Slashdot Mirror
Brazil Approves Internet Bill of Rights
First time accepted submitter Dr.Potato (247646) writes "After more than three years being discussed, Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights was approved on April 22nd (and in Portuguese). It was rushed through the senate in order that president Dilma Roussef could sign it during the meeting on internet governance that occurs in São Paulo this week. In the bill of rights, among other things, net neutrality was maintained, providers will not be legally responsible for content published by users (but are forced to take it down when legally requested) and internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months and can't pass this responsibility to other companies."
Brazilian internet users may continue to have the right to be surveilled on social media, too.
Exactly whose "rights" are they talking about?
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Rights given by men, can be taken by men; they are therefore not rights.
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”
If the internet is turned off, does a Brazilian have the right to force other men to turn it back on? This is absurd, there is no "right" to internet service any more than there is a right to free healthcare, housing, MTV or iPads.
has just given itself the right to apply censure in whatever it pleases, by using this law as a Trojan Horse and inserting in it a vague statement regarding what is unacceptable and not protected by freedom of speech.
"hat goes some length towards protecting net neutrality"
Where exactly is this stated in the actual document?
internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months
Nothing like making it easy to build the list of links for an ISP by putting all the data in one place. Bet it's online accessible, too.
Best Slashdot Co
Keeping net neutrality is a huge win. Other articles in the bill are very positive too.
The shitty part is the record keeping. As far as my legalspeak goes, and that is almost nothing, what I understood is that if I have a website I have to maintain a 6 month record of all my visitors. I'm guessing that they refer to general access logs, just like Apache access log files or some equivalent. What I did understand is that ISPs cannot keep those records. But I might be very wrong. Either interpretation is bad anyway, so it does not matter much how bad it is.
What bothers me more is that our equivalent to the FCC (Anatel) is building a database and backdoor access to all ISPs client data. If what I heard is right (two sources working in a third party developer for a local ISP) they will have access to every byte sent through every Internet connection in the country. The buffer size I do not know. THAT bothers me a lot.
This combination doesn`t exist: ETIs that know about humanity and want to see us dead. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.
would never allow that to happen in 'Merica. They fear and hate the Internet because it is against their religion. Also they do is plot against access. Even here in Seattle the conservatives have successfully destroyed Internet access. The fastest connection I can get is dial-up with copper.net. They provide great dial-up, but after over a decade with them, I fucking want faster access, but the city will not allow CenturyLink or Comcast to upgrade their equipment. I had DSL, but it was just too unreliable to use. The Republicans have turned Seattle into a tech shithole.
The FCC just substituted its oversight of subjective free speech protection for true net neutrality. What's funny about this is that while Comcast is chucking an evil chortle thinks they just actually crowned the mega church business incorporations as the new netflix. Mega churches are slowly taking over businesses due to their tax privledges, immunity from antitrust, large capitalization that let them operate a loss to kill competition and apple-scale brand loyalty. The mega churches just got another freebie,: not paying content access fees to the ISP since the FCC will feel that against free speech for certain.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
In the meantime, Harper is trying to pass laws against Canadians.
Message to Harper: you're supposed to be an elected official to represent the people, not a corporate puppet out to sell out our rights and natural resources to the highest bidder. Canada isn't your private land and property, it's the country you're supposed to be governing.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
You are basically wrong about rights. There is no objectively correct formulation for what a right is. The idea of rights precedes philosophical discussions about them. There are rights discussed in some of the most ancient writings we know of.
You can be given the right to enslave by a government. You might say 'in philosophy x you have no right to enslave' and you can also so 'philosophy x is the best way of thinking about this because' but you cannot say 'It is a rule of nature that you cannot enslave humans and therefore can have no absolute right to enslave', without supplying at least a whole books worth of justification, and even then you will probably not be persuasive.
Brazilians do not have the right to force other men to turn the internet back on. Instead they have a right to privacy, equal access to the network and so on.
Dear everyone here,
Brazil is not the U.S. It has a different culture. Your cultural norms cannot be blindly fit onto Brazil. Please stop trying.
P.S. The rest of the world would like to express the same thing. They started a queue.
Actually now we do have that right (to force the internet back on).
1. You are choosing one definition of right based on your personal preference and chosen literature, and you are stating that anything different is not and cannot be right (pun intended). Another definition is that a right is something a certain society agrees upon. Under your definition there can be no such thing as "the right to enslave". But in reality this right was used by many people over time. Even life is a society given right, this is obvious since in several countries there is death penalty. If people can lose the right to life, by having it taken by men, it is certainly a right given by men, as any other right.
2. In Brazil the constitution is the highest law, so all that discussion about what is a right and what is not doesn't really apply to this posts subject, if it says it's a right, it counts as a right and that's what matters in this case. We can have academic discussions about the subject, but if things go to court the constitution and the laws prevail. In spite of any feelings of injustice against the rich you might feel.
3. There is a thing called "modern constitutions" and it is normal in them to add many more things than what was normal to add when the American constitution was created (instead of only "regulating" the existence of the country, it "regulates" anything that was considered important by the legislators and also guides how the government is supposed to behave and what to pursue when those rights aren't immediately achievable). In Brazil we have one of those "modern constitutions" (quotes in "modern constitutions" because this is an actual academic term).
4. In the Brazilian constitution there is a list of constitutional protected and/or pursued fundamental rights, somewhat similar to what the amendments do in the US Constitution but broader. That list does include freedom of speech, education, healthcare, access to culture and information, freedom to come and go, privacy, besides several other rights, but does not include any products or brands (like your ipad and mtv examples). *
Note: It is important to understand before the next session of comments that Brazil is a third world country and that the quality of anything here is questionable to say the least or "pretty shit" to be precise.
4.1 (implications of 4)
4.1.1 We do have free schools up to high school for everybody and many free universities (the best universities in the country are the free ones). Since it was impossible to achieve free universal superior education instantly, to increase availability and accessibility over time is government's obligation and they've been doing it.
4.1.2 We do have free healthcare.
4.1.3 For several years now, electricity and water has been considered a fundamental right. If we don't pay the bill, and the company cuts it off, it will take a day to have it back by judicial order. Eventually we will have to pay the bill, but there is a right to electricity, just as much as to healthcare or housing (other thing that is increasing over time).
As society evolves, the minimum standards of education, etc, etc, go up, and it is the government's constitutional obligation to create laws and regulations to pursue what is established in the constitution. Some of what this new law establishes is just how to secure what already was in the constitution, but considering the existence of the internet. Like "access to culture and information" was something totally different in 1986 and today. Today it is questionable to say that you have access to information if you don't have access to the internet, so the new law does force the companies that provide it to turn it back on, and also to offer low budged options of internet service. The right to privacy is in the constitution, but unless there is a law that explicitly says that inspecting content and packet analysis are violations of that right, it is not illegal. Now we have that law. Not having net neutrality is basic
Your interpretation does not define how bad other people's interpretations are, and in this case you are just plainly wrong. Read again, then go Google the specialists' analysis of these articles, then you can come back here and we may talk.