Beta
×

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 Denies Data In Brazil Orkut Case

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the whose-laws? dept.

183

mikesd81 writes, "The AP reports that Google filed a motion in response to a Brazilian judge's deadline to turn over information on users of the company's social networking service Orkut. An earlier AP story gives the background: 'On Aug. 22, Federal Judge Jose Marcos Lunardelli gave Google's Brazilian affiliate until Sept. 28 to release information needed to identify individuals accused of using Orkut to spread child pornography and engage in hate speech against blacks, Jews and homosexuals. Google claims that its Brazilian affiliate cannot provide the information because all the data about Orkut users is stored outside Brazil at the company's U.S.-based headquarters. Google maintains that it is open to requests for information from foreign governments as long as the requests comply with U.S. laws and that they are issued within the country where the information is stored.'" Eight million Brazilians, about a quarter of the country's Internet-using population, are members of Orkut.

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting (2, Insightful)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261025)

That's going to be quite a kerfuffle, I would imagine.

Kudos to google for protecting user's rights, though.

Re:Interesting (5, Funny)

flooey (695860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261051)

That's going to be quite a kerfuffle, I would imagine.

Kudos to google for protecting user's rights, though.


And kudos to you, sir, for using the word kerfuffle.

Re:Interesting (2, Interesting)

p3t0r (816736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261121)

I think Google isn't protecting any rights, but just being legally right. From TFA: "Google maintains that it is open to requests for information from foreign governments as long as the requests comply with U.S. laws and that they are issued within the country where the information is stored.'" So, no kudos from me!!

Re:Interesting (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261459)

So, you posit that in order for Google to comply with its "don't be evil" motto, they have to grant their users more protection than they're granted by law?

Or, to put it more precisely, you think Google should fight for their users's right to privacy even when it is illegal for them to do so?

Would you care to explain this to me in some more detail?

Re:Interesting (1, Interesting)

PPGMD (679725) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261129)

Yes kudos to Google for protecting criminals. If the story is right (granted it's a news item), the Brazilian police have identified accounts that are being used for the crimes, and wants their IP addresses so they can track them down.

Also Google isn't defending the users rights, they are simply saying "Send the request to Mountain View, not to our local affiliate," whether they are doing that as a delaying measure or not remains to be seen.

Re:Interesting (4, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261161)

I think the point is that Google isn't going to give away information to just anyone who asks, they have to fill out a form and stand in line just like everyone else.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261193)

Yes kudos to Google for protecting criminals.

The morality of their actions is open to opinion. So-called "hate speech", for example, is not only not illegal in the US, but is actually protected by the US Constitution. While Brazilians obviously aren't governed by US law, it still shows that Google "protecting criminals" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Re:Interesting (3, Insightful)

claes (25551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261297)

Yes because obviously the US Constitution is the best constitution there is.

Re:Interesting (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261317)

It may not be the "best" - not that I know how to quantify that - but it certainly seems to have better free-speech protections than Brazil's.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261369)

Good point. Many of the recent wars and political stand-offs have been driven by a sense in infallibility in American politics. They need to realize that even if leaders imply action is based on American principles, these principles may not be good enough to impose on other people.

Some level of maturity needs to be applied though. I'd hand over the logs if serious crimes were committed, but some data must have gone past Brazilian ISPs before google. Why aren't they made to respond first?

Re:Interesting (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261491)

Actually, the US constitution is not really relevant to this discussion except for the 1st Amendment "Right to Free Speech". The US has one of the least restrictive governmental policies in the world on freedom of speech, so I'm not sure what the complaint would be.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261637)

Yes. Yes it is. It's the reason more people choose to immigrate to the United States than any other.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261755)

Oh right, because we all want our tax dollars wasted on locking up people who happen to commit the crime of thinking bad thoughts about niggers.

Re:Interesting (2, Funny)

segin (883667) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261953)

We call those people the Klu Klux Klan. Let's confivt them of their crimes and let them be assfucked by gay niggers in prison.

Re:Interesting (0, Troll)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261783)

Only in Corporate America's Internet would this get modded interesting instead of funny/troll. Wait, this isn't America's Internet? Everyone's here? Could have fooled me...

Re:Interesting (1)

yurnotsoeviltwin (891389) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261997)

more to the point, the U.S. Constitution is the one that governs Google HQ, and thus this information.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262065)

> Yes because obviously the US Constitution is the best constitution there is.

Considering that it's kept us democratic and free for 219 years, without a single military coup in history, I'd say it's a darned good one.

Re:Interesting (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262211)

How do you know? Seems your election procedures are not open lately.

Re:Interesting (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262529)

Maybe and maybe not, but either way, we do have a re-election coming up soon, you know?

If this were not a functional democracy, that would not be the case. Then again, it's not over till the fat lady sings and all that.

Re:Interesting (3, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261227)

Yes kudos to Google for protecting criminals.

Ah, but "criminals" are different in each country, aren't they? From the article:

Google insisted it already had complied with court requests to identify individuals accused of using Orkut to spread child pornography and engage in hate speech against blacks, Jews and homosexuals.

In the US, child pornography is illegal, but you can say anything you want about blacks, Jews, and homosexuals. It's not going to win you any popularity contests, but you can be as much of a racist bigoted anti-semitic prick as you want to be. Frankly, it is frightening that you can be arrested for stating your opinions - no matter how despicable. This is why the "Madonna potentially getting arrested in Germany for offending Christians" news item got so much play state-side.

Re:Interesting (1)

LindseyJ (983603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261411)

The only downside to that is that she probably would have found a way to continue releasing albums from in prison...

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262631)

So a company can't be governed by the laws of countries that it does business in unless it's Microsoft?

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

fmobus (831767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261231)

Methinks Google is trying to avoid wasting a precious evidence (ips of the offenders) on processual grounds. Someone could try to defend himself challenging the way the evidence was obtained.

Also, they can't release user information stored in USA without a proper court order (eg. an US court order). If they do so, they are risking themselves to lawsuits. I guess Google wants the evidence gathering done in a perfect (legal) manner, protecting users rights (according to US law), rather than protecting the criminal users.

Re:Interesting (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261133)

User rights?

I hope a son, daughter, or whathever relatives you got under 18 got raped after a chit chat on a community like the ones considered on the judge decision.

This is the first kind of situation about individuals using "overseas" resources to commit local crimes and the data not being given because of "overseas" laws.

Ridiculous.

Re:Interesting (2, Interesting)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261189)

I don't know what country you're from, but I do know that one of the rights many countries bestow upon their citizens is that of due process. The proper process for this is to have the police or the judge make the government request the info from Google's head office.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261221)

Won't someone think of the children???

Jackass. "Think of the children" is not some magic phrase that means laws no longer apply and everything you do is right and proper because it's "for the children".

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261355)

You would wish rape on someone, just to prove a point?

You, sir, are a waste of skin and air.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

Ducho_CWB (900642) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261191)

If you want open just 'only a marketing office' at foreign countries, you really need obey the foreign contries laws. If you not agree with this, pack your stuff and go out. well, about protecting user's rights, exist a list with exact names to be show. There's not the entire orkut or the entire brazilian database at orkut.

Re:Interesting (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261341)

I see. So if AT&T had an office in Saudi Arabia, they should comply with Saudi requests for phone records concerning Americans who had made remarks disparaging to Saudi Arabia, if those records were requested in accordance with Saudi law? Opening an office in a country shouldn't subject your entire opetation to that countries' laws.

Re:Interesting (3, Informative)

Ducho_CWB (900642) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261499)

almost right.
So if AT&T had an office in Saudi Arabia, they should comply with Saudi requests for phone records concerning SAUDI who had made remarks disparaging to Saudi Arabia.

Re:Interesting (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261587)

So, in your opinion, is it better for AT&T (or Google) to not do business in Saudi Arabia (or Brazil), or for them to resist the authorities and get closed down? I'm a little torn on this issue, so I like to hear from people about this. In this case, Google would have had to refuse to do business in Brazil because Brazilian free speech laws are more repressive than in the US. I don't know if I agree with that. If American firms refused to do business in all countries with more restrictive free speech rules than the US, there would be virtually no US presence overseas. Or, more likely, there would hardly be any company based in the US.

Re:Interesting (1)

bruno.fatia (989391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262499)

Right, I bet that even with all your "freedom of speech" you've got more than we do, because of course you think you are the best along with your country, if I went to the streets and said anything against black's, homo's or spread child pornography I'd be going to jail withtout the right to be sent back to my country.

Re:Interesting (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262623)

I don't think you understand American law. You can say whatever you want about "homos" or blacks. You cannot go to jail, and no one does go to jail for what they say. Child pornography is illegal, however. I didn't say that I thought the US was "the best", just that speech is freer here. The only restrictions on free speech are immediate danger (such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater) and calls for violent action (such as "Everyone meet me outside the courthouse so that we can burn it to the ground!"). There may be specific cases that I am missing, but I think that's it.

In the context of this article, I hope that Google helps them find the child pornographers, but not the hate speech folks.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261687)

Local offices of foreign companies have to obey the local laws. It's that way everywhere.

Re:Interesting (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262255)

Right, and the issue is that this doesn't have anything to do with the actual local office in Brazil, or didn't you catch that part? If our government got sneaky and had a foreign power put pressure on a local office in their country to hand over the search data that the department of (in)justice wants so badly but has been refused, that would be undermining OUR local laws. Understand how that could be used against you now?

Re:Interesting (1)

BigDiz (962986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261697)

I see. So if AT&T had an office in Saudi Arabia, they should comply with Saudi requests for phone records concerning Americans who had made remarks disparaging to Saudi Arabia, if those records were requested in accordance with Saudi law? Opening an office in a country shouldn't subject your entire opetation to that countries' laws.
That is not at all what Google has said
Google maintains that it is open to requests for information from foreign governments as long as the requests comply with U.S. laws and that they are issued within the country where the information is stored.
So, to follow your example, if AT&T stored their data and records in Saudi Arabia, then yes. This is perfectly fine with me. If you don't want a foreign government's law to decide if your records can be gotten at, there is a simple solution, don't do business with a company that stores your data there.

Re:Interesting (1)

BlackCreek (1004083) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261773)

Please. Quit the nonsense, will you?

Brazil's government is not asking for data to prosecute (american|canadian|martian) citizens making remarks disparaging to Brazil.

The information asked is about what is believed to be about information published inside Brazil:
"it is not relevant that the data are stored in the United States, since all the photographs and messages being investigated were published by Brazilians, through Internet connection in national territory."

Using your own metaphor:
an Saudi Arabian company opening an office in the USA; then USA citizens using this network inside the USA to practice illegal acts, these people get under investigation from the US gov, which after due legal process decides to break the privacy of some of these citizens. Then the Saudi ATT says: no, we wont give you anything; because our servers are in Saudi Arabia.

Would you then be saying: Go Saudi ATT!! Show then what's good!!!???

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261937)

more interesting news:
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7275/53/ [brazzilmag.com]

The new Germans love Hasselhoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261039)

Brazilians love Orkut.

cool (1)

brndn (998670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261095)

stick it to the man using the man, that's what i say. force the world to regulate the internet! thanks google.

Brazilians ruined Orkut (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261111)

I've never seen people as obnoxious and lacking in manners as the brazilian population that infested Orkut when it became popular.

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261127)

I heard about this new site called myspace, you should check it out.

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261405)

Orkut is a million times worse. I don't know what the hell is wrong with Brasilians. The Portugese are a great people, as are all of Brasil's South American neighbors. But Brasilians are the most fucking rude, arrogant, self-righteous people on the planet. They move into every community and drown out everyone else all the while insulting those who can't speak Portugese and ignoring any community rule that doesn't suit them.

I thought it was just Orkut, but they're the same way on IRC. It's some fucked up cultural thing. I'm an op on a book sharing channel on an IRC network and I've banned so many Brasilians it's ridiculous. The other ops have suggested setting a .br K-Line, and if it keeps up we probably will.

The Brasilians can have Orkut. They're going to need it when they alienate the rest of the world.

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (1)

heptapod (243146) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261467)

> But Brasilians are the most fucking rude, arrogant, self-righteous
> people on the planet. They move into every community and drown out
> everyone else all the while insulting those who can't speak Portugese
> and ignoring any community rule that doesn't suit them.

Boy oh boy does that sound familiar. Thank God no one else has described citizens of any other country [wikipedia.org] in such disparaging terms.

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261489)

Clearly you have NEVER delt with Brasilians, otherwise you would not make such an assinine statement.

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (1)

t0y (700664) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261719)

Maybe they're pissed because you can't spell portuguese in your own language?

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261917)

Who said I'm speaking "my" language? Not everyone is so rude as the Brasilians as to be unable to conform to local customs.

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (1)

t0y (700664) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262213)

So, they may be pissed because you can't spell "brazillians" in english?
I know I was annoyed when I read "portugese" while being portuguese...

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262423)

Like I give a fuck what a piece of shit BraZilian thinks.

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262415)

Despite being I-want-to-cut-your-tongue-you're-so-goddamn-noisy noisy, brazilians seemed like good people. However, I can't speak well of any blog or space by people in my country (well, we're near brazil... does that count?)

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262609)

Brazilians are rude, arrogant, and self-righteous while their neighbours are great.

I bet you are Argentinian.

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (2, Interesting)

Josue.Boyd (1007859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262667)

Slashdot is a place to discuss technology, politics, and the philosophy of living.....not for being a racist dumb*ss... I use Orkut. I talk to my Brazilian friends. I have no problems. As for being arrogant and self-righteous, it is apparent that you have never talked to a Brazilian. They are some of the warmest, kindest, and open people on the globe. Perhaps that's why they share great relations with every nation. Yes even some of our enemies, but let's not get into our own 'flawless' foreign policy and alienating techinques... You are an arrogant and ethnocentric fool. I wonder how you know so much about this culture, you do speak Portuguese, right? Farewell coward, and thank you for not returning

Re:Brazilians ruined Orkut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262043)

Not normally too big on racism or stereotyping, but this must certainly be the greatest trolling in history!

What's gonna happen? (1)

sumi-manga (948999) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261203)

So then, what are the laws in the U.S. - can Google legally deny the Brazilian Government access? It seems like keeping such a huge userbase's data completely private would be a great PR stunt for Google. They can claim that there are so many people in their userbase, that there is no feasible policing possible. Or claim it goes against their policy, and/or guarantees from their user agreement, etc...

National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophiles? (1, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261327)

On one hand, the Brazilian government wants the IPs to go after pedophiles and racist hatemongers. I think we can all get behind throwing such people in very small cells with no windows and melting the key down as they watch.

On the other, this is an American company receiving a demand from Brazil. If they comply with this demand to hand over IPs, who's to say such wonderful democratic places as Saudi Arabia and China won't start demanding information on dissidents and getting it via this precedent (Ok, scratch China... Do No Evil my ass)? If the precedent is very explicitly restricted to pedophiles, then expect find out that everyone the CCP doesn't like are pedophiles.

Unfortunately, such applies to any corrupt authoritarian government. If you have any means of handing them data, they will abuse it to their own ends [Insert standard link to Bush administration here]. So the question becomes, how to hand data over to Brazil to help them hunt down child predators while NOT helping Saudi Arabia jail and murder dissidents.

And overshadowing this is the fact that perverts and hatemongers who are NOT idiots don't talk over plaintext for obvious reasons (like the local government rightfully hunting them down). Given the wide availability of encryption and anonymization tools, it's easily possible to hide from any government you want.

Might I suggest a registry to distinguish between governments that can reasonably be trusted not to misuse requests for identifying information, e.g. Brazil, and corrupt dictatorships like China or Saudi Arabia. Never going to happen because certain dictatorships have America by the economic balls (Thank you, Federal Government, for sending all our industry to China and setting up a $10e11 trade deficit! And for spending $5e11 on Iraq instead of alternate fuels!) and wouldn't take kindly to being disfavored because of their crimes. And if it were created, good like keeping it from being turned into a tool to protect criminals instead (look at the nations that are on the UN Human Rights council). But it's worth dreaming about...

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261393)

Without a doubt if Google loses here it will set a precedent for other governments to invade our privacy.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (5, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261549)

pedophiles and racist hatemongers. I think we can all get behind throwing such people in very small cells with no windows and melting the key down as they watch.

Pedophilia isn't a crime, and neither is hating someone. So, no, not everyone wants to live in your Orwellian fantasy where thoughtcrime is a common reason to throw someone in jail.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (2, Insightful)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261753)

Amen to that! Hating someone may be immoral. (I certainly think it is.) But hating someone is *not* a crime. Crime is in the action, or at least attempted action. Wanting to hate someone or rape someone or kill someone or blow up a building, etc. is *very* different from actually doing any of those things.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1)

Josue.Boyd (1007859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262169)

While 'being a pedophile' might not be a crime, are none of you aware that possesing child porn, as well as sex with a minor is a crime?? I assume one, while 'being a pedophile', would break one of those laws would he not? The law on 'being a pedophile' I do not know, however, I am very aware, having lived there for quite a while, that hate speech is a punishable crime. Hate speech IS ILLEGAL in Brazil! Did nobody hear about the soccer player from Argentina who was arrested at the end of a game for calling a Brazilian player a monkey???? Of course we all have different opinions about this type of legislature, whether or not it is just, but that has no affect on it's existence. Would I rat out a guy in another country because he broke a foreign law that I might not agree with? I don't know... I just know I'd kill him if he was 'being a pedophile' with my daughter!!

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262133)

In Brazil, racism IS a crime. A good article abaut that: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lafer1 [project-syndicate.org] .

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1)

jshackney (99735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262141)

Pedophilia may not be a crime. However, as a potential employer, it would not violate the law [gpo.gov] to discriminate against a pedophile.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (2, Insightful)

jshackney (99735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262203)

And just in case anyone is wondering, the Federal Government can (and does) codify by regulation that some people "must...be of good moral character" [akamaitech.net] . Pedophilia is really an issue of morality. So, while pedophilia is not explicitly prohibited by law, it is explicitly not protected from discrimination.

Anyway, that's just my take on the CFRs. I am not a liar^H^H^Hawyer.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (2, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261611)

Umm I may stand corrected, but while Google has agreed to block some content for China. I am quite sure they have maintained and stuck by their policy of not providing any Data to China, something Yahoo and other companies have done.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261631)

I dont think I can get behind locking people up for their thoughts or speech. sorry.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261649)

Please look up what pedophilia actually means. It's irresponsible to imply that pedophiles are automatically criminals. Most people don't get to choose their sexual orientations and fetishes and almost all pedophiles (there are more than you think, what with all that pressure to keep it secret) never actually act on their fantasies. No, I'm not a pedophile, but that stigma is quite a terrible thing for many people.

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1)

Web Goddess (133348) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261679)

Please note that Google is asked not for IP's but for the identity of the persons. Users of Google "products" such as Orkut, gMail, Google Checkout, customized homepage, etc., gradually provide increasingly explicit information on who they are.

I don't know if it's for better or worse, but Google is very likely able to provide names and addresses, not only IP's.

I use enough Google gizmos that I'm damned paranoid. They know specifially who I am, what I read, my searches, etc. Hell, I even clicked on a /. link to a Google image search for Child Porn. (No, I'm not a pedophile; the link was posted on /. to prove that there *was* child porn out there.)

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (2, Funny)

TerovThePyro (970487) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261693)

And just how are you going to melt the key while they watch, if their cell has no windows?

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261809)

On one hand, the Brazilian government wants the IPs to go after pedophiles and racist hatemongers. I think we can all get behind throwing such people in very small cells with no windows and melting the key down as they watch.

You think wrong.

Pedophiles are criminals all over the world, however in most of the civilized world it's not a crime to be a racist or a homophobe. Simply put, it's not a crime to be an asshole. When you drive such ideas underground, they fester. When that ugliness gets exposed to the light of day, it's easier to control it by countering every lie with the truth.

LK

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262407)

Actually I think being a pedophile is legal most places. It just becomes illegal if you act on those urges.
At that with the USAs freedom of speech it must be fine to talk about molesting kids or dressing up young looking adults as sexy children.
Speech is Speech whether talking hate or sex.
 

Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (1)

danilo.moret (997554) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262589)

I totally agree that if Google, or any other company, were to hand over IPs to a country soon all others would start requesting for similar data. However the concept of a League of Democratic Nations that could ask these data is really complicated. The judiciary and the police work in very, very different ways from country to country, even among democratic ones.

Take Brazil and USA for instance. The US justice system is relatively quick and, as far as I know, it values freedom and privacy far more than brazilian justice. Because of this the investigative police in the US is trained to work within different restrictions than in Brazil. Requests for overruling privacy rights in criminal investigation are made by brazilian investigators in situations where it wouldn't be normal elsewhere. So instead of making better investigations (like creating fake communities on Orkut or going after known friends) they take the easier path.

I won't even mention other problems of the brazilian judiciary like a common unprofessional desire for media exposition, which I think is the main reason for this specific brazilian demand (in case the reader hasn't noticed, I live in Brazil). The point here is that judiciary systems simply don't match everywhere, so a list of nations allowed to make some requests for data for investigation wouldn't help that much. I believe that if a country wants data kept in another country, it should first ask the keeper, and then ask the local justice system. There could be a specific court to handle these cases, but it would comply to local law.

If you send your money to Switzerland looking for privacy and security you would expect that demands for data about your money would be judged by the swiss justice. Well, I believe that user data works the same way. If stored in the USA it's protected by local freedom of speech and privacy rights. It could even be good for business: "keep your private data private, keep your speech free for a reasonable price".

Orkut Policy .vs. ongoing enterprise (1)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261331)

Google are acting the political entity they are complete with foreign policy and juridical independence.

Google is no longer an ongoing enterprise, folks.

co34 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261519)

impaired 1Ts

Good. (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261533)

Google Denies Data In Brazil Orkut Case
 
  Good.

A serious question: (5, Funny)

bigdavesmith (928732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261555)

If Google kept their servers in space, or on the moon, or somewhere where no country really has claim, could they just ignore any request by any government to hand over data?

Re:A serious question: (1)

DoubleRing (908390) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261667)

A brilliant idea! Dibs on outsourcing my Cayman Island headquarters to Antarctica!

Re:A serious question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261709)

They can just buy a country!

Re:A serious question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261737)


If Google kept their servers in space, or on the moon, or somewhere where no country really has claim, could they just ignore any request by any government to hand over data?

Isn't that the whole point of HavenCo [havenco.com] ?

Re:A serious question: (1)

Zorque (894011) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262031)

In that case, it would be outside any legal jurisdiction, and it would be legal to hack into it and take any data present. Same as international waters, where "pirates" still roam today.

Re:A serious question: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262687)

That explains why they're starting the Copernicus Center [google.com]

Re:A serious question: (1)

Geminii (954348) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262821)

Yes, but the lag times would be a bitch.

Who owns the data? (2, Insightful)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261567)

If Google owns the data then one option they have is to simply destroy it. No government can compell them to hand over something they no longer have.

Re:Who owns the data? (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261681)

This worked well for Enron. You just get in trouble for destroying evidence.

Re:Who owns the data? (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261699)

If Google owns the data then one option they have is to simply destroy it. No government can compell them to hand over something they no longer have.

That would generally be called obstruction of justice, which would expose individuals inside Google to the possibility of spending some time in a Brazilian jail. If a court of law has asked you for information, it's illegal to destroy it.

Re:Who owns the data? (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262233)

Brazilian courts have asked for the data. I live in the USA. I'll destroy the data and Brazil can cry in their beer.

Re:Who owns the data? (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262351)

Brazilian courts have asked for the data. I live in the USA. I'll destroy the data and Brazil can cry in their beer.

Except for the fact that obstruction of justice is one of the crimes covered by the US-Brazil extradition treaty. Are you willing to stake your freedom on the United States government caring more about you than their relations with the largest country in South America?

Re:Who owns the data? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262303)

That would generally be called obstruction of justice, which would expose individuals inside Google to the possibility of spending some time in a Brazilian jail. If a court of law has asked you for information, it's illegal to destroy it.

They would have to prove you distroyed it interntionally. You know, hard drives crash, backup routines fail for mechanical and human error reasons... /me hides gasoline can

Google protects consumer information (1)

Ice Wewe (936718) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261575)

I think the reason Google isn't releasing the data is because it would open up a new wound for them. The last thing they want is people in other countries thinking that Google not only collects private data on them, but will release it at the drop of a hat to aviod a long and complicated law suit. They're trying to protect their intregity with this move. I think its a good thing, in this day and age, we don't need more companys like Verizon, Bellsouth, and AT&T giving away our personal information to the government. If we haven't done any thing illegal that they're trying to persue, then our personal information shouldn't be released without our prior knowledge and concent.

Google motto (1)

Janacek (925490) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261657)

It's difficult to live up to "Don't be evil.". On one hand protecting users' privacy fits in well with this but on the other taking actions to protect those who clearly aim to do the complete opposite of this doesn't seem to live up to this lofty principle.

China? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261665)

Why did then the "oh-so-dont-do-evil-company" comply with China's demand of removing search results... wtf..

Re:China? (1)

rand_chars (969042) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262329)

Because not complying with China's demands would mean that Google would (most likely) have to pull out of China. If they pulled out of China, the Chinese still wouldn't have access to Google's search results. IMO, this is also be a loss. In a loose-loose situation, I'm not surprised Google took the more profitable route, even though it may have opened them up for more criticism.

orkut = orgasms in finnis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261721)

yes, that's right.

FRIST pSOT (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16261759)

Will governments require data be stored locally? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261775)

"If you want to do business in our country you must agree to store data in a manner that allows the local judicial system to subpoena it."

Will the CyberCrime Treaty trump Google? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 7 years ago | (#16261793)

If Brazil says its request is to stop child porn ...

Background legal info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262037)

In case anyone was curious about how a court in Brazil would go about asking for production of US documents in a criminal case, here [gpo.gov] is your answer. This treaty entered into force on February 21, 2001 [usembassy.gov] .

bizTnat3h (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262435)

channeL, yoU might

brazilian orkut users? (3, Funny)

reflector (62643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262555)

...that's a lot of orkut users!

Google is refusing for now... (2)

jorlando (145683) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262581)

the problem is: the Brazilian prosecutors subpoened Google's Brazilian office.

the Brazilian office doesn't have access to the data stored in the servers, based in the USA. Google's brazilian office is a law firm, probably there are no techies there.

when the brazilian prosecutors present their request properly to Google in USA the data will be handed over. It has been done before:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003739&intsrc=new s_ts_head [computerworld.com]

Wrong Section (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16262779)

Why is this in the YRO section? Shouldn't it be BRO (Brazilian Rights Online)?

The downgrading of freedom (1)

ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16262787)

First, I have no pity for the child porn distributors. Theoretically it could be very borderline material, but it is probably terribly vile stuff that requires long prison sentences.

The hate speech issue on the other hand is very serious. What is determined to be hate speech in this situation? Is it calling for the genocide of a particular group or is it an offensive joke? Who gets to make a call on this? If someone from Brazil states that affirmative action should be overturned, are they committing a crime? What about concerns about violence in a particular neighborhood? Is implied hate enough for a conviction? If someone believes that homosexuality is immoral and openly say their opinion, do they go to jail? What if they never tell anyone, but they write a journal on their computer which happens to be discovered by the government. Should they go to jail? If the U.S. government turns over this information when such speech is protected in the U.S., it weakens the right of all Americans to speak freely. I'm also concerned about other governments following the example.

A lot of people are against politically incorrect speech, so I'll give an example which is more politically correct. Imagine a woman in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi system for tracking all of her online activates is not logging material as well as it should. She has a sexually explicit chat with a foreigner. The Saudi government's tracking system becomes aware that a chat took place and it had forbidden content, but can't track who made the chat on the Saudi side. That information is stored in a server in the United States which is owned by a company that also does business in Saudi Arabia. Let us say that the woman will face fifty lashes if she is caught. Should the United States government allow that information to be passed to the Saudis?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>