Slashdot Mirror
Imminent Server Seizure Tests Brazil's New Internet Bill of Rights
sunbird (96442) writes "Less than one week after passing the Marco Civil da Internet, Article 3 of which purports to protect free expression and privacy of personal data from government intrusion, a Public Prosecutor in Brazil is seeking to seize a server hosting research groups, social movements, discussion lists and other tools. The server is hosted by the Saravá Group, which has adopted a policy of not storing connection logs to protect the privacy of users. The Public Prosecutor is seeking to identify individuals involved in Rádio Mudo, a project hosted by Saravá, but as Saravá does not store logs, there is no information on the server that is responsive to the investigation. This action comes as Brazil seeks to place itself in the forefront of protecting internet privacy after it hosted the Net Mundial conference. Saravá has called for a protest action today at 1PM local time (9AM PT/12noonET) to protest against the seizure."
Muda, not Mudo.
This misspelling changed the meaning from Change Radio to Mute Radio. WTF submitter and editors, this is not rocket science.
As a result, Saravá's site is down. Here's a mirror of the original statement from Saravá. Also, here's an amusing picture of the group putting new drives in to try to get the site back up.
they are full of shit.
All the noises they;ve made about protecting rights and speech are just lies. They are desperately trying to look like a "people first" nation in the run up to the FIFA World Cup, to counter and quell the unrest at home relating to the spiralling cost of hosting the tournament.
The law was passed with the "intention" of being the Brazilian "net neutrality" law. However, its chapter 1, article 1, paragraph 8 reads: "VIII - a liberdade dos modelos de negócios promovidos na Internet, desde que não conflitem com os demais princípios estabelecidos nesta Lei."
Freely translating, that could be read as "the freedom to shape internet businesses, as long as it doesn't conflict with the rest of this Law."
Chapter 3, article 9, paragraph 1 later states that net traffic may only be regulated by the President's orders, and can only happen in 2 cases:
- Technical requirements necessary to the proper functioning of services and applications;
- Emergency services
And then I see carriers offering free Facebook and Twitter access as long as you have any valid plan active, or any sort of credit left on pre-paid plans.
Who didn't understand what "net neutrality" means? Me, the government, these companies or the people praising the law?
Article 3's translation says "protecting personal data, as provided by law". So a prosecutor going to a judge to gain access to a server does not seem to violate the bill of rights. The article's goal seems to be to stop the type of snooping the NSA is accused of, not impede a court of law.
There's an agency that regulates communications in Brazil and to have a working radio you need a permit (long history of oligopoly here, they don't give the permit). Radio Muda doesn't have the permit, that's the problem. The seizure is also happening on any other non registered radios in the city.
Also, the prosecutor is claiming security issues with interference on airplanes. They are a radio inside Brazil's #2 university with top engineers saying there's no way they are causing any safety problems, so that's a blatant lie from the prosecutor.
Eight other radio stations were seized in February. As much as it's a terrible thing and it just shows how the State is used against the people, this is really not related to Marco Civil or the fact that they are not logging anything.
So much as just being full of shit. What I mean by that is that people in general, but governments in particular seem to be great at doublethink. They can seem to hold two different contradictory opinions in their head. So governments hate, HATE the idea of other governments spying on them and their citizens. They don't like foreign governments messing with their businesses, either.
However they see no problem when they do it. They don't even find it hypocritical. It is IMPORTANT and NECESSARY when they do it, you see. Not at all like those assholes in other countries!
I think that is probably what is going on with Brazil. They see the US's actions as deplorable, their own actions as essential. They really don't see a dichotomy there.