South American nations to create what it hopes will be a network free of U.S. eavesdropping.

A connection from Brazil to Europe, or connections from Brazil to other South American nations, don't constitute a "Brazil internet"; for one thing, the other ends of those connections aren't located in Brazil. If that were sufficient to create a "Brazil internet", there would already be a "US internet" given that the US has an undersea connection to Europe or connections to Canada and Mexico.

It also says:

Rousseff is urging Brazil’s Congress to compel Facebook, Google and all companies to store data generated by Brazilians on servers physically located inside Brazil in order to shield it from the NSA.

That wouldn't, in and of itself, mean that Brazilians can't find non-Brazilian sites with Google or that non-Brazilians can't find Brazilian sites with Google; it would mean that Google would have to add one or more data centers in Brazil and, for Google searches from within Brazil (presumably meaning "from IP addresses that are located in Brazil"), any information saved about the search would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers (and, presumably, not sent to non-Brazilian servers). It would also mean that Google+ posts from Brazilian users would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers, GMail messages for Brazilian users' accounts would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers, etc. (and, presumably, not sent to non-Brazilian servers).

Today the internet is bigger than any one country - even the NSA can't tap all of it, and it's likely the stuff they tapped they did things like running TOR exit nodes and monitored the data that way.

But tomorrow, the internet will shrivel up (hey, we don't need IPv6 anymore!) as every country runs its own version of the internet, and wanting to connect to the bigger part around it well, you're a terrorist.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that Brazil doesn't want to allow packets to enter or leave Brazil - quite the contrary, in fact, if they want additional connections to countries outside Brazil. That's what would be involved in "each country [running] its own version of the internet".

Re:Well, obviously

[filthpickle]

Well, the Brazilian women usually say "Ai, Ai" to stay on topic.

Re:Well, obviously

[jbeaupre]

This is plain vanilla sort of spying. Most of it has nothing to do with criminal activity. But it does have to do with the US government not being surprised. Sometimes it can be used for advantage, but more often not to get caught zigging when we should be zagging.

For instance, being able to listen to the head of state of another government, say Brazil, would give us perspective on decisions. Are Petrobras contracts being influenced by internal politics or as part of a deal with another country? Probably not. But if Petrobras is being forced to do something because of some economic glitch or political back room dealing that is not public, that's useful information.

It's something that Brazil would be upset to learn we are doing, and rightfully so. But that's weighed against the risk of blindly accepting the public statements of Brazil.

Re:Well, obviously

[pslytely psycho]

"Rousseff is urging Brazilâ€(TM)s Congress to compel Facebook, Google and all companies to store data generated by Brazilians on servers physically located inside Brazil in order to shield it from the NSA."

Because of course the Alphabet Soup agencies can't figure out how to tap an internet based in another country. I am certain they see most everything in Iran and China. Likely they tap Pyongyangs internet and know what kind of porn Kim Jong Un likes and how bad he is at GTA V....

Re:Well, obviously

[farble1670]

It's possible that what this means is that Brazil's domestic email service will do the encryption. This would be no security at all, since it would mean that the email service has everyone's keys and can decrypt everyone's email.

right.

and honestly, i'd rather my data is owned by google than some government. google might mine data from my use of google services, but there's no upside in it for them to use the data against me. they just want me happily spending money. sure, apparently the NSA can get at that data by coercing google, but at least it's indirect access and i assume there's some sort of audited procedure that happens when the NSA demands access to something.

Re:Well, obviously

[HiThere]

Actually, what he said was the the US had declared that if someone else did it to them it would be an act of war. He didn't say that this was an accurate statement.

Re:Well, obviously

[turbidostato]

"Today the internet is bigger than any one country - even the NSA can't tap all of it"

You can blame the NSA as a big factor if that changes, then.

Re:Well, obviously

[xvan]

Yes, they MIM the SSL connections inside the corporations, If the corporation servers are outside US, the NSA would need to install their servers in foreign soil.
That would mean:
A) The corporation violated the law in that foreign country, and is liable.
B) The NSA performed hacking on foreign soil, and that is an act of war (Not that the US gives a shit about that, but eventually you'd be forced to).
Of course, NSA could access that data from the US based google corporation infrastructure, but that would be illegal without a warrant. (Again, not that the US government gives a shit about that, but eventually, US citizens will force it to).

Re:Well, obviously

[aaronb1138]

I don't mind that we control the whole thing, I mind that we subsidized it for the rest of the world and then are supposed to have 1st world guilt over exercising a significant amount of control.

Re: Well, obviously

[Badblackdog]

I believe if the NSA wants to get in they will, no matter what Brazil does.

Re:Well, obviously

[ahabswhale]

Then you've never actually read 1984. The NSA is a pussycat compared to big brother. They're not even in the same league.

Re:Well, obviously

[dead_user]

They're based in Ireland because of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

Re:Well, obviously

[Em Adespoton]

So Brazil will tap and decrypt all internet traffic to enforce this rule?

As I said, they have no need to tap and decrypt all internet traffic. All they have to do is get the inbound and outbound router data summaries. If all the country's traffic going TO those servers matches the encrypted data going FROM those servers to some location in the US, and all encrypted traffic FROM those servers in the US matches the traffic coming out from the server, it's pretty obvious that nothing's being stored there. Brazil owns the upstream and downstream routers, so this is trivial to check.

The reason for this is that unlike the US, Brazil has limited backbone connects to the rest of the world. This is part of what they're trying to fix.
Here's a picture that explains it fairly well:
http://www.gigaomnimedia.com/images/cable-capacity.jpg
As you can see, other than one small line via Argentina to Spain, all of Brazil's international traffic goes through the New York or California trunks.

They're still better off than Australia though, on all things Internet-related.

Re:Well, obviously

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

I mind that we subsidized it for the rest of the world ....

We didn't -- read up on Internet History. The original research was done by the UK, USA, and France, then individual countries around the world began building their separate networks & opening them to the public (often via commercial services), then joined up with other networks in their region, their regional networks joined others in that part of the world, and once all parts of the world were finally inter-connected, it met the decade-plus old definition of "an Internet."

supposed to have 1st world guilt over exercising a significant amount of control.

Where on Earth are you getting your news/info?

1) First-world guilt would be feeling bad because we have something that most people in a less-developed nation lack, so that doesn't fit at all.

2) RTFS/RTFA! The problem isn't that we exercised control, it's that our fucked-up NSA intercepted an ally president's communications despite their country having no record of hosting terrorists or having a lot of fundamentalist Muslims, hacked into a major government-owned company's network, and spied on innocent citizens of theirs that trusted US companies to respect their privacy.

3) Nobody is saying we should feel guilt, regardless. People outside the US that don't realize how little control we have are blaming American voters for the atrocious behavior of our corrupt government -- they're saying we should feel angry about our government's behavior and do what's necessary to get it back under control, basically just like a lot of us are saying.

Re:Well, obviously

[jandersen]

The Internet isn't supposed to be tied to country at all.

The internet is whatever it is - there are no universal laws, natural or otherwise, that govern what the internet should be. Other, perhaps, than the simple, physical engineering of it: you can't connect every computer directly to every other computer on the planet, so you do the sensible thing: connect to the ones closest by in a LAN, and connect LANs to a larger, regional network etc. Even without the question of one country spying on another, it is good, common sense to have several, hefty connections between country sized networks, so you are not cut off every time an intercontinental cable is damaged.

And to my mind at least, it makes perfect sense not to send all you traffic through a nation that can so easiliy be perceived as increasingly manipulative and untrustworthy in its intentions. When you look around in the world, this is what you find:

- America used to represent the ultimate freedom in many people's eyes; but it has been become much less so over the last 20 years. So, what people see is that IT IS GOING THE WRONG WAY. Where is America likely to be in another 10 years?

- Europe is, as Douglas Adams would have put it, mostly harmless. Not because they are marvellous and honest, but because they are so magnificently messy; will it have changed in 10 or 20 years' time? Nah.

- China used to be seen as extremely restrictive and backwards, but have improved massively and consistently over the last few decades. Where does it feel likely they will be in 10 or 20 years?

I mean, out of these three options, which one would YOU choose? Even Americans don't trust America any more.

Re:Well, obviously

[TheLink]

There's no need to even count the data. If you're actually putting the servers on in the USA instead of Brazil the speed of light will rat you out. Put the servers too far away and the increase in latency becomes noticeable.

So just require certain servers to respond within X milliseconds. The side effect is it'll make some users and gamers happy :).

You could still be shipping the data elsewhere for the NSA, but the "transactional" servers would still have to be in Brazil. Detecting the data shipping and spying in this case would be harder since the latencies will be low and the byte counts could be a lot less due to filtering, summarization and compression.

Re:Well, obviously

[TheLink]

No what happens is the internet gets LESS fractured.

By having their own direct connections to Europe etc Brazil ends up being better connected to other countries (and vice versa) rather than most countries having most of their connections and traffic going via the USA (which is the current case). I've actually seen Asia to Asia traffic go via the USA before (adding a lot of latency too).

Of course the USA could still use their subs to install taps on those fibre connections, or tap at the European gateways and thus bypass any link-level encryption the Brazilians might use (the Snowden-South American diplomatic plane incident does indicate that many European countries might be willing to work with the USA on this).

Re:Well, obviously

[TheLink]

It's still much easier for Brazilian citizens to pick a Brazilian Government they prefer than for them to pick a US Government they prefer.

If they keep voting in governments that spy on them then perhaps that's what most of them want and deserve.

Re:Well, obviously

[serviscope_minor]

We just got caught with our hand in the jar, that everyone else is pulling cookies out of too.

You can also afford a huge crane to pull cookies out faster than anyone else.

Not that anyone else would be any better given the same resources.

Re:Well, obviously

[davydagger]

Did you actually read the article, they are doing nothing to break the internet.

1. They are demanding foreign companies keep information on their own citizens in country. Imagine if google was a russian company, wouldn't you want the same?

2. they are beefing up infastructure, building more trunk lines to other south american countries, plus their own line right to europe. this actuallty STRENGTHENS the internet by adding more bandwith and redundancy. The idea is giving data more ways to be routed than through the USA.

There is nothing in the article which suggests they are doing anything the slightest to break the internet.

Re:Well, obviously

[nurb432]

If you really think that we are alone in the surveillance world, are the idiot. We may be the biggest, that i will give you, but all other countries do it too, and always have.

Re:Well, obviously

[Em Adespoton]

If you weren't replying to me, I'd mod you up. This is what it really boils down to.

Re:Well, obviously

[meiao]

Brazil has links to Cuba. They're all terrorists there.

Re:Well, obviously

[bluegutang]

Exactly. An American citizen who is in favor of limited government, federalism, separation of powers etc. should also be against concentrating control of the internet in any one body's hands.

Re:Well, obviously

[alexgieg]

the government does NOT have gag-powers over anyone (well, they can beat you up and lock you, but they cannot legally order you to keep quiet).

Actually, they can. There's no absolute freedom of speech here in Brazil. Now and then something gets censored by the courts and that's it. You find the usual suspects in the silencing list such as Nazi books and other such hate speech, but also pretty idiotic stuff such as unauthorized biographies of celebrities and investigative journalism of misdeeds by politicians, as if said celebrities/politicians hear something they might dislike is going to be published they can get a judge to block it and that's that, the work enters judicial limbo for years. At least afterwards the media can loudly complain about the censoring, even if having to workaround the subject so as to carefully avoid triggering specific judicial restriction, such as a prohibition to name someone or to paraphrase whatever the original text was trying to say.

ballsy move

[dmitrygr]

If this sticks, it will be awesome, not for the security but for the statement it makes. Way to go, Brazil!

Re:ballsy move

[morcego]

As a Brazilian, I have to say this is just the typical "full of hot air" attitude of the current government.
I don't expect anything more than some noise and a couple news flashes to come out of this. And a lot of wasted public money, probably being spent on companies owned by political cronies.

This is the same president that published an executive order (has force of law) that changed our language to include a female inflection for the word "president" (which was a non gender specific word, to begin with)

Re:ballsy move

[Tiger4]

Its a great thing to decentralize from the US. BUT, it could just as easily mean more fragmentation. Just like China has the Great Firewall, Brazil could as easily make you swim the Great River Amazon. No I don't expect them to, but nothing says they can't. And worse, if more countries follow, more fragmentation of the same could make navigating the internet as bad as in the days of dial-up.
Or, you could get the UN and ITU thinking they know how to govern and make it all one big happy bureaucratic world. Leaving US control is good, but there is a lot of bad out there too.

Re:ballsy move

[TechyImmigrant]

Lots more international fibre might be a good thing rather that treating the US as a passive hub.

Re:ballsy move

[LostMonk]

It might be only hot air on part of Brazil, but you can be sure that most governments of Europe and Scandinavia has similar feelings about it even if they aren't vocalizing it quite the same way.
Every major government right now is doing some serious inspections of where is their data flowing through, where is it stored and how trusty are the interests of those who control them... And you can bet they are not liking the answers they are getting.

Re:ballsy move

[eliphas_levy]

It's commonly accepted that on our brazilian portuguese language we do not change the gender if the article is sufficient to identify it -- "a piloto", "a gerente". Portuguese is sufficiently complicated and too many words as it is.

And yes, she made a law forcing to "genderize" words, at least on school certificates. Presidenta, yuck.

If you are jornalista or humorista, you are female now. How nice of her :D

Re:ballsy move

[ak3ldama]

Is the US hacking their civilian shit seen as an act of war? What about all the other countries we did this to?

Re:ballsy move

[Obfuscant]

Lots more international fibre might be a good thing rather that treating the US as a passive hub.

My doctor says I should eats lots more fibre, but the international part kinda violates the greenie mantra of "buy local", doesn't it?

Re:ballsy move

[Teancum]

It wouldn't hurt for Brazil to have more physical connections with other Latin American countries as well as other countries relatively near, such as perhaps a direct link to South Africa and Spain/Portugal (aka something across the Atlantic). Unfortunately west Africa isn't exactly an economic hot spot in the world and would be the easiest to reach.

What I don't understand is why you or anybody else is worried about "fragmentation" on this issue? Fragmentation of IP addresses? I thought IPv6 pretty much solved that problem anyway (with enough address space so every person can have thousands of IP addresses and still have room left over for governments and corporations). Routers can do a pretty good job of finding network addresses in even a very fragmented world infrastructure as that is sort of why they were invented in the first place. Network traffic certainly doesn't need to go into America first.

The "bad old days of dial up access" was mostly an issue of finding an ISP in your neighborhood.... which was eventually solved with pools of dial up access and then widespread DSL coverage. If you are complaining about bandwidth, I hardly think that is going to be a problem with additional links and physical connections between people in more distant parts of the world from the primary corridors of telecommunications. If anything, bandwidth will improve if peripheral edges of networks are connected as well as improving reliability. Fragmentation actually improves things as opposed to making it worse.

Perhaps you are complaining about fragmentation of services like more kinds of websites that are "portals". Would it be a bad thing if those services are broken up and people use things other than Google's gmail?

Re:ballsy move

[Teancum]

Actually, that would be a casus belli for a war against America on the part of Brazil if an undersea cable was tapped into by a 3rd party government. It is not as that has never happened before even against countries openly hostile to America. It is doubtful that physical cables would be laid from the splice all of the way back to America though.... but who knows if you are making stuff up here? Thousands of miles of additional cable from that splice to America would still be quite the investment with Brazil justifiably laughing off their asses at the NSA sorting through porn sites, video game streaming, and other general junk in that data stream for any precious nuggets of information about a plot by Brazil to invade America.

Right. A friend of mine (I was there when it was done) asked a Brazilian Air Force general what Brazil would do if America decided to go to war against Brazil. His reply was to ground all of the planes and surrender. Brazil certainly is not a major threat to America.

Re:ballsy move

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Brazilian I agree. This is just political speech (a.k.a "BS"). Telebras, the "the state-run telecom company" is a skeleton company, brought back to life from the remnants of the archaic public telecom system to serve political interests. It brings Internet access to about 260 cities, out of 5570 on the country, most of all in sparse populated areas (http://www.telebras.com.br/cidades_com_oferta_PNBL_pela_Telebras_e_parceiros_ordem_alfabetica.pdf). Also the compel for Facebook, Google, etc "to store data generated by Brazilians on servers physically located inside Brazil" gives away the fact that our government don't understand (or choose to ignore) facts. If those companies they are required to surrender any information to US agencies, it does not matter where the servers are.

Re:ballsy move

[Reservoir Penguin]

forced femenization on government level, just wow.

Re:ballsy move

[Opyros]

So she might not appreciate the phrase "ballsy move" being applied to her?

Re:ballsy move

[turbidostato]

"Every major government right now is doing some serious inspections of where is their data flowing through"

No. They are doing it since the first time a customs agent halted a Mr Tcpip Package in the border, some twenty five years ago.

You don't think intelligence agencies were invented yesternight, do you?

"where is it stored and how trusty are the interests of those who control them"

When Lord Palmerston said that funny thing about not being allies, only interests, I think it came implied that there's not just one interest but that each one has his own and that the only trusty interest for a party is its own one. Given that the saying is about 200 years old, I think the news already reached the aforementioned intelligence agencies.

"And you can bet they are not liking the answers they are getting."

What you can bet is that the surprise gesture in their faces only shows their actoral worthness.

Re:ballsy move

[morcego]

So she might not appreciate the phrase "ballsy move" being applied to her?

Hummm, in her case... well, come people will say it actually applies :D

Re:ballsy move

[xvan]

That was also done in Argentina (not by law)...
In some way it makes sense...
The word 'sirvienta' has always been used to refer to a female housemaid, instead of 'sirviente'...
Why not do the same with the word 'presidente' that has the same declination???

Re:ballsy move

[ak3ldama]

In what world can a government ok another government to attack a civilian target? Even if one (or all) said governments "authorized" this, how do their (or all) of their constitutions let them get away with this? Either we - the people - take "cyber" threats seriously, or we realize they are not a real threat (since our governments will let anyone attack us at their whim - but not ours) and we tell them all to shut the fuck up.

Re:ballsy move

[cbope]

Exactly. A similar thing happened in Finland a few years ago. The previously state-run mobile phone and internet provider was sold to a Swedish company and as a result, the hub for all the data flowing into and out of this provider moved to Sweden. The problem was, the Finnish government used this provider, and suddenly all government data was "overseas". This was/is illegal. So, they had to quickly build new datacenters in Finland to host all the government data. I would also speculate that Sweden's close ties with the US had some impact to the urgency as well.

Note, this was well before the whole Assange affair which also seems to smell of US interference/cooperation with the Swedish government in order to get him on Swedish soil so he can be extradited to the US for prosecution.

Re:ballsy move

[ion]

It wouldn't hurt for Brazil to have more physical connections with other Latin American countries as well as other countries relatively near, such as perhaps a direct link to South Africa and Spain/Portugal (aka something across the Atlantic). Unfortunately west Africa isn't exactly an economic hot spot in the world and would be the easiest to reach.

Actually the shortest path from the city Natal in Brazil to Lisabon in Portugal goes through both Cape Verde and the Canary Islands, both of which are pretty close to western Africa, so western Africa could get linked up pretty good if Brazil creates this trans-Atlantic connection. And if you pick Gibraltar instead, then the direct line actually crosses Africa several places.

Re:ballsy move

[Teancum]

I saw some cable maps subsequent to my post which showed this connection very clearly. Thank you for pointing that out.

Still, my suggestion still stands that Brazil could use a few more direct connections to other countries from around the world. A connection from Rio to Johannesberg, to give an example, would IMHO help both cities out and furthermore help the internet as a whole in a number of ways. It certainly wouldn't be fragmentation. Neither would a "direct" connection to Chile from some where in southern Brazil going around the southern tip of South America. There definitely are ways Brazil as a country could be connected to the rest of the world.

Re:ballsy move

[ion]

Still, my suggestion still stands that Brazil could use a few more direct connections to other countries from around the world. A connection from Rio to Johannesberg, to give an example, would IMHO help both cities out and furthermore help the internet as a whole in a number of ways. It certainly wouldn't be fragmentation.

I fully agree, connections are good. I am not sure I would like Rio though, because Johannesberg is so far into South Africa, almost on the east side. What about Cape Town?

And by the way, what about this idea?
Lisabon Natal Cape Town?

Cape Town Natal is 6331 km according to Google Earth.
Cape Town Rio de Janeiro is 6073 km according to Google Earth.

Yeah, almost 300 km longer, but picking Natal would connect Europe and South Africa, probably meaning more traffic.

Re:ballsy move

[andrelam]

I'm from Brazil. What this stupid government is trying to do is disconnect Brazil from all other governments, so they can implement the ultimate form of dictatorship and communism. Our so-called "leaders" are afraid that their crimes, mostly by corruption, are discovered by the media or other governments.
I'm aware of all privacy and security issues, but, in this case, the best that the USA (and all other countries) can do is continue to spy on the brazilian government, and make all information as public as possible!
And I agree with morcego: our president is a joke!
PS: sorry for the poor English. ;)

Re:ballsy move

[morcego]

Humm, no, that is not it at all. And I, and I'm 100% anti-PT (the political party), think you are being overly paranoid and oversimplifying things.
Please, there are better things to copy from the USA than their fascination with conspiracy theories.

The main problem our president has (besides being a joke, that is), is that she, somehow, manages to surround herself with the most incompetent people in the country. See Itamar Franco, one of our former presidents. He was stupid and incompetent himself, but managed to surround himself with competent people, and thus got good results.

When I see people like Mercadante in the government, someone whose incompetence is legendary, I have to question more than her competence. I question her common sense.

Unfortunately, we are a people who think we all understand democracy, when ours is barely out of its cradle and didn't even start walking. No one bothers to read the constitution, or to understand how our constitutional democracy works. And that is how the power groups manipulate our democracy, though our ignorance.

Re:ballsy move

[SwedishPenguin]

I agree that Sweden is certainly no safe harbor in terms of data storage. In fact, we both have our own spy agency (FRA) that is legally (since 2008) allowed to tap into "international" cables (and with it, the datamine the data of most Swedes as well), and our government put in their veto against EU condemnation of NSA spying on EU governments and citizens. Despite our supposed "neutrality", our government has had a close relationship with the US for a long time, but in no time previously has the government so obviously kowtowed to US interests. Back in the day, at least the prime minister (Olof Palme) harshly criticized the actions of the US government when appropriate (e.g. the US bombings of Hanoi, resulting in the US withdrawing their ambassador). Sadly, since his assassination, the ties to the US have grown ever closer, to the degree that Obama actually came here earlier this month for what the foreign minister called a "feelgood meeting" after a love letter from our prime minister practically begged him to, this after the revelations of NSA spying...

Re:ballsy move

[SwedishPenguin]

I think the point is that if the data-centers are on Brazilian soil, those responsible can be prosecuted for espionage, whereas if the data is stored in the US, the Brazilian government basically can't do anything, it's out of their jurisdiction.

Wait a minute

[Dunbal]

And they're going to do all that with Cisco routers, right? LOL

Re:Wait a minute

[Issarlk]

No, don't worry they'll use Huawei routers... oh wait...

Re:Wait a minute

[c0lo]

You know? One of the countries in BRICS produces cheap routers.
And if they can trust one another to setup their own development bank and stop using the US dollar as a trade medium, they should be able to sort the matter of routers easily.

Re:Wait a minute

[DeathElk]

Technically yes, a PC can act as a router. However scaling such a system to accommodate the required tier 1 connectivity would be impossible.

Re:Wait a minute

[Dunbal]

Banning LUA because it's a munition. I did not know that - rofl - but it sure sounds like America. Just ban a language. That has already been "exported" and has many programmers and companies perfectly adept in it. Please everyone, unlearn LUA now! Anyway I'm in Central America (Costa Rica) - I was just joking about the routers. But yeah good idea to stay as far away from American tainted merchandise as possible I guess.

Re:Wait a minute

[ahabswhale]

Jesus, where do people get this bullshit from? LUA is not banned in the USA. US companies even incorporate it into games. The US does a lot of fucked up shit so you shouldn't have to make up stuff to make it worse than it is.

Re:Wait a minute

[ruir]

And dont forget, Windows servers. Cant they get the joke on it?

Me, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this sticks, it will be awesome, not for the security but for the statement it makes. Way to go, Brazil!

I agree! This is awesome! I'm going to start my own internet, too. Take, that Obama!

Re:Me, too!

[Turbio]

I guess she has a bigger budget than you do.

Brazil is like the U.S. in the '50s

[KrazyDave]

An up-and-coming, self-righteous, loved and respected (pretty much universally except by its indigenous population) economic dynamo with its first Olympics affirming her new stature. Now they just need to solve their local soccer-match dismemberment frenzies, child trafficking and rampant kidnappings of even middle-class targets and it'll be a regular Portuguese-speaking Mayfield from "Leave It To Beaver"

Re:Brazil is like the U.S. in the '50s

[TechyImmigrant]

> "Leave It To Beaver"

The didn't call them Brazilians for nothing.

Re:Brazil is like the U.S. in the '50s

[vbraga]

Add to that list massive internal debt, high inflation, sky high interest rates, slow economic growth, a bizarre, stupid and lazy justice system, high taxation, immense corruption, ...

Brazil doesn't resembles the 1950s US at all. And I wish really hard it did...

Re:Brazil is like the U.S. in the '50s

[Obfuscant]

An up-and-coming, self-righteous, loved and respected (pretty much universally except by its indigenous population) economic dynamo with its first Olympics affirming her new stature.

I know Brazilians who are absolutely terrified of how badly Brazil is going to handle the Olympics, and how poorly the incomplete and uncompleted infrastructure is going to perform when scads of people arrive hoping to see sporting events spread out across the entire country.

They are rightly scared that the big O will leave the country with a big black I (eye) in the eyes of the world. It's bad enough that there were mass riots not long ago based, in part, on the money being spent to build Olympic venues instead of on things like bus systems. This "new stature" is very likely to turn out to have scoliosis and club foot.

Won't stop the US, much less the NSA.

[sethstorm]

At any point in that chain, the US can still snoop or put US-friendly people/technology in place.

Re:Won't stop the US, much less the NSA.

[AHuxley]

That chain will no longer be unlimited runs of networked US tech from telco optical to a huge "plaintext" database via a soft loan or regional political deal.
Air gaps will be considered rather than be seen as just too costly/slow. That will need local CIA/US Special forces teams to break in or the CIA to bribe local staff.
Once the US has to have people on the ground again its spy vs spy and on another countries turf.
Any new faces from the EU/US/Russia are tracked.

and all of the places you are connecting to

[themushroom]

are outside Brazil, such as the United States, because beside a small collection of servers you want to call secure and local (Brazil's own webmail server, for instance) everything else is "out there". Including most of the "Brazillian content" such as info about the Rio '16 Olympics and all those hot photos of women at Carnivale.

Re:and all of the places you are connecting to

[AmiMoJo]

No, most content of interest to Brazilians is hosted inside Brazil. Even stuff on US sites is served from CDNs inside the country. Brazilians mostly look at local sites anyway, except for search engines and some social networks, and the government has already said it wants to make sure they keep Brazilian data in Brazil.

It's also a nice way to talk down US sites and products so that Brazilian ones can compete with them, similar to how the US has already banned Chinese telecoms equipment because it's too cheap and too good.

Re:and all of the places you are connecting to

[Teancum]

The U.S. government has banned the use of Chinese telecom equipment by U.S. government agencies not because it is too cheap or too good, but because it is compromised and is used by the People's Liberation Army to spy on the U.S. government. Not that the U.S. government has never done something like that to other countries.

There is no ban on such equipment by ordinary Americans or even American companies. You just can't directly use that stuff if you are involved in government contracts. On the other hand, federal contracts are so pervasive in America now that you would be pretty hard pressed to be doing something that at some level completely avoids a federal contract.

Re:and all of the places you are connecting to

[AmiMoJo]

The U.S. government has banned the use of Chinese telecom equipment by U.S. government agencies not because it is too cheap or too good, but because it is compromised and is used by the People's Liberation Army to spy on the U.S. government.

You can understand why everyone else bans American equipment, which is compromised by the NSA, then. Actually, there is a slight difference. All the allegations against China are just that, allegations without hard proof and a lot of innuendo. We know for sure who the NSA has compromised.

There is no ban on such equipment by ordinary Americans or even American companies.

Which just illustrates how pointless and politically motivated it is. So the government doesn't have compromised equipment, that's find as long as none of it ever connects to the the internet. Besides which most of the hardware inside a Cisco router is made in China, including components like the CPU which could easily be backdoored.

Efficacy?

[lq_x_pl]

Outside of costing Brazil a significant amount of cash, I'm not certain what this will really accomplish. Despite all of the publicized outrage, the U.S. still has standing agreements with European intelligence agencies.

Re:Efficacy?

[Ralph Wiggam]

It's not meant to accomplish anything.

Re:Efficacy?

[Khashishi]

It will accomplish greater redundancy and greater throughput.

Re:Efficacy?

[gl4ss]

did it say in the story that they would move the datacenters into europe?

besides, unless they got shadow cabling they're not going to send all the data over to usa from europe.. which is what usa gets now when the data is routed through them.

another article said vladivostok for cable end, too.

and heh, this does accomplish money into brazil. by forcing facebook, google etc. to store the data in brazil they have to build datacenters into brazil.

Re:Efficacy?

[vbraga]

The only thing this is meant to accomplish is allowing the current administration to pose as being interested in protect some sort of "national sovereignty" and transferring some cash to government contractors - the standing Party needs cash to finance it's next run for the presidency. The half dead state owned phone company, Telebras, still exists despite having no customers. The government would finance the new cables, Telebras employees would get their kickbacks and funnel money into shady government contracts. Politics as usual with a little antiamericanism sauce.

A common factor in almost all Brazilian corruption scandals is that somehow the media gets access to "secret" telephone conversations: the country is already bugged (legally sometimes) by the Federal Police and (always illegally) by the Brazilian Intelligence Agency. It's not uncommon for the administration to leak data from legal and illegal bugs to pursue adversaries. It's scarily common and rarely protested by the general populace.

It disgusts me.

Re:Efficacy?

[Arker]

By the time this is done those agreements may well be dust.

Re:Efficacy?

[mspohr]

TFA showed a "BRIC" fiber (Brazil, Russia, India, China) which would take a Southern route from Brazil to South Africa, India, China and Russia.
It will be good to have more connectivity and alternative routes. It also avoids Miami and the NSA where all of Brazil's data goes now.

Re:Efficacy?

[Ralph Wiggam]

No. It's not *meant* to accomplish anything. It's pure political grandstanding.

(addenum)

[themushroom]

also wanted to add: Learn from China, Brasil, that while you can go at it alone, your people will still go under the wall for what they're looking for.

Re:(addenum)

[petermgreen]

The article is kinda vauge but AIUI they are talking about forcing american companies to store data about brazillians in brazil. Well that raises a few issues.

1: what are they going to do if some of those american companies tell them to go pound sand? Unless the company in question has a direct buisness presense in brazil it seems their choices are to either block connections (the "great firewall soloution) or lets things continue as they are.
2: If the NSA uses a national security letter to order the american parent company to get them some data on a brazillian what happens? Given a choice between breaking brazillian law and being punished for ignoring an american national security letter what do you expect an american company to do?
3: What happens when an amercian user and a brazillian user want/need to work together. For example suppose a brazillian user makes his calender accessible to his american friend. Should that calender be hosted in brazil? the USA? both? How will features like finding a slot where everything is free work if each country's citizens data has to remain within the country.

They are also taking about reducing reliance on the USA for connectivity to the rest of the world which just seems like good sense (afaict they already have one direct connection to europe but I doubt that is really enough) though it may well increase costs in the short term (US internet transit is CHEAP).

Re:(addenum)

[Anonymous Coward]

An American company would have to comply to the NSA letter, and as soon as somehow comes out that they used Brazilian data they would have broken brazilian law.
* The persons + leadership could be extradited (I believe the USA has never honoured extradition treaties so no worries there).
* The persons + leadership could land in jail if they wound up in Brazil somehow.
* Brazil could try to penalise the company if they do business in Brazil.
* Brazil could get economic sanction approved against the USA, like another country is now allowed to completely ignore USA copyrights.
* Brazil can put that company behind a firewall
* At the very least Brazil could educate its citizens that they should not do business with american companies.

From what I understand american companies are starting to feel the economic impact of persons and companies closing down hosting/cloud service contracts out of the USA. The NSA has basically destroyed that growing sector of the USA's economy; pretty much the only growing export sector that the USA had.

Personally I am in the process of removing all my data out of the U.S.A. and host it myself and in my own country.

please o please,

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck up pings for brazillians playing mmorpgs on u.s. servers.

signed.

the american gamer.

Benders view

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll build my own internet! With blackjack! And hookers!

Re:Benders view

[sponse]

And now is when I don't have mod points !
Could someone upvote the parent post?

Happening everywhere on all levels

[GodfatherofSoul]

Our Global Suction strategy is blowing up in our face. We were perceived as an honest broker, now we're going to find our control increasingly challenged and marginalized. I've been reading more and more about everyone from individual users to companies to now nations basically giving us the finger. Any tactic we're employing with geopolitical repercussions that can be blown out of the water by one disgruntled contractor was woefully conceived.

I don't know what annoys me more; the dragnetting or the fact that they did such a crappy job of keeping it under wraps.

Re:Happening everywhere on all levels

[Anonymous Coward]

The dragnetting or the fact they did such a crappy job of keeping it under wraps.

A smart man covers his ass. A wise man keeps his pants on.

Re:Happening everywhere on all levels

[Wolfling1]

+1
I'm astonished at the posts in this thread that have been modded up, but just don't get this point. This is about the only one I've seen so far that is truly insightful. The NSA's dragnetting is why we can't have good things. It will progressively push all other countries to legislate that information on their citizens must be hosted inside their borders. And Brazil's approach is the right one. They won't go after their citizens, or the big bad NSA. They'll just go after the businesses themselves. For companies like Google, this will be an inconvenience, but for any small company wanting to do international business on the internet, their options just evaporated. Here's hoping that they'll get some international law in place to declare the NSAs actions illegal - and some decent penalties applied at a 'per capita' rate.

Re:Happening everywhere on all levels

[ahabswhale]

Wow, you're naive. The NSA just got caught doing what most other countries are doing as well. That's the only difference. Well that, and the NSA is probably a lot better at it than most.

Re:Happening everywhere on all levels

[lehphyro]

Amazon already has an availability zone in São Paulo, Brazil.

Consolidate and fracture

[steelfood]

Funny thing is, that's how the internet is supposed to be. The only things that are common are the protocols used to communicate between networks. The idea that everything should be consolidated into one system is not in the spirit of the internet. It is the centralized systems that are ripe for abuse by large organizations. As an aside, terrorists operate in cells rather than with a strong command hierarchy for the same reason.

Now, if the Brazilians can design their own microprocessors and switch to a flavor of Linux, they might have a shot at being secure.

Re:Consolidate and fracture

[Stormwatch]

Dunno about the chips, but the government has been pushing for free software for over a decade now. Personal anecdote: I worked a temp job in a public organization, and all the machines there ran Ubuntu, except for one with Windows XP (no idea why), and a support guy brought his own Macbook.

May I be the first to suggest ipv6?

[mark-t]

Because if current rates of adoption are any indication, an ipv6 internet won't be US-centric for years to come.

Re:May I be the first to suggest ipv6?

[petermgreen]

Afaict most of the major backbone operators and hosting providers have IPv6 available. It's the access providers who are dragging their heels and that doesn't really affect whether international IPv6 traffic goes through the US or not.

Re:May I be the first to suggest ipv6?

[unixisc]

Because if current rates of adoption are any indication, an ipv6 internet won't be US-centric for years to come.

Thanks for bringing this up - you beat me to it. If Brazil takes the lead and adapts an IPv6 only approach, and completley turns of IPv4, they'll effectively shut out the US, given the pace at which the US has been adapting this. In the process, they'd also be pioneers in this, after the 6bone project.

As for routers, they could design their own, using both off the shelf microprocessors (I'm sure there are a number of microprocessor vendors out there who'd be only too glad to see them go into new routers all over Brazil) and router OSs such as pFsense or OpenWRT. It's not like they'd have to run to the US to get all the parts they need. The expertise, maybe, but I'm sure LACNIC has the expertise needed to help them make this jump!

Re:May I be the first to suggest ipv6?

[petermgreen]

For example here is the interesting part (beginning and end trimmed) of an IPv6 trace from bytemark in the UK to aarnet in australia.

  4 2001:41c8:0:82::2 (2001:41c8:0:82::2) 7.47 ms 10.455 ms 7.532 ms
  5 lonap.he.net (2001:7f8:17::1b1b:1) 12.043 ms 9.53 ms 6.971 ms
  6 10gigabitethernet10-4.core1.nyc4.he.net (2001:470:0:128::1) 86.687 ms 77.236 ms 75.476 ms
  7 100gigabitethernet7-2.core1.chi1.he.net (2001:470:0:298::1) 102.278 ms 104.13 ms 99.9 ms
  8 100gigabitethernet13-1.core1.msp1.he.net (2001:470:0:18e::2) 100.84 ms 102.275 ms 100.756 ms
  9 100gigabitethernet9-1.core1.sea1.he.net (2001:470:0:2a0::1) 137.472 ms 132.871 ms 132.908 ms
10 * * *
11 ge-6-1-0.bb1.a.syd.aarnet.net.au (2001:388:1:26::1) 289.227 ms 289.256 ms 289.065 ms

Re:Do it!

[PhxBlue]

You have two choices, keep playing the NSA boogeyman card whilst everyone else robs you blind, or get your act together and start doing what you should have been doing to begin with. Blaming the worlds computer security problems on the NSA is a bit like blaming Top Gear for death of old Morris Marina's.

If you're not welcome on the premises, it's still trespassing, whether the door is locked or not.

Re:This is just showmanship, pantomime.. yawn

[rsborg]

Essentially, its one corrupt group in conflict with another, while try to maintain public support.

And how is this different from when our mega corps compete with each other and try to cut off each other's air supply - by lowering prices or making certain things free?

I can't see anything bad coming out of this. I hope more countries do this such that the cost to monitor all packets becomes too expensive for the NSA. Then we might have a more free Internet.

tl;dr - the balkanization of spying is a good thing for Internet users.

I called it...

[erroneus]

Trust in anything connected with the US is done. Other governments and other people are VERY aware of what the US influence has been doing. They are also very aware that Brazil's financial systems didn't crash because they didn't do what the rest of the world did. A lot of things aren't being talked about but the leaders know what's what but they don't know how to escape the net which the powers behind the US have put over everyone else. BRIC will make the changes the rest of the world will be inclined to follow.

I never thought there would be a year of Linux on the desktop, but something like it is becoming more and more possible in other nations.

Things are changing and they're going to change a lot more before it's done.

Re:I called it...

[Koreantoast]

While I agree that trust in the US is harmed, and this is a significant setback for US power and influence, I think we are a VERY long way from a "divorce" with the United States and a BRIC-centered world order. The former is a long way off because even if the United States is no longer the center of the world, it will still be the most powerful nation on the planet with its combination of economic, military and cultural influence. Unless your nation is trying to go "off the grid" like a North Korea, you cannot escape American influence. Second, the BRIC nations are right now very fragile or in bad shape, and even if they were not, given the the track records of several of those nations in human rights and Internet freedom, I don't know if a world order centered on them is going to be any better.

Re:I called it...

[erroneus]

The world has been betrayed by the white-hat wearing bad guy that is the US. Putin has put himself out there as the influential voice of reason.

Good

[wjcofkc]

Our government deserves to get slapped in the face at every turn by every other country over the heavy handed and far overreaching actions of the NSA. I hope the condemnations with actions keep rolling in.

Thanks again Snowden. You woke up the world and it's changing for the better because of you.

Dear Facebook....

[freeze128]

BRAZIL: Dear Facebook, please store your data about our citizens on a server that is located in our Country.

Facebook: No.

BRAZIL: Well, then we will just prevent all our citizens from accessing your website...

Facebook: Darn.

Re:Dear Facebook....

[Uberbah]

Right. Just like how every time Google has been threatened with having local regulations applied to them in France or Germany or what have you, the for-profit corporation writes off the countries involved and pulls up shop.

Unless they, you know, cave. Which is pretty much every time.

Re:Dear Facebook....

[drinkypoo]

Should provide a nice boost to Orkut :)

They can go after Facebook for any business they're doing in Brazil, that is, taking advertisements.

Re:Dear Facebook....

[mcmaddog]

except in China.

Re:Dear Facebook....

[rastos1]

Hah. Just imagine what happens when Brazilians stop access to Amazon.

Re:Do it!

[onyxruby]

Your missing the bloody point. In the zealous desire to make the NSA the world's boogeyman on all things related to computer security the world is forgetting all of the other security issues that is had /before/ the NSA boogeyman.

People are also naively assuming that the NSA is the only agency to go around spying on other countries like that. It only takes a quick google search to reveal spy agencies from just about every nation on earth. Since the Internet is arguably the cheapest and easiest way to gather information for people it is only natural that the same would be true for governments. People forget that governments spy on other governments because - that is their job.

Now you can either get piss and moan about it, or you can do something security in general. Let me explain things to you with your door locking example, it's a bit like putting up a sign banning Bob the burglar while forgetting that you live in a bad neighborhood with thousands of other burglars.

Moranic response to story

[Uberbah]

They aren't talking about building their own gated AOL. RTFA.

While Brazil isnâ(TM)t proposing to bar its citizens from U.S.-based Web services, it wants their data to be stored locally as the nation assumes greater control over Braziliansâ(TM) Internet use to protect them from NSA snooping.

So mail.google.com.br should have its servers in Brazil and presumably be subjected to Brazilian oversight. That's not exactly 'turning into North Korea'.

Re:Moranic response to story

[onyxruby]

RTFA, they are also talking about running their own Fiber to Europe and elsewhere. Meanwhile they forget that European governments also heavily engage on spying on the Internet. You did RTFA, right?

Re:Do it!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're talking about not relying on US infrastructure.
Security means absolutely nothing if you're using the systems of someone who has to obey a secret order to hand your data over.

Just some Randian butthurt thrown in.

[Uberbah]

Brazil's formerly richest man Eike Batista (was $36.4B, now $0.4B) poached a top team of petroleum executives from the state oil company PetroBras. This included their top negotiator who would have had the most sensitive data regarding price points for access to new fields. Having a competitor to the state oil company was an affront to the establishment. The government wanted to know who was taking to Batista, and what information was being supplied.

Oh noes!!! Wont someone please think of the billionaire oligarchs who want to privatize national resources so they can cut wages, increase prices and ignore safety and environmental concerns! Let's start a kickstarter campaign for the poor beleaguered billionaire that has more influence than a million registered voters!!!

The rest of the post isn't so bad. Obama fell all over himself during his campaign to assure voters that he would reign in abusing spying, only to massively expand it once he because president. The Brazilian government might be just as full of it here - a little fauxrage to make the homefront happy with zero follow-through.

Re:Do it!

[onyxruby]

Yes, and that means connecting to other countries infrastructure in the naive assumption that those other countries don't do the same things the US does. Thus the point on North Korea as if you rule out all of the other countries that spy there is no one left to connect to but themselves. Your not really naive enough to think that countries other than the US don't spy, are you?

Re:Do it!

[LateArthurDent]

If you're not welcome on the premises, it's still trespassing, whether the door is locked or not.

Under which criminal code? Trespassing only exists because there's a law in the books that define it. Now name the law book that nations have to abide.

Unless the US signed a treaty with Brazil that say they can't spy on them, it's fair game. I say this is a Brazilian.

When will extradictions begin?

[X.25]

Considering how US asks for extradiction of people who were hacking US networks, are they gonna extradite NSA employees that have broken countless laws and hacked networks in many other countries?

I mean, will people be able to not start manically laughing next time USA asks for someone to be extradited because he/she broke some US law and/or hacked some US system(s)?

I know I'll be rolling on the floor.

People still don't see what's wrong

[X.25]

What really amazes me is how many people boldy say "I am ok with NSA spying", yet somehow they completely ignore that NSA personnel is breaking local and foreign laws.

Breaking into corporate/private networks and stealing sensitive data, which is a heavy crime in almost every 'modern' country. Crime for which US pressures other countries, to extradite their own citizens. To extradite them to the country that is the biggest cyber criminal in the world. Ooooh, the irony.

Are you really ok with that?

Brazil: take Snowden

[DrEasy]

If Brazil wants to flex it muscles with respect to defending privacy, it should give political asylum to Snowden. Now that will send a message. It's crazy how no supposedly democratic country has stepped up yet.

Symptom

[gmuslera]

Is amazing how much people focus in Brazil the blame, suspect of spying, or ulterior motives, and forget that they are just a symptom, and that more should follow example. But the disease, the one that should take all the blame, is barely named, and even justified when so. Put attention on the original action, not on the reactions thar will keep coming from the rest of the world.

boo hoo

[Tetetrasaurus]

They lack the technology, talent, funds, infrastructure, government apparatus, and even the will to do it themselves, so we're doing it for them, for free, and they complain? It's hard to understand there is a reason why your economy didn't tank overnight every night, or terrorists don't murder your family, or hackers didn't take down your antiquated power grid any given second of the day.

It's a pretty simple concept, we're all so interconnected now, anybody leaving their own pants down leaves the pants down for everybody, and I don't know about you, but I prefer to walk around with my pants on; I'm not a saggin' kind of guy.

Much more likely, their government has known we've been carrying the load for them, but for obvious reasons couldn't admit it her citizens, so when the news broke, they had to act all offended and condemn it.

Require google and facebook...

[Bert64]

Requiring foreign companies to host data on servers inside brazil isn't going to achieve anything... They are still foreign corporations, and will be able to access those servers and/or copy data off them at any time they want.

What's really needed, is instead of large centrally controlled services like facebook there should be a large number of distributed but openly interoperable services.

This is how the internet has always worked, and how core services like web and email work - anyone can run their own servers, and anyone's servers can talk to anyone else's. If you are worried about foreign spies, you can ensure that you use services operated in countries you trust.

Re:Require google and facebook...

[c0d3g33k]

This. Mod parent up, please.

Re:Require google and facebook...

[aaarrrgggh]

A large number of smaller sites (than Facebook) has a lower value than Facebook due to network effects.

What happens when you look at the Internet as just another commodity? Would Brazil want the US to create legislation to ensure that all planes flown in US airspace must be made in the US?

Re:Require google and facebook...

[Bert64]

That's because those sites are designed that way, not to interoperate with others because they want to lock users in.

I run my own email server, it has ~10 users on it, and yet i can communicate with users on any other email service connected to the public internet.

Re:Require google and facebook...

[jwhitener]

Requiring foreign companies to host data on servers inside brazil isn't going to achieve anything... They are still foreign corporations, and will be able to access those servers and/or copy data off them at any time they want.

What's really needed, is instead of large centrally controlled services like facebook there should be a large number of distributed but openly interoperable services.

True. So where are these services? Things like P2P social networks?

Well at last count there were dozens of open source projects doing free P2P social networking software. And not a single one has any sizable user base.

Companies with money that can heavily advertise their service will always lead with user count, and always seek to concentrate ownership of competing services by buying others up.

I'm not sure there is any one (or any main) solution to the problem. But it certainly needs to start with laws in the US and worldwide that ban the wholesale eavesdropping on internet traffic.

I'd like to see more large popular websites leading the internet community, (like Google, MSN, Ebay, AOL, etc.. ) have "Did you know?" days where all those pages have messaging about important internet issues like this. And if that doesn't work, more blackouts.

Abuse Your power and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone will take it from You.

Today's 'lucky' ten thousand...

[CCarrot]

I guess she's one of them.

Unfortunately, this is a much less delightful revelation...and, well, she's Brazilian not American...but c'mon lady.

Re: Good.

[sethstorm]

Only if Snowden and his supporters fall on it first..

National Stupid Agency

[TiggertheMad]

Except that, because of the NSA's clusterfuck idiocy, now we have each country building it's own internet, which may or may not actually be part of a larger global network. Expect more of this in the future. It is the state's version of a 'walled garden' platform.

Thanks for shitting in the pool, NSA.

Re:National Stupid Agency

[pslytely psycho]

"Thanks for shitting in the pool, NSA."

So much said in so few words......wish I had mod points...

Re:National Stupid Agency

[farble1670]

every government that has the means is spying on its citizens and other other countries. while the US is probably in the top 5 when it comes to means, it is also more likely to get outed, because whistle blowers are given a platform and do not fear being "disappeared" for their actions.

surprise, you don't see whistle blowers from china, russia, and the like.

Re:National Stupid Agency

[gmuslera]

So is ok that US does it to all the world because other countries maybe doing it?

Even if the other countries, at most, and the ones that does it, does mostly in their own population or internal connections (and for those, how many started shortly after the arab spring? if some external power is social engineering a revolution is better to be aware of it). US not only does that on all the world, their citizens and all the foreing ones that are within their reach (and not just the ones that are connecting in that moment with US servers), but also is getting ready to fire cyberattacks on critical structure.

They are shitting, pissing, and puking in the pool. They don't just they spy, force manufacturers to put backdoors in their products and plant logical timebombs in all other countries critical infrastructure, but they are forcing other countries to protect themselves. If over that, those governments does their own quote of surveillance, is anyway a small drop in the ocean that the US is doing.

Re:National Stupid Agency

[rastos1]

while the US is probably in the top 5 when it comes to means, it is also more likely to get outed, because whistle blowers are given a platform and do not fear being "disappeared" for their actions.

Are you serious? Does it mean that Assange may leave the Ecuadorean embassy, Manning did not have to spend almost a year "under Prevention of Injury status", Snowden does not have to fear torture when he get's back to US and the whole Patriot act and FISA court did not happen? What a relief!

Great initiative

[Mister Liberty]

Go Brazil!

It won't help.

[Karmashock]

I don't think the Brazilians understand that the US can do this to the North Koreans and they have as much their own internet as anyone.

Try buying an Iron Key in Brazil

[gelfling]

As expensive as they are here they're 5x the price there. The government gets huge taxes out of the IT industry. For decades you couldn't buy a computer that wasn't built in Brazil.

Brazil always answers to USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the days near 9/11, after the USA required pictures of every passenger, Brazilians applied the same warm welcoming gesture towards ONLY Americans. Something like this was expected as their answer.

Re:Brazil always answers to USA

[EmagGeek]

Brazil has a policy of absolute reciprocity when it comes to immigration. Brazil requires the same of US Residents applying for a Brazilian visa as the US requires of Brazilian Residents applying for a US Visa.

Any requirement imposed upon Brazilian citizens by any other country is reciprocated toward that country's citizens. It makes perfect sense to do it that way.

Re:Brazil always answers to USA

[cbope]

I can confirm this as a US citizen who travels to Brazil every 12-18 months. It's not quite as bad as Russia, but it is a pain to have to go to the Brazilian embassy and get a visa just to go to Brazil on vacation, plus the additional costs of the visa.

Re:Brazil always answers to USA

[petermgreen]

It makes perfect sense to do it that way.

It would make "sense" for a country to do this if their priority in immigration policy is to make life easier for their citizens when they go abroad and they actually believe it will have an impact on foreign policy makers. Do you honestly thing that brazil's approach to the US will change US immigration policy towards brazillians? do you think attempting to change it is worth reducing the number of americans who choose brazil as their holiday destination?

In general poor countries want tourists from rich countries. They bring lots of valuable "rich country money" with them and unlikely to stay (why would they when they have a rich country to go to) and work illegally in competition with the locals.

On the other hand rich countries don't especially want tourists from poor countries at least not without checking they are rich first since they won't bring much money and there is a real risk of them staying and working illegally.

Re:Brazil always answers to USA

[EmagGeek]

First, they don't care if they change it or not. The US can change it or not, and Brazil will maintain reciprocity. Reciprocity is about fairness, not about forcing change.

Second, it does not reduce the number of Americans traveling to Brazil because, believe it or don't, most Americans who have the means to travel don't have trouble meeting the financial criteria to get a visa to the US (which is the chief problem poor foreigners run into when trying to come here).

Re:Brazil always answers to USA

[EmagGeek]

I also go there frequently, but I used a service to get my visa, and it was effortless. I just had to FedEx my passport to New York, and they had it turned around in a week or so.

This has nothing to do with the NSA

[submain]

Brazilian here. It has to do with censoring what people post on facebook.

Recently, there have been waves of protests in Brazil, where all the traditional media companies - newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV - barely took notice even though at some instances there were almost one million people screaming outside. The reason they are so biased is because they are being bought by the government, in a monthly basis, where Rede Globo, the Brazilian equivalent of BBC, takes half the money and the rest is distributed to the other smaller media outlets. That's taxpayer money we are talking about - rampant corruption is one of the main points of these protests.

The only way that these protests gained wide support was through facebook events. Since Dilma has no control over facebook, she could not censor it. Hence, the excuse to store all brazilian data in brazilian servers: so that she and her government can put a stop to the riots.

Re:This has nothing to do with the NSA

[Osgeld]

ding ding ding
we have a winner!

Re:This has nothing to do with the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

"newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV - barely took notice" - Wrong
"Rede Globo, the Brazilian equivalent of BBC" - Wrong
" takes half the money and the rest is distributed to the other smaller media outlets" - Wrong

Rede Globo is privately owned and it is not funded by the governament. They don't cover the protests because they go against their interest, not because the DIlma controls them. Rede Globo isn't controlled by the governament, it controls the governament.
Rede Cultura is the equivalent to BBC, it's state funded and it's by far the least biased TV news. And it did notice the protests from day one.

Re:Are they manufacturing their own hardware, too?

[EmagGeek]

Yes, in fact, they are. Brazil has enormous import duties and generally it is not profitable or feasible to manufacture goods outside of Brazil for sale in Brazil.

failed to learn from history

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr]

One of the issues that led to Brazil's "reserved market" policy (1977 to 1992: no foreign companies could make mini and microcomputers and there were no imports) was that in 1974 the government got so tired of US spying (including on companies such as Petrobras) that they set up a task force to create a cryptographic system for Telex machines (to be expanded to voice later).

Only until Snowden receives very needed justice.

[sethstorm]

That will end when he's finally captured, prosecuted, convicted, and put beyond pardon. Worst case, ensure that he and his immediate helpers can do no more damage - in any way possible.

Snowden thought wrong and now he puts US citizens of all types in danger by attacking the NSA. No amount of modbombing will change that.

Never.

[sethstorm]

If anything, it should then be open season on anyone that tries to extradite them or represents those countries.

In addition, the US (given a more willing POTUS) would just make it a living nightmare for them not to extradite to the US.

It's a part of the NSA's job to protect the US.

[sethstorm]

The NSA's done its job quite well even if some may dispute its actions; the major damage has occurred as a result of Snowden.

Re:It's a part of the NSA's job to protect the US.

[gmuslera]

The major damage has been disclosed as a result of the Snowden. If you kill someone, bury the body, and someone else finds it, must he be charged with murder? Don't shoot the messenger, you could be the next victim.

That's the fastest way to the US.

[sethstorm]

Any move by Snowden will be met with capture.

Re:Do it!

[gmuslera]

And every country forces companies to put backdoors in their worldwide products, or give them directly the information, and not to tell anyone because is forbidden by secret law? Didn't know that Microsoft or Cisco were following indication of Russia or China government when put those backdoors there. That other (a very few) even try to go in their surveillance outside the borders don't make the NSA a good citizen, and they have definately the upper hand in a lot of areas.

But is ok, sleep in the lion's den if you feel safe, you know, could be tigers outside.

Brazil (and Mexico, and others) are not doing it.

[jotaeleemeese]

There are very simple reasons for this:

Since most infrastructure is not located on these countries, they can't serve a warrant to a CA to break SSL for example, and their influence in standard bodies to corrupt those standards, as the NSA is allegedly doing, is negligible overall.

Also those countries don't have the infrastructure (and although there are many bright people there, I wonder if they have enough expertise) to carry out sophisticated hacking attempt at the level at which apparently the NSA may be operating.

Of course if you think pother countries are playing this game feel free to continue speculating, but in the balance of probabilities it seems unlikely.

Reality

[NewYork]

USA is SOURCE.
Rest is SINK due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

Re:Do it!

[PhxBlue]

Under which criminal code?

Not a lawyer, but I'd refer you to your own constitution: "X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação ..."

The Pipe & The DNS server

[sim2com]

While having a direct pipe to Europe will help, I wonder if they have considered the DNS root servers and the DNS servers below them? They still need to control the traffic routing. Dot com, dot net and dot org domain names will be less attractive to the security paranoids.

Re:Do it!

[LateArthurDent]

Under which criminal code?

Not a lawyer, but I'd refer you to your own constitution: "X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação ..."

The United States isn't subject to the Brazilian constitution any more than the Brazil is subject to the US one. Which is my point.

Looks like...

[peacefool]

the internet connection is absent from Russia and China. I feel much safer now because of their online frauds, firewalls and persecution.

Re:Looks like...

[Em Adespoton]

the internet connection is absent from Russia and China.

I feel much safer now because of their online frauds, firewalls and persecution.

That shows the underwater cables. There aren't any underwater cables from Russia to the Americas; also, there's a pretty large clump of cables running from China to California and Washington State. I'm not sure why you think it's absent.