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!

The End of Net Anonymity In Brazil

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the good-while-it-lasted dept.

242

DieNadel writes, "The Brazilian senate is considering a bill that will make it a crime to join a chat, blog, or download from the Internet without fully identifying oneself first. Privacy groups and Internet providers are very concerned, and are trying to lobby against the bill, but it seems they won't have much success." From the article: "If approved, it will be a crime, punishable with up to 4 years of jail time, to disseminate virus or trojans, unauthorizedly access data banks or networks and send e-mail, join chat, write a blog or download content anonymously."

cancel ×

242 comments

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

So remember boys and girls... (2, Funny)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737543)

...be sure to identify yourself when you distribute trojans!

Re:So remember boys and girls... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737683)

I am a 14 year old girl. My name is Suzy Q. I love to read forums....

Re:So remember boys and girls... (2, Funny)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737703)

I tried that once, but a bunch of angry Catholics sent me mean letters about the evils of birth control.

Re:So remember boys and girls... (1)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738001)

Of course, you were disturbing the harmony...

Re:So remember boys and girls... (1)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738013)

You know, it isn't funny if you explain the joke in the joke.

"I used to, but I got sick of angry letters from Catholics."

Better.

Thankfully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737549)

I'm not Brazillian ...

I know something that you don't know. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16738051)

I'm not Brazillian, either!

Holy Smokes (1)

udderly (890305) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737555)

Lord forbid that someone steals your "government-supplied certificate," or you could be doing some serious time in a Brazilian prison.

So many, many ways around this. (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737689)

First off, passing a law that the criminals will disregard is just about useless. They're already criminals. Breaking another law is not going to deter them.

Secondly, there are so many ways around this when you are a criminal. Crack someone else's machine and you can do whatever you want as if you were legally that person. Who stupid is that?

If you're really good, you'd crack 2 machines outside Brazil and use them to bounce traffic around before it got to you. Your machine and record would be 100% clean.

Finally, let's talk wireless. Unless the government wants to crack down on unsecured wireless connections, they're going to lose this one.

This is nothing more than an attempt to scare the good citizens into self-censoring their legal activities. And that is disgusting.

Re:So many, many ways around this. (3, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737747)

First off, passing a law that the criminals will disregard is just about useless. They're already criminals. Breaking another law is not going to deter them.

If we paid attention to that logic, we'd have 50% fewer laws than we do.

Not that you're wrong, of course, just that passing laws is how the government proves it's Doing Something, irrespective of wheter the law does anything other than screw the innocent.

And I don't think this varies appreciably from government to government.

I think we need to change that. (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738235)

Not that you're wrong, of course, just that passing laws is how the government proves it's Doing Something, irrespective of wheter the law does anything other than screw the innocent.

So, how about if all the laws on the books had a limited life span? After 8 years (or 16 or 32 or whatever), they expired and needed to be passed again?

That way Congress could continue to "be tough on X" without needing to do any actual work or impact our Freedoms at all?

Re:So many, many ways around this. (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737889)

Finally, let's talk wireless. Unless the government wants to crack down on unsecured wireless connections, they're going to lose this one.

What's there to crack down on? If someone is allowing someone to use their open access point to conduct illegal activities then they are just as guilty as the person that committed the crime. Either keep detailed logs and require a login and encryption to use your access point so you can prove who was using it at the time or face the consequences. I am 100% for punishing people that run open access points then feign ignorance of any illicit activities coming from that IP when the authorities show up.

Re:So many, many ways around this. (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738145)

Encryption, logins, and logs aren't going to prevent any of this from happening. Have you not heard of an internet cafe? Pay $15 cash and all that becomes useless and untraceable. I'm not even going into the cracking of wifi keys on private access points, which btw is the reason they'll never successfully prosecute someone running ANY currently manufactured wifi access point, open or "secured". What's worse is you prestented the same line of thinking as the politicians who don't let the obvious facts get in the way of their witch hunts.

Re:So many, many ways around this. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737997)

First off, passing a law that the criminals will disregard is just about useless. They're already criminals.

      Umm by definition if you do something that is not illegal, you are not a criminal UNTIL the law is passed that makes it illegal. Only then are you a "criminal".

As always... (0, Flamebait)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737557)

Gee, it's too bad we didn't hand over the Internet to the UN like you guys all wanted...

Re:As always... (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737609)

Thank You!

For as many problems as we have in the states (yes, we have a lot), I sure as hell don't want anyone else dictating the rules of the net. If you live outside of the U.S., and feel the same way, create your own "master" DNS and make your own rules. Nothing is stopping you.

Re:As always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737623)

Gee, it's too bad we didn't hand over the Internet to the UN like you guys all wanted...

Yeah, it would totally suck if a decision like this got stuck in committee for 20 years while 50 different countries' representatives argued over it before it finally got permanently vetoed by China for the express purpose of pissing another country off.

Re:As always... (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737693)

Yeah, it would totally suck if a decision like this got stuck in committee for 20 years while 50 different countries' representatives argued over it before it finally got permanently vetoed by China for the express purpose of pissing another country off.

More like it gets approved for the express purpose of pissing the US off, and after the US vetoes it, the rest of the world whines that the US is "forcing their values on the rest of the world."

Re:As always... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737953)

More like it gets approved for the express purpose of pissing the US off, and after the US vetoes it

Funny, I was under the impression that the US was strong-arming ther rest of the world to give up their privacy, because otherwise THE TERRORISTS WIN. Just look at information airlines and banks have been demanded to hand over to the US govt. Look at the secret, illegal wiretaps Bush has authorised. And you want me to believe the US would block this? The current administration is leading the charge to wipe out privacy.

Re:As always... (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738089)

Just look at information airlines and banks have been demanded to hand over to the US govt. Look at the secret, illegal wiretaps Bush has authorised. And you want me to believe the US would block this? The current administration is leading the charge to wipe out privacy.

Yeah, because someone being in favor of better identification of easy terror targets like airlines, and being in favor of better money tracing, automatically means they are in favor of no privacy in society at all.

I hate the "slippery slope" argument. It's stupid and should be added to the list of Logical Fallacies [wikipedia.org] .

Re:As always... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738331)

the US was strong-arming ther rest of the world to give up their privacy, because otherwise THE TERRORISTS WIN.

      And we all know that Brazil is a breeding ground for terrorists, I mean, why else would they kill that Brazilian in London a year or so ago. So this must be a "Good Thing" (TM).

Re:As always... (1)

patrixmyth (167599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737653)

Turn over the Internet to the U.N.?

Oh, I thought they said turn the Internet over to the The Onion [theonion.com] . Never mind, then. If hilarity is not going to ensue, then take my name off the petition.

Anonymity is illusion (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737733)

You have an IP address that response packets are routed to. The server knows that IP address. So does every node routing the traffic on the internet -- every "hop" can see both sender and receiver IP addresses.

A DNS lookup identifies the service provider.

An authorized data access maps the IP address to a service address and possible customer identification. Hopefully this is a rigorously documented and monitored process in your nation.

Anonymizer routing can still be tracked, it just takes more work and some high-powered address correlation hardware. Or a simple but massive gate array, looking for data checksum correlations between streams entering and leaving an anonymizer.

Internet anonymity is illusion.

The only remaining question is whether you stand by your posted opinions, or hide as an anonymous coward.

Re:Anonymity is illusion (1)

Fezmid (774255) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737895)

Since you don't believe we have any anonymity right now, would you please post your name, address, and phone number here please? Thanks.

Re:Anonymity is illusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737929)

That information is available at the ISP. Serve them a subpoena and get the information you want.

Re:Anonymity is illusion (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738163)

Might not be necessary to contact the ISP if your social security number is embedded in each TCP/IP packet along with the MAC address.

Re:Anonymity is illusion (1)

inviolet (797804) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738043)

Since you don't believe we have any anonymity right now, would you please post your name, address, and phone number here please? Thanks.

1. Pointing out alleged hypocrisy, does not a rebuttal make.

2. Just because it is already possible to obtain that information about the poster, does not mean the poster wishes to make it easy. The present hurdle is adequate to deter 99% of people who might wish to annoy or harm the poster.

3. Indeed, the government is also subject to said hurdle. And so the present hurdle is also adequate to deter the government from anything short of a serious, focused investigation. This translates to the very justifiable feeling that one can express oneself freely on the net, because keyword-scanning data-mining oppression is still too expensive.

Re:Anonymity is illusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16738093)

Total and utter BS. Do you know who I am? Does anyone? I'm posting from work where hundreds of people are accessing the internet via a single internet connection and IP. Sure, we have logs, but we don't have to. Then considering that I'm in the IT dept it would take me mere seconds to erase my tracks internally. Apparently this post I'm making now would be a crime in Brazil if that bill passes. Ludicrous.

Anyway, there are lots of ways to remain anonymous on the internet. Plus, lets not forget the current legal problems of trying to prove an IP address was actually in use by a particular person at a given time.

Re:As always... (1)

ghc71 (738171) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738091)

WTFZOMGBBQ? This is a bill that America needs to have. If law-abiding citizens refrained from encryption and anonymizers and onion routers and that sort of thing, the terrorists and drug cartels that need such anonymity to hide from our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies would find that much more difficult to do so.

Re:As always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16738159)

This is exactly why the internet should stay in US control. Sure, there are lots of other countries that could take just a good care of it, but there are several others who could literally cripple it, and those countries have a say in the UN, so fuck that.

First, (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737569)

First, they came for the Brazillians, but I did not speak up, for I was not of Brazil. ...fill in the rest yourself

Re:First, (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737735)

Last time I checked Brazil had a democratically elected government. How is this any different than countries in the EU restricting some types of political speech? Or France wanting to try some of the execs from Yahoo for crimes against humanity because a french citizen bought Nazi memorabilia from the US Yahoo auction site?

Sounds to me like it is something that the people in Brazil need to work out for themselves. They can vote and debate it in their public forums and press.

Re:First, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16738031)

First, they came for the Brazillians, but I did not speak up, for I was not of Brazil. ...fill in the rest yourself

Actually, it's more like

First, they came for the Brazillians, but I did not speak up, because Brazillains don't care what I think.

the internet is getting bloated. (1)

skynare (777361) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737591)

sooner or later, you'll have to enter your social security number to get a hotmail account

Re:the internet is getting bloated. (1)

mikael (484) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737907)

That's what they are trying to do:

The bill states that every user must fully identify herself before using the Net, with full name, current address, phone number and the equivalent of the Social Security Number. To access the Net without providing this information, or to give false information, will also be a crime.

Senator Eduardo Azeredo wants to legally recommend every Internet user to buy the government approved certificate, and use it on every connection to the Net.

Ironic - politicians make it an issue to protect children from the Internet, now they are demanding that anyone (including children) using the Internet must give out their personal information including their address and phone number, which is exactly what every parent been told to teach their kids not to do.

How exactly, is this going to work with a family computer - is every person going to have to log out and log back in again, each time someone sits down at the keyboard?

Given that some mobile phones can actually download webpages, you are going to need to store that certificate on your phone. So what if that mobile phone gets stolen?

uh oh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737615)

*Knocko Knocko*

Oh Mierda!

Just maybe... (0, Offtopic)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737621)

Brazil need Web 2.0 to save the people from the government.

Picking Nits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737629)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unauthorize dly [reference.com]

I suspect this was lost in the translation from the original article.

Re:Picking Nits (1)

DieNadel (550271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737789)

Well, Google returns [google.com] 10,800 results... good enough for me :-)

Face it, our beloved language encourages neologisms.

What about kids? (2, Interesting)

javilon (99157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737631)

Will a 10 years old kid go to trial if he posts anonymously on a forum like slashdot?

Re:What about kids? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737737)

Will a 10 years old kid go to trial if he posts anonymously on a forum like slashdot?

Of course not. Only "undesirables" will be put on trial, why else would you criminalize most of the population and in particular the intelligensia? If they wanted to catch all, they could just set up a huge sign in the city center saying "prison".

Re:What about kids? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737939)

Will a 10 years old kid go to trial if he posts anonymously on a forum like slashdot?

To which you replied:

and in particular the intelligensia?

      Hahahahahahaha thanks for the laugh! Are you inferring that slashdot is the "intelligensia"? Funniest thing I've heard all week!

MOD PARENT UP!!!

Re:What about kids? (2, Informative)

cyclops79 (966627) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737795)

This is not about anonymous posting, but anonymous access.

The users will only have internet access after supplying name, address, phone number and identity number to the ISP, who would then verify this information. Both the user and the ISP can be charged if they fail to do this properly.

I live in Brazil, and this is what I could find so far.

Re:What about kids? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738003)

This is not about anonymous posting, but anonymous access.

If your access is not anonymous; i.e. Your IP --> Your identity, you can't post anonymously, you can't read a blog anoymously, you can't do ANYTHING anonymously.

I am very serious (1)

I_HATE_THIS (1019084) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737639)

Assuming the country also allow freedom to express and identity thief, what is such a bad thing of removing annomity? Yes, I really want to know and read the assumption. So, educate me.

Re:I am very serious (2, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737705)

Reply with your full name, address, job, a list of your family members, government ID number, and your hopes and dreams and I'll tell you why.

Re:I am very serious (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737739)

Borack? Is that you?

By any chance, do you mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16738083)

...Borat?

Re:I am very serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737845)

Do you wear a large name tag whenever you leave your home? Does it also have your home address and phone number printed on it? If not, why not?

When you walk in the park, talking to your girlfriend, do you first file a government form containing your name, her name, and the time you plan to talk?

When you chat with your friends, do you submit a transcript to the local police in case they want to read it later?

The answers to these questions should help you find what you're seeking.

Re:I am very serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16738069)

You are not free to express unless you can do so without repercussions. Real free speech, particularly the kind that is critical of the government, requires anonymity. For instance, journalists employ anonymous sources all the time. Many of these sources would not speak (i.e., not speak freely) without the knowledge their expression would be protected by a cloak of anonymity. You can, of course, educate yourself on this topic. And since you are hidden behind a pseudonym as much as I, I can tell you to blow chunks for trying to troll slashdot.

Re:I am very serious (3, Informative)

quentin_quayle (868719) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738301)

Assuming the country also allow freedom to express and identity thief, what is such a bad thing of removing annomity? Yes, I really want to know and read the assumption. So, educate me.

If you mean "assuming the requirement is not abused", that would not be a serious question. Every coercive power over others is always abused, to the greatest degree that interested parties can get away with. The whole problem of freedom is minimizing the opportunities for such abuse.

Of course no one objects to a prohibition of spreading malware. Here are a few of the more obvious problems with the removal-of-anonymity part.

  1. Government doesn't like opinions you express, you get hassled, prosecuted or worse on some other pretext.
  2. Employer doesn't like opinions you express, you lose the job (on some other pretext).
  3. This law is later followed by laws restricting what may be said - e.g. against racism or offending certain groups, as in Europe.
  4. Chilling effect on what people are willing to express, because of above items (self censorship).
  5. It later leads to an "internet license" requirement which is designed to keep disfavored people offline.
  6. Cyber-bullying, as in Korea recently, by hostile people who can find out your physical address.
  7. Site operators make deals with advertisers, and then your entire online history is sold and lives forever in corporate databases.
  8. Someone uses your credentials and whatever they do is legally attributed to you.
  9. When you complain of others' behavior online, the authorities say "Sorry we can't help; despite the law we couldn't identify that person" - maybe they just didn't want to take the trouble. But if you break the law you are prosecuted.
  10. ... too many more but I don't have time. Others can follow up.

Of Course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737651)

Of course the government running Brazil was set up by the United States of America and continues along as little more than a puppet.

I have always felt stongly that the US government uses its puppet regimes as testbeds for new ideas, new legislation, so that the bugs can be worked out before they are implemented inside its own borders.

This is a timely story that all US residents should pay heed to. The election is tomorrow, consider that if you leave the current party in power the next time you read about this kind of regulation your facist leaders will be doing it to you.

Re:Of Course (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737863)

That's a remarkably depressing idea. Do you have evidence in the form of prior examples of this behavior?

Re:Of Course (1)

eggsurplus (631231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738115)

Morpheus, just assimilate already! The food tastes good here and the ladies are bountiful.

Re:Of Course (1)

zenon3 (585023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738155)

So who are you voting for? Kang or Kodos?

STASI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737655)

STASI is back.

Unauthorizedly? (1)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737657)

So, it's a crime to be on the Internet anonymously, but it's not a crime to butcher words in English? :P

"I call murder on that!" -- Smelly Hippy, Futurama

Using Windows now illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737663)

If approved, it will be a crime, punishable with up to 4 years of jail time, to disseminate viruses or trojans


If you use Windows -- especially the unlicensed copies many Brazilians use ("Linux removal", after all) disseminating viruses and trojans is inevitable.

Government stability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737675)

Governments don't like the potential loss of job security citizens having real free speech entails. So they are blind to the blatant theft of citizens rights from such a transparently-abhorrent law. For instance, is it not already a crime to disseminate virus or trojans? Is it not already a crime to access a data bank or network without authorization? So why the new law? To justify the real and sole purpose of the bill, making it a crime to send e-mail, join a chat session, write a blog entry or download "subversive" content anonymously. That is, the reason for this law is to outlaw anonymous communication on the internet and the other clauses are just a smokescreen. Clearly Brzail is afraid of its citizenry speaking freely. Why is that?

Usenet? (1)

sckeener (137243) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737677)

"If approved, it will be a crime, punishable with up to 4 years of jail time, to disseminate virus or trojans, unauthorizedly access data banks or networks and send e-mail, join chat, write a blog or download content anonymously."

When all Usenet posts are legit I'll believe it.

In other words, the only people this will affect are those who do take precautions to adequately hide themselves, those ignorant of the law, and those where the government just wants to tack on 4 more years!

Re:Usenet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737779)

Please do not ever mention the service mentioned in your post on Slashdot again. You know why. Thank you.

How long until anomyity is a crime world wide? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737697)

I'm surprised this came up first in brazil; this seems more like something the US or the UK would pass (if we haven't already).

Re:How long until anomyity is a crime world wide? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737805)

Wow, we get bashed even when the story has nothing to do with us. I'm surprised you didn't work Bush into it somehow.

Re:How long until anomyity is a crime world wide? (1)

dlhm (739554) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737917)

Everything bad can be blamed on 1 of 2 things... Smoking... or Bush... :)

unenforceable... (1)

TheCoop1984 (704458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737699)

How will they find the identities of the people who post anonymously to prosecute them?

Re:unenforceable... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737879)

How will they find the identities of the people who post anonymously

      Because of course all the hardworking citizens will now comply with the law and identify themselves. Sheesh I am shocked by your failing to understand how laws can change human behavior overnight, and magically make everything better. END SARCASM

Re:unenforceable... (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737901)

How will they find the identities of the people who post anonymously to prosecute them?


You're assuming that many of the people doing that are smart enough to get away with it. Many will give themselves away at some point. Also, they could require that ISPs monitor and log all traffic coming from their users. If it's detected they're using things like Tor, I2P, JAP or other anonymizers they could be reported.

Re:unenforceable... (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737933)

Isnt' meant to be enforcable.

It is meant as one of those "we can't get you on anything else, so we will throw you in jail for this" crimes

no differnet from the states, if they look hard enough they can find a law you have broken.

Terry Gilliam Was Right? (1)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737721)

Mmm, Brazil!

Don't Brazil Bash (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737761)

I'm from the US, and I know Jack about how the political system in Brazil works, but I did read the article. This is a bill introduced by one crazy senator, Senator Eduardo Azeredo (PSDB-MG). This isn't law and hopefully will never be. I don't think the people of Brazil are this gullible.

What is PSDB-MG, anyway? Piece of Shit Damn British MG?

Re:Don't Brazil Bash (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737833)

This is a bill introduced by one crazy senator, Senator Eduardo Azeredo

      How much do you want to bet that he's expecting a big juicy check in US dollars from the **AA's, or Microsoft, or both. Piracy is a BIG problem in Brazil. Almost everything is pirated.

and I know Jack about how the political system in Brazil works

      Oh it's like the US, you can buy all the politicians you want, only in Brazil, it's cheaper.

Re:Don't Brazil Bash (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738055)

Piracy is a BIG problem in Brazil. Almost everything is pirated.

But I'd assume, like Asia, that most piracy is via optical disc. Why spend a week downloading when you can buy 5GB discs of music, software, whatever at $1/disc more or less? Online piracy maybe for MP3 tunes and such smallish files.

Re:Don't Brazil Bash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737979)

PSDB-MG
Partido Social Democrata Brasileiro - Minas Gerais

Brazilian Democratic Social Party

Minas Gerais is one of the 27 states.

Re:Don't Brazil Bash (1)

DieNadel (550271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737999)

According to Google [google.com] , it's the Social Democratic Party of Brazil. I think MG stands for Minas Generais, a Brazilian state.

Re:Don't Brazil Bash (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738015)

This is a bill introduced by one crazy senator, Senator Eduardo Azeredo (PSDB-MG). This isn't law and hopefully will never be. I don't think the people of Brazil are this gullible.

I've lived in Brazil years ago. I think you're right that this isn't going to pass, but from what I remember, if it doesn't pass it'll be because of technical arguments, not because of privacy ones. I always complained that Brazilians were especially prone to "think of the children" arguments, but I guess I've been seeing similar stuff happen here in the U.S. too, so maybe they're not any different.

What is PSDB-MG, anyway? Piece of Shit Damn British MG?

PSDB is the party, MG is the state (Minas Gerais). PSDB stands for "Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira" or "Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy."

Re:Don't Brazil Bash (1)

gustgr (695173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738049)

PSDB is his party and stands for Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (Brazilian Social Democracy Party), and MG is the state he representes and stands for Minas Gerais.

Nonetheless, there is no party fidelity in Brazil and the politicians keep changing from one party to another one, so this doesn't represent anything at all. Indeed, this Senator is really insane (and probably corrupted).

Re:Don't Brazil Bash (3, Informative)

rcastro0 (241450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738191)

>What is PSDB-MG, anyway? Piece of Shit Damn British MG?

This is slashdot, and you didn't think a question like that would go unanswered, did you ?

PSDB is Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (http://www.psdb.org.br/ [psdb.org.br] ) translates to the Brazilian Socio-Democracy Party. MG stands for Minas Gerais, the state Senator Azeredo represents.

As a Brazilian I should add:
* PSDB is the leading opposition party in Brazil. Its candidate just lost the presidential race (39% to 61%).
* Normally I wouldn't think this sort of thing to come out of PSDB (usually more liberal than the government). But heck...
* Mr Azeredo has been involved in an unrelated corruption scandal after proposing the law ("valerioduto").
* I also do not agree with such a law, as many brazilians don't (babelfish this, for instance: A Liberdade da Rede corre Perigo [ig.com.br] )
* This law may not pass (be approved) -- I hope it won't.
* Even if it does, it may not be enforceable, as someone here already pointed out -- Freenet comes to mind.

Re:Don't Brazil Bash (1)

FFFFHALTFFFF (996601) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738379)

Means "Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira". Sounds like "Brazilian Social Democracy "Gang""

First Bag is Free (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737785)

Freedom can be dangerous when the government harvests what you've done with it. Just get people hooked on something free, like the Internet, and then unilaterally add strict requirements later, that people will "compromise" to accept rather than give up their toy.

Like a drug pusher who tells you "the first bag is free".

Or an ISP, telco or bank which unilaterally changes Terms of Service or privacy "agreements".

doesnt sound too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737841)

this might help cut down on the huge numbers of denial of service attacks coming from brazil

Related story (1)

jdog-usa (957972) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737851)

"will require every ISP to store each connection performed by a user for at least 3 years" In a related story, Brazil announces a massive RFQ from storage vendors.

It's all a matter of time.... (0, Flamebait)

Ohlmy1 (1023549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737853)

It's all a matter of time before anonymity on the internet becomes a thing of the past. Brazil stepping in is just one route that the governments will take. Once we all get moved to IPv6, everyone will be assigned a static IP address for their system. NAT will become a thing of the past. If taken to the extreme, the internet will become unusable unless you replace your NIC with one that has an IPv6 address burned into the chipset on the card. The government will make this a requirement by law, and many will complain. The simple reponse will be... If you don't like it, don't use it.

What about proxying outside the country? (1)

Phoenixhunter (588958) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737865)

Just like when an office network's filtering software is just a little too strict, the smarter users will proxy their traffic outside. I could see ISP's in Argentina, Venezeula, and elsewhere getting some additional traffic....

wtf (0)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737873)

How will they know who did it if they're anonymous?

Wait a second... (1)

justanillusion (1021975) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737947)

Is it just me, or is this concept logically inconsistent? If you do something anonymously, then the government isn't going to be able to find you to prosecute you. If you did something in such a way that the government can find you and prosecute you, then it wasn't done anonymously.

Re:Wait a second... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738141)

or is this concept logically inconsistent?

      Not if you work for the government. Look at wardriving and using unsecure IP's in the US, for example. Because you're doing it, you MUST be doing something illegal. If you post anonymously in Brazil, you MUST be a criminal. I mean, you've already broken one law, I wonder how many else you are breaking - come along son, hands behind your back...

"/." ACs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737991)

""The Brazilian senate is considering a bill that will make it a crime to join a chat, blog, or download from the Internet without fully identifying oneself first."

Well considering the pervailing slashdot attitude towards ACs (your comment isn't worth the name it's printed on...so log in!). This move should be considered a good thing here.

Many Ways (1)

JRWR (1001828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738019)

There are SOO many way around this, its not even funny, even if they do try to get the people going around the system, its going to be a nightmare, just like the whole RIAA bull

Sounds like... (1)

Czaries (980959) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738027)

... sending Spam and junk mail to Brazilians is going to get a whole lot easier! Go get 'em telemarketers!

Re:Sounds like... (1)

joshier (957448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738223)

You know, ever since I gave some details to some internet car insurers, I've been getting real junk mail for the past 2 weeks and it's bugging me like crazy. Now, when you imagine the amount of other willing spammers to fill your mail box, across the whole internet, that is something I would not put up with.

sometimes i wish (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738037)

You could have a background music with your post... Brazil, Brazil....

How is this enforceable? Any site that is access over a secure connection cannot be monitored. Unless they have guilty-until-proven innocent system of justice, of course.

Fine some one they can not find? (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738161)

Lets face it, it is just not possible to enforce this kind of law.

With Onion Routing Networks [eff.org] , Mixmaster Type II Anonymous Email [sourceforge.net] , GPG/PGP Type I Anonymous remailers [feraga.com] , and bidirectional encrypted anonymous e-mail addresses [iusmentis.com] that can deliver to a news group [google.com]
Add to this the use of unsecured 802.11 networks and there is just no way to stop a person that truly wants to be anonymous on the internet.

Unfortunately most do not know how to use them, so most of the internet is only sudo-anonymous.

How can this be effective? (1)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738177)

How can this law be enforced without massive repression? Whatever the law is, it must to allow media to quote someone without naming them. If you ban news organizations from making quotes without precise verifiable sources, you eliminate any semblance of a free press and a free society. Can't users just enter into a confidentiality agreement with a media source? The Internet user identifies themselves to the media entity, tells them the information that they want to post, and the media posts it with a generalized source, like a "woman from the estado (state) of Roraima".

If someone is truly anonymous, the government won't be able to find them. To stop anonymity, you must ban every service provider and user that enables others to be anonymous. Does this law ban any technology that could lead to anonymity? If so, doesn't that basically ban every protocol used on the Internet (you can tunnel, proxy, and relay over http, ssh, any p2p system, etc)? It seams like this law is practically useless, but may be provided as an additional punishment for criminals. So if you break the law online, and use naive methods to try to cover up your crimes, you get a harsher punishment than if you had just committed the crime and identified yourself while doing it. All this law will do is punish stupid criminals more harshly, and encourage smart criminals to use serious methods of hiding themselves. If it is really used to punish people for just trying to be anonymous, than almost every Brazilian Internet user could go to jail. Creating laws that everyone is guilty is a tool of totalitarian states to oppress whoever they want. If it were enforced, it would constitute a major breach of human rights and would put Brazil on the short list of repressive rogue states like the United States and North Korea.

Legal in Brazil Howto (1)

alta (1263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738187)

Tools
Options
Privacy

Please fill out the following fields. If you are in brazil, this is mandatory. If you are not, just
Name :
Email :
Social :
DOB :
DL:
Mother's Maiden Name:
Email:
Address :
Your password:

Brazil's constitution seems to forbid anonymity (1)

Jim Logajan (849124) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738233)

According to one English-language translation of the Brazilian constitution, under:
"TITLE II - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES
CHAPTER I - INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Article 5
IV - the expression of thought is free, anonymity being forbidden;"

(Quoted from http://www.v-brazil.com/government/laws/titleII.ht ml [v-brazil.com] )

write to your senator! (1)

PhiberOptix (182584) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738303)

I already sent a mail to the senator that I voted in the last election, asking him to not support such stupid bill.
You can find your senator's email address in this page: http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/senadores [senado.gov.br]
Hopefully more brazilians will do the same.

Eu já enviei um email ao senador que eu votei na última eleição, pedindo a ele para não apoiar este projeto de lei estúpido.
Você pode encontrar o endereço de email do seu senador nesta página: http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/senadores [senado.gov.br]
Espero que outros brasileiros façam o mesmo.

I wish I were in China instead! (2, Informative)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738327)

I'm from Brazil and if this law pass I will with I were in China.
The worst part is what I saw on the local news: they want us not only to provide our ID data, but also PROVIDE A XEROX COPY OF OUR ID CARDS to the sites we wish to have access to! After they approve our data, we will be able to access them.

Politicians don't have the slighest idea of how technology works...

That won't work (1)

ciczan (706125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738345)

I am brazilian (you can tell by the bad english). Even if this law gets approved, there wont be anyone to fiscalize. It is just like home piracy, the rain forest, out borders, selling beer to 18 years, prostitution... there are just too few police agents for all this. One could argue this is a kind of freedom...

Useless (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738363)

Ironically, such a law can only be used against people who DO identify themselves! lol!

As a legislator... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16738369)

... the answer is to legislate.

If they were carpenters, they'd hit people with hammers or nail them to the floor. (A much preferred approach in my opinion.) If they were "computer people" they'd create better means by which to stop the mayhem of cyber crime from continuing.

Since the mayhem shows no signs of slowing, let alone stopping, legislating is the only tool they have at their disposal. Is it bad legislation? YUP! Let's all try recommending something better. I think they should get "internet licenses." It'd be about the same as driver's licenses in the U.S. Ticketting, fining, revoking licenses, etc. For one, it could help establish a proof of age type of thing. For another, it could be used to "protect the children." And when criminals are found to be commiting crimes and are operating without a license, the punishment should be mandatorily doubled.

There's a lot of useful things we can do with licenses... yeah and a lot of harmful things too. Hopefully, any legislation establishing a license program would also stipulate civil liberties protections. But I think if people were forced to defend their license, they would take better care of their computers and the software that gets on them. Back to the car/driver parallel, people learn that they must keep the headlights and other state required equipment working on their cars in working order or they will not pass the state required inspection. I'm not suggesting we have computer inspections, but I am suggesting that an operator's license be required to help make individual operators more reposonsible for their own stuff. It is done with radio operators. It is done for driving on the roads. It's done for flying. Why not for access to the public internet too? (We don't do it for phones though... the parallel starts to break down in areas like that doesn't it?)

This is just some thought... I haven't given the idea a LOT of thought...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?