×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Brazil Exec "Detained" For Refusing YouTube Takedown Order

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the taking-one-for-the-team dept.

Censorship 131

h00manist writes that, as promised, "The police executed an order to detain Google's top executive in Brazil (Original in Portuguese), Fábio José Silva Coelho. Google refused an order to remove a YouTube video which accused a mayoral candidate of several crimes. Police say he will be released today; Brazilian law for the case allows for a one-year max sentence. Streisand Effect, anyone?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

131 comments

When in Rome... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470331)

If your company policy requires you to break local laws, you have two options:

1) break local laws, and go to a local jail.

2) quit your job.

There are, of course, ways of changing the laws and such...but until such time as those happen, the two above options are basically your only options.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470483)

There are a couple more choices:

Pass the buck ("I'm not capable of doing that, only the US guys can")
or
Ignore company policy.

#2 may get you fired, but that's not a guarantee.

Re:When in Rome... (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470511)

#2 may get you fired, but that's not a guarantee.

Surely it's illegal to fire someone for refusing to break the law? Everyone's first duty is to the law, not his employer.

Re:When in Rome... (3, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470763)

#2 may get you fired, but that's not a guarantee.

Surely it's illegal to fire someone for refusing to break the law? Everyone's first duty is to the law, not his employer.

Probably true in most countries, but not being familiar with Brazil's labor laws I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what would happen to this guy. In the US, if they wanted to get rid of the guy, they'd come up with a paper reason that wasn't necessarily the *real* reason for the firing.

Re:When in Rome... (3, Insightful)

slartibartfastatp (613727) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472889)

Yes, it's illegal here to fire someone for refusing to break a law. However, we're smart as hell and we don't need to tell why we're firing someone.
Like anywhere else in the world, I guess

Re:When in Rome... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470865)

Everyone's first duty is to their conscience [eserver.org] .

Re:When in Rome... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41472755)

Unless you're a Starfleet officer. Then it's to the truth!

Re:When in Rome... (1)

Theranthrope (637884) | about a year and a half ago | (#41474929)

"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform!" ...but he isn't wearing a uniform.

Re:When in Rome... (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470567)

Google has no data centers in Brazil.

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

But Brazil decided to take hostages any way.

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

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

Re:When in Rome... (1)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470733)

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

But Brazil decided to take hostages any way..

The data centers not being in Brazil doesn't mean that the Google Brazil exec has no control over them. He *might* not have any control over what happens there, but the physical location of the data centers doesn't dictate that.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470987)

the physical location of the data centers doesn't dictate that.

Yes, it does.
Brazil's citizens sought information from the US, or maybe the closer Chili datacenters. The US, and US companies are under no obligation to prevent those citizens of Brazil from seeking data anywhere on the net. If all Google traffic to Brazil went thru a Google Datacenter, then Barzil might have a claim.

You may be content to allow Brazil or perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to dictate to the world what information might be shown, but nobody else is. If Brazil wants to block Brazil at their border they can do that (at their peril).

Re:When in Rome... (4, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471253)

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

You may be content to allow Brazil or perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to dictate to the world what information might be shown, but nobody else is.

Jump to conclusions much? Try focusing on what I say instead of what you imagine I might mean.

The location means that the Brazilian Government can't physically storm the data center and do what they want with it. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Google Exec from Brazil has authority to block a video. That is entirely a matter internal to Google. I don't claim to know what Google's rules on the matter are, but if they gave him the OK to block videos, then he can do it regardless of where the servers are.

Re:When in Rome... (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472815)

Not only that, but Google had blocked The Innocence of Muslims things in certain countries stating that they follow the laws and culture of the areas they have offices in.

So we know that Google itself has the ability to block access to it on a country specific basis. The Google exec, even if he didn't have the ability, had the ability to ask Google to cooperate with local laws and local law enforcement agencies as they claim they do all across the world already.

This entire situation seems to be more of a political statement by Google's Brazil offices then anything else. I cannot fathom why Google would be so keen on ignoring what everyone in the world has publicly seen them claiming they do.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41473255)

> You may be content to allow Brazil or perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to dictate to the world what information might be shown, but nobody else is.

You tell that to the US Army, pal: they're trying to prevent Assange from speaking. Outside their borders, if they can get Sweden to send him over after the "rape" (read "twotiming") prosecution.

But I do agree we Brazilians should not be able to act outside our borders.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470781)

Actually the US is worse. The arrested exec is Brazilian and based in Brazil. The US will arrest foreign nationals who are in transit through the USA if they happen to be gambling executives.

Re:When in Rome... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470837)

Hell, the US will arrest foreign nationals [wikipedia.org] in foreign countries who have no presence in the US whatsoever. Not to mention the assassinations [nytimes.com] of US citizens without any due process. There are vanishingly few circumstances where the US government can claim any sort of moral high ground.

Re:When in Rome... (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472311)

'Morality' is not a thing anymore. It's business, nothing more. The only law is 'might makes right'. With nobody to defend them our rights are nothing but vaporous talk.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

rastilin (752802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41473979)

Before I click the assassination link, are those people carrying guns in a war zone while fighting against America?

Yes, after clicking it, it looks like they are. This isn't some guy they shot in New York for being a political enemy, it's someone who moved overseas, to Yemen, and joined a known terrorist cell which is currently waging war on America. The idea that they are actually going to walk in and arrest him before taking him to trial is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Re:When in Rome... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470879)

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

Re:When in Rome... (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471111)

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

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

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

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

Re:When in Rome... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471561)

In Brazil, when you cannot comply with a court order of this magnitude, you get your lawyers in the case ASAP to either talk the judge out of it, or get a temporary relief from another judge in order to have enough time to do something about it. And that will be at most 48H, I think.

What you DON'T do is to ignore the judge. You WILL get detained (i.e. held within a police building, not in a cell) for a while until you manage to get the judge to understand why you cannot comply to his demands as written, and offer a different way to comply that he can find acceptable (e.g. block said video in Brazil).

If brazilian judges accepted lame excuses from companies that do business in Brazil but held operations elsewhere, they'd be completely insane. The US does NOT do it either: if GE Brazil sells hydroelectric generator plants to an embargoed country, someone in the USA goes to jail. If an US branch of a brazilian company sells the same thing to an embargoed country, they will end up in jail just as well.

Re:When in Rome... (5, Informative)

taupter (139818) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471759)

I'm the guy who posted comments before yours.

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

Sorry, but nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41472167)

Please keep your lies to a minimum. As for Flight 1907 incident, the Embraer Legacy 600 was not carrying any US senator, it was being delivered to US by Embraer with two employees of Embraer, two from the company who bought the jet and one NY Times journalist. It was the Brazilian air traffic controllers who sent the two planes toward each other on the same flight path and altitude. The Embraer pilots were blamed because they survived. Both Brazilian and US agencies placed blame on the air traffic controllers and the Brazilian report also added blame to the Embraer pilots because they didn't notice the collision avoidance system was not functioning. It was easier to blame the American Embraer pilots than to blame the Brazilian military controlled air traffic controllers.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41472605)

President Dilma, is that you?... So much pro-Brazilian propaganda bullshit, you should be applying for a job at the Globo TV network. Next, you will tell me there is no crime in Brazil, and then you'll add some xenophobic slur about Paraguay or Bolivia.

Re:When in Rome... (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#41473103)

Brazilian judges, like the judges of all countries in this world, are pluripotent tyrants who answer for very little. They are also completely unable to understand that in practice they hold no power over the information flow in the Internet. Someone should teach them about the Streisand effect...

Re:When in Rome... (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472421)

The buck stops here. The executive is the responsible party for local operation. Legal filings would indicate the same. It works the same in the US. An executive's only out is if the offense is the action of another individual rather than a department or such.

Re:When in Rome... (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471063)

If Google is doing business in Brazil, they have to abide to the laws of Brazil, whether the servers are hosted there or not.

If that Fabio Silva guy does in fact work for Google, and is in fact working in Brazil, that would lead me to believe that Google does in fact have a business presence in Brazil, which means they are required to comply with the law there.

BTW, last I heard, Google owned Orkut, which at some point was the biggest social network in Brazil.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

Reschekle (2661565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471455)

I don't think Google Brazil *can* comply. If Google Brazil is set up anything like how my employer's international entities are set up, they are actually separate and distinct legal entities from the parent company (which is HQ'd in USA) that the parent company has 100% ownership of.

The guy who is in charge of the Brazil office can't effect a decision at the home office.

Brazilian law may deliberately hold executives of foreign subsidiaries responsible for their parent's actions, but from a legal perspective, Brazil has no way to go after the company who actually can effect their demands.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

taupter (139818) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472539)

Ok, but Google complies with such brazilian court orders by the thousands every year. The novelty is the SNAFU that made them forget to comply to this one.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471417)

"But Brazil decided to take hostages any way."

I hope you're just saying that for rhetorical effect. Because like the US Brazil is a federal republic. Read TFA. It says this was a local court case, not an action of the federal government.

The analogy I'd use would be some US state carrying out the death penalty on a person convicted in a controversial case by a local court. Would you blame Obama for the man's death? Unless there's a clear reason to see the case as "rigged" against the convict, it would do more harm than good to the US justice system for the federal government to overrule state laws.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41473083)

The feds trample state laws all the time, especially when it comes to medical marijuana.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41472003)

How it is different from Dmitry Sklyarov case [wikipedia.org] ?
land in US and get arrested for something which perhaps breaks US law but not law of the place where you did it.

Beware engineers! when you travel to sharia law country you may not return.
Do you remember that alcohol you consumed in public .... in the US ?

Will it be implemented inside US too?
Imagine - you own nice piece of metal - M1919 machine gun. Legally in your state.
Then you travel without it to another state where it is forbidden. You get arrested for illegal machine gun possession.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472291)

When in Rome do like the Romans do. When you offer your services in Brazil you have to comply with their laws. As simple as that.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41475449)

"When in Rome do like the Romans do. When you offer your services in Brazil you have to comply with their laws. "

They sell ads for Brazilian Companies there, they have no influence with the search engine or what it returns.
It works that way in every country.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

ulzeraj (1009869) | about a year and a half ago | (#41473577)

Its not really about Brazilian laws. Its about stupid brazilian judges who are still living on the 19th century and hold way too much power.

The guy was freed anyway.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471215)

How about "Don't go to the countries that want to arrest you"?

Re:When in Rome... (1)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470515)

You forgot the more sensible option. Comply with the law and stay in your job.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470785)

3) Comply with local law and sue your employer when they fire you for it.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470869)

Fully agree. In many EU countries, holocaust denial is a crime. If there is an youtube video denying holocaust, google will be forced to remove it or else face heavy fine. google has a right not to remove from USA, but if it has a business presence in country X and it is illegal there, it has to remove. Case in point, google has removed detailed maps of sensitive places in USA.

Re:When in Rome... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472359)

3) Break the local law and move your operations offshore.
4) Break the law, but get away with it because you are a powerful corporation.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41472709)

If your company policy requires you to break local laws, you have two options:

1) break local laws, and go to a local jail.

2) quit your job.

There are, of course, ways of changing the laws and such...but until such time as those happen, the two above options are basically your only options.

3) refuse to break the law, and if you get fired and then sue for unfair dismissal in the country who's laws you obeyed and you were employed in.

Where you got the first two I'll never know. You need a lesson in civics.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41473467)

" requires you to break local laws "

Did Fábio break a local law, or did his coworkers from other countries? I don't think Fábio uploaded the video or has the ability of power to delete it.

Re:When in Rome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41475413)

3) Refuse to break local laws informing your company that doing your job would make you liable. Collect evidence at every stage, and if they fire/threaten to fire, you sue..

4) Report them.

Why does everyone seem to think that you need to get screwed in the ass just because your company wants you to do something against the law!? Think about it, the law is on your side!

Streinsad Effect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470357)

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

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

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

Re:Streinsad Effect? (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470477)

change the law or don't operate there.

Exactly right. It would be nice if companies like Google would grow some balls and just say "OK. Fuck you. We're closing all our operations in your country".

Why exactly does Google need an office in Brazil anyway?. I've heard of this thing called The Internet that lets you communicate and do business will people all over the world without having to actually be in their country.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470563)

Yeah, companies don't need markets to operate in.

And everything can be run from one office in one country. Go homogeneity! Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (3, Insightful)

bruno.fatia (989391) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470591)

That's not how you do business and this is not a reason for not operating in some country. They earn money in Brazil and they would just lose that revenue by skipping a large economy just because of some silly youtube video. Having a local office helps you receive payments and is a major deal breaker expecially when dealing with corporate customers.

If, during american elections, people posted videos saying Obama is a rapist and favors abortion I'm sure it would be removed.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (2)

xevioso (598654) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471113)

Uh, no it wouldn't. this sort of stuff happens all the time. Freedom of Speech actually does mean something here.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

bruno.fatia (989391) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472881)

Does it really? Then why is Assange being harrased by governments around the world? Most of people here on slashdot think it has something to do with the US Govt. Why not just leave him alone?

Re:Streinsad Effect? (4, Insightful)

Reschekle (2661565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471467)

Google closed down their China office because of government harassment, what makes you think that they wouldn't do it in Brazil?

Re:Streinsad Effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470631)

You got part of the Internet thing wrong.

What the internet does, correctly, it's let you connect with other people and access digital resources around the world.

Now, if you want to DO BUSINESS, then you should realise that, most countries, have some sort of regulation, and maybe to someone surprise, it's not the USA law.

And, if things were as you say, is very probable that google or any other major internet corporation won't be using any local USA operation center, choosing to locate in a more "friendly" unregulated state.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470657)

I hear they have the internet on computers now!

Re:Streinsad Effect? (3, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470481)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Streinsad Effect? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470571)

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

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

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

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

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1, Troll)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470795)

So what?

Do you think that little shell corportion allows Brazil to dictate what is on Google Servers all over the world?

Gee, if that works for Brazil, why won't it work for the US? After all, every significant company of size
is encorporated in the US as well as its home country.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470999)

Yes,
But let's clarify, because you put it in very rude form.
I do think that allows any country to regulate and dictate over it's jurisdiction without regards on where the data storage or processing is.
In this case, a video about a Brazilian citizen, who is running for a political position, and probably uploaded by some Brazilian it can be regulated by a Brazilian court. It probably won't need to be deleted all over the world, just not accessible from Brazil.

And yes, every foreing entity incorporated in US needs to comply with US Federal regulation (and those from Delaware) on those action that falls under US territorial jurisdiction. But heck, as Kim Dotcom proved, apparently it doesn't even that.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

xevioso (598654) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471199)

But the thing is, they can't enforce the law in their own country. If it is the case that the servers are in the US, the head of operations in brazil may literally have no power to force google in the US to do anything. And so Brazil can get mad as much as they want, but there's nothing they can do. What could happen, after a series of arrests by the Brazialian government of people in Brazil who "head" google's operations there, is that no one wants to sign up to be the "head" and Google takes its marbles and goes home.

Does Brazil want that?

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471597)

I don't know, but does Brazilians (or any other citizens) wants to do business with a corporation that feels and acts like it is above the law? I don't

And of course they could do more, they could block it, does google wants to loose this revenue?

Re:Streinsad Effect? (2)

taupter (139818) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471967)

If Google disobeys brazilian laws, Brazil will want Google to take its marbles an get the fsck outta here, of course.
Who must rule Brazil is the elected Brazilian representatives and not a foreign corporation. I believe USA has its own dose of transantional mega corporations messing with USA politics and it's not good for the USA.
We'll not sell out Amazonia to avoid upsetting Bayer.
Wanna play in our sandbox? You have to play by our rules, the same way we have to comply if we want to play in yours.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41473307)

Wow!, you mean that Brazil is a state where the International corps don't mandate what laws regulate?
That would be like justice ruling against Monsanto when they tried to harass farmers with the Monsanto-police [huffingtonpost.com] .

What kind of a crazy place is that? They must be communists, or terrorists or something.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (3, Informative)

bruno.fatia (989391) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470671)

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

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470855)

Gazprom, the Russian State owned Gas producer has a registration in Texas, and an office there.

So does that mean the US law extends to Gasprom, and we can dictate price caps to them?

How bout a little consistancy from you?
Back on August 11 you posted [slashdot.org]

I understand OP point of view but with something as global as the Internet why should one government or another regulate it?

Re:Streinsad Effect? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471129)

I can't resist to reply to you again, as it seems you are making the same point over again.

Yes, if there is a law that sets price caps locally on Texas, or at Federal level, Gazprom USA would be regulated for the oil it sells there. What it shouldn't be regulated if for the oil Gazprom Russia sells to China.

This unregulated international corporatism you are advocating for is something bad for all the citizens in the world.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (4, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471155)

If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.

And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471273)

If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.

And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.

Yes, they can try inside their own borders, Like Iran.
But even Iran knows better than to order a company with nothing but a sales office in Iran how to act all over the world.

Brazil can block Google at their borders. Just like Iran.
We probably stop buying Airplanes from Brazil. Meh!

Re:Streinsad Effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471593)

Sure. We did stop buying overpriced junk fight jets with remote-off switches from the US after all...

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

xevioso (598654) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471219)

Well, we could try. The company would, of course, ignore us. Eventually someone working for them gets arrested here in the US, and then either Russia retaliates, or the company leaves the US.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

bruno.fatia (989391) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472865)

The US law does apply to Gasprom in US territory. And they either (a) comply with local laws or (b) are denied the right to act inside the United States. What you are implying is simply stupid, which is regulating the market with fixed prices. In this case we are not talking about the sale of a product but the streaming of a video which the court ruled infringes election laws thereby threatens the sovernity of a country. We really shouldn't let private companies interfere with elections because that just empowers the top 1%ers who control those companies. I still think that we should not regulate the internet as a one-sided single nation desicion but if anything we should not interfere with the government of any democratic country and influence people that way. That makes it easy for them to push a political agenda of some sort, for example, Copyright enforcement.

I'm pretty sure you will still disagree with my point of view but please at least make examples that make sense.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#41475191)

The US regularly fines foreign airlines for price fixing and other market manipulation, despite them being foreign companies - so yes.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (2)

Snowbat (1118171) | about a year and a half ago | (#41473935)

Maybe not a datacenter, but here on NET Virtua in Rio de Janeiro, YouTube videos are served from what appears to be a cache colocated at my ISP:

# tcptraceroute o-o---preferred---sn-oxunxg8pjvn-bpbe---v17---lscache7.c.youtube.com
Selected device eth0, address 192.168.1.5, port 46521 for outgoing packets
Tracing the path to o-o---preferred---sn-oxunxg8pjvn-bpbe---v17---lscache7.c.youtube.com (201.17.31.76) on TCP port 80 (http), 30 hops max
  1 192.168.1.1 1.308 ms 1.173 ms 1.091 ms
  2 * * *
  3 201.17.0.4 10.131 ms 10.221 ms 10.847 ms
  4 192.168.248.11 8.933 ms 13.197 ms 10.367 ms
  5 10.10.10.2 18.908 ms 8.914 ms 8.657 ms
  6 192.168.248.4 8.981 ms 10.196 ms 9.387 ms
  7 c9111f4c.virtua.com.br (201.17.31.76) [open] 9.948 ms 9.289 ms 21.583 ms

Google has complied before (3, Interesting)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year and a half ago | (#41474323)

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

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

Re:Streinsad Effect? (2)

lbschenkel (751547) | about a year and a half ago | (#41474583)

Some considerations:

First of all, Google (the branch) is incorporated in Brazil, so by law it is a Brazilian company and has to follow Brazilian laws. This is way different than claiming jurisdiction because of nothing more than a top level domain, without any other kind of presence, like the US does. Google is a legal company in Brazil, with local offices, executives, employees and engineers and offers products in Brazil, in Portuguese, using a .com.br domain, to Brazilian customers. Users accept EULAs in Portuguese, citing Brazilian law, and the other party is the Brazilian office. Comparing this to enforcing jurisdiction abroad is a joke and totally stupid.

Second of all, the law is ridiculous and it is from decades ago, pre-Internet and made to control the message since politicians or their close allies own most of TV and paper media in Brazil. This kind of law makes no sense in a world with Internet and user-generated content.

But, having said that, I also think that a company has to comply with the laws and especially with a court order. (They can dispute in court if they don't like it, but they cannot pick and choose what to comply.) And the appropriate response for not following the laws or for contempt is arresting the top executive (not a sales droid like some other posts imply) of said company. I just wish we were as severe to punish misdeeds from companies as severely as when we are trying to enforce a ridiculous and arcane law from the 50-60s.

Remember, the executive is not being punished for the video, which is sadly illegal under the current laws (the author if found is liable for defamation, libel and breaking the electoral law). The top executive is being held responsible for his company not removing the video (blocking it until after the election was also an acceptable solution mentioned in the court order) when requested by a lawful court order and given one week to comply.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (1)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470603)

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

I doubt that he could have taken the video down in the first place. Google has a five digit number of employees. They do not all have access to remove videos from YouTube. I would have checked what the article had to say on that matter, but the link is broken.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470911)

The summary is referring to a Streisand effect relating to the executive, i.e. put him in jail, and everyone on the internet will just copy and distribute him.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (2)

dnaumov (453672) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471067)

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

This logic doesn't work. "There" is globally, across the world, in over 140 countries. A ton of countries have laws that are in direct contradiction with one another. No, this doesn't mean that global companies should tailor their online presense to each and every country individually. I am free to publish a funny Mohammed cartoon here in Finland and I don't have to give 2 shits about what some jackass in Pakistan or Iran or wherever thinks about it or whatever their laws say about publishing such material or whatever their courts decide to "order" me to do. He is free to not access said cartoon if it offends him.

Re:Streinsad Effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471285)

Your example (which I concur, it could be hardly regulated beyond blocking access to that content from that country that consider it felony) it's very different that what is being discussed. Is more like if you travel from finland to some of those countries, upload the cartoon to some random server around the world using the heavily public subsidised Internet connection from that country, strike some advertisement deal with some locals charging in the local currency, and get arrested.

i will probably protest for your arrest, but that doesn't mean you are not violating some stupid rule that a court in that country is enforced to apply, so, as I said, don't travel there on don't break the local law while you are there.

Guilty Guilty Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470371)

I don't understand the language, but man I'm sure that guy is guilty from seeing the underlined in red document.

Brazil is not America (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#41470449)

Title says it all.

Re:Brazil is not America (0, Offtopic)

gwolf (26339) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471045)

But it is!

Brazil is even the United States of America. And so is Mexico. Brazil's official name is Estados Unidos do Brasil, and Mexico's is Estados Unidos Mexicanos — and they are both located in America. Yes, America is a continent.

Even Argentina was, for some time, although the name was rather "United Provinces of Argentina". That name has changed, though.

Re:Brazil is not America (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471245)

Brazil's official name is Estados Unidos do Brasil

Brazil is actually the Federative Republic of Brazil (República Federativa do Brasil), but thanks for playing.

Re:Brazil is not America (1)

gwolf (26339) | about a year and a half ago | (#41471487)

Bummer, so it's just Mexico now :-/ Brazil was "Estados Unidos do Brasil" between 1889 and 1968, when the military seized power. Thanks, Wikipedia.

Anyway, please continue playing. Oh — But Brazil continues to be America, no way to get that revised!

Fuck Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470607)

In retaliation for Brazil's bullshit, I think Google should block the entire country from accessing any Google services. It should be an all or nothing kind of deal!

Re:Fuck Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470887)

They're free to block Brazillian IPs. What they can't do is have offices in Brazil, break the law and expect no punishment. Working for Google doesn't give them diplomatic immunity yet.

I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470611)

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

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470979)

How do you know they are lies? And as far as I can see, the accuser does identify himself (unless he's using a fake full name as his YouTube username). I'm also Brazilian and I understand the need for this kind of law, but under Brazil's electoral law, it should be the accuser who is prosecuted, not the owner of the platform he's using to make the accusation.

Brazil has a recurring problem with this - not sure how much it's the judges' fault or the prosecutors' fault, probably taking advantage of the fact that judges know nothing about how the internet works. Hopefully, our Internet Bill will be passed in Congress soon and end these bullshit interpretations of the law...

(Definitely agree with you on record companies though - Google is always quick to comply with theirs and Hollywood's take down orders.)

(Oh, and I'm not an Anonymous Coward, I just can't find where to identify myself! :P)

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471185)

I'm also Brazilian and I understand the need for this kind of law

Why? We don't have it here in the US (and no, that isn't the cause of our problems). Tyrannical governments can stem from fear (election issues, terrorism, child porn, communism, etc) and apathy. This law is not needed; it's like the TSA's security theater and cannot be justified.

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (1)

taupter (139818) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472317)

IANAL but IAMTAL, so the problem is another. There's a concept in brazilian law that is Solidary Responsibility. It means in this case that if somebody posts a defamatoty video on youtube he/she is the accountable person for the defamation case, but both him/her and Google are responsible for the video presence. Google, as a common carrier, has no direct responsibility concerning the defamation crime, but google is just able to take the video down as the sender is, so both can be ordered to take it down and must either comply or present a formal response to the judge explaining why they can't. Simply refusing or ignoring is not a sane option.
Ordering Google to disclose the perpetretor's identity is an obvious step, but waiting for it to prosecute him and forcing him to remove the thing would take too much time and cause more damage, so the judge can (and usually will opt by him/herself or by being asked to do so by the lawyer) order the carrier to remove the data. And Google does it by the thousands here in Brazil. The novelty here is Google forgeting to comply to something it usually complies to.

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471121)

>When it' s major record company thay don't even ask.. google has their legs open to then. Ridiculous position from a company that i have a lot of respect, hope they apologize their attitude.

So you have lots of respect for a company that you pretty much in the sentence before declaring that called a whore? Yup. RUH-SPECT!

Damn google you got some flyyy bitches, don't get me wrong, he my nigga but don't turn your back! Ruh-spect!

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471147)

A slave who can't see the chain.

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471205)

Mmmm.. okay. You may agree or disagree with Google's policies. However, your post raises an interesting question. What would happen in your country if something produced a video full of lies about the candidates, and left it anonymously at the door of as many citizens as possible? Would the police try to arrest someone in that case? If they did try to arrest someone, how likely do you think it would be that they go after the manufacturers of the tapes or digital devices where the videos were stored?

You also say that what is in those videos is a bunch of lies. Let's say they are. Do you think some videos on youtube are going to massively brainwash people into believing such lies? I'm not suggesting the videos are harmless, but if the conscious of society at large is so permeable to FUD spread through youtube videos, I think we, humanity in general, have a bigger problem than we think.

We could argue all you want about regulation of mediums of communication and the role of companies like Google, but beyond that, it looks to me as if they are just trying to find a scape goat to pin the blame on for a scandal that is the responibility of people very different than the guys at Google.

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (1)

taupter (139818) | about a year and a half ago | (#41472509)

Google is able to remove the video, and it can do it faster than waiting to discover who the guy/gal is and prosecuting him/her and demmanding the person to remove the video.
Let's take some reductio ad absurdum and just imagine the criminal who posted the video died being hanged on a carrot. Should the defamed guy be defamed ad aeternam because the criminal met his/her maker? Isn't more sensible to order Google to remove the offending video, and for Google to comply? Let's just be reasonable, people. Should the guy endure more defamation because of Google's bureaucracy or another internal SNAFU? Should Google do nothing because Google people say "it wasn't me" one each time after another, and just be left the way is is while the guy suffers? How to force Google to do the sane thing, the same kind of sane thing it is used to do every single day in Brazil?
It was a Google's SNAFU. Somebody needs to be armtwisted to obey the law, as expected.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#41473163)

Mmmm.. okay. You may agree or disagree with Google's policies. However, your post raises an interesting question. What would happen in your country if something produced a video full of lies about the candidates, and left it anonymously at the door of as many citizens as possible? Would the police try to arrest someone in that case? If they did try to arrest someone, how likely do you think it would be that they go after the manufacturers of the tapes or digital devices where the videos were stored?

As a Canadian, and with regards to our last federal election, all I can say is that if a party posts lying and/or misleading videos accusing a candidate of things the accuser actually campaigns for but paints it in this case in a negative light... then the accusers get a majority government.


  • Accusers = Conservative Party of Canada (like US Republicans),

  • accused = Michael Ignatief, leader of Liberal Party of Canada (like US Democrats),

  • accusations = "Just Visiting Canada" (Ignatief taught Canadian Studies at Harvard University in USA before running for LPC party leadership),

  • reality = person going to job where one's talents command maximum pay / prestige is a concept championed predominately by right-wingers, hence the hypocrisy. (Of course it isn't something limited to right-wingers, just one of the fundamentals of a free market.)

Yes, I'm still sickened by the success the CPC enjoyed, by the damage they've done and continue to do to the country, by the gullibility of my fellow citizens, and by the lack of charges in the many instances of election fraud the CPC has committed over the past few years.

/rant over: sorry for length of it...

Re:I'm Brazilian and this is'nt censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41471537)

So basically it's like the obama birth certificates you're saying? There's no telling whether or not that they are lies, but you have to just deal with the fact that it exists on this present day.

"View" the video, to up the count (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41470651)

Getting the actual video view count up is the best way to combat censorship.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...