Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!



Imminent Server Seizure Tests Brazil's New Internet Bill of Rights

cseg Re:You (52 comments)

The problem is that it cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. Yes, in a vacuum it's just a free service being offered if you have a plan. But that's the first step into making things a lot worse. And quite frankly, Brazil is not known for being good at telling the difference and knowing when to stop the car before it crashes.

Besides that, if you take the law to the letter, you also run into another issue: What if a customer wants to access G+ (why would they do that??) instead of Facebook and Twitter? They have to pay for the data used, and that is discouraging to any social network besides FB and Twitter. This alone is against the concept of net neutrality. And this is exactly the point I was showing.

about 7 months ago

Imminent Server Seizure Tests Brazil's New Internet Bill of Rights

cseg "Net neutrality" (52 comments)

The law was passed with the "intention" of being the Brazilian "net neutrality" law. However, its chapter 1, article 1, paragraph 8 reads: "VIII - a liberdade dos modelos de negócios promovidos na Internet, desde que não conflitem com os demais princípios estabelecidos nesta Lei."

Freely translating, that could be read as "the freedom to shape internet businesses, as long as it doesn't conflict with the rest of this Law."

Chapter 3, article 9, paragraph 1 later states that net traffic may only be regulated by the President's orders, and can only happen in 2 cases:

- Technical requirements necessary to the proper functioning of services and applications;
- Emergency services

And then I see carriers offering free Facebook and Twitter access as long as you have any valid plan active, or any sort of credit left on pre-paid plans.

Who didn't understand what "net neutrality" means? Me, the government, these companies or the people praising the law?

about 7 months ago

Google's Definition of 'Open'

cseg Re:Google Play Services (168 comments)

Yes, that was quite a tirade I launched there.

You seem to be too sensitive for a phone which has Internet access, maybe you should settle for something simpler? That would also solve your security concerns, and would bring the added bonus of way more battery life for your phone which you rely on daily and don't want to tinker with.

Seems like a win-win, how about a nice Nokia 3310? Still a classic.

Thanks, I'll pass.

My iPhone doesn't install updates without me telling it to, that's enough for me. I guess asking for such complex feature from Android is too much. :-)

about 9 months ago

Google's Definition of 'Open'

cseg Re:Google Play Services (168 comments)

Why do you believe that the world owes any of this to you?

You don't like any of the stock options, or (very) easily configurable ones which have already been suggested.

You don't want to put any effort into managing your very specific requirements.

Why, then, should any of us care?

You don't. I'm asking if there are options that fulfill my needs, and then I have to laugh at people like you going on the offensive because apparently me not accepting to take any and everything a company throws at me, means you get your feelings hurt.

Thanks. :-)

about 9 months ago

Google's Definition of 'Open'

cseg Re:Google Play Services (168 comments)

but like I said, I'm looking for a solution that does not involve nursing custom ROMs.

Could you explain a little further exactly what it is you're hoping for, then?

Right now it seems like you're asking for Google's Android, which inherently means Google's Services and thus Google Play, etc. - but without exactly those things. At that point, it's not Google's Android anymore.

So let's say you meant regular ol' Android. Okay, that's fine too, go grab AOSP. But then that's really no different from a custom ROM when seen from the viewpoint of 'Google's Android'. It's just that it's a rather barren one.

So if you have to go with a ROM in the first place, Cyanogen is, once installed, fairly hands-off. Nobody's forcing you to delve into the nightly builds, say.

But maybe you just don't want to deal with having to look up, download, install, custom roms at all. Well, you could get any number of phones that have it or, just as an example, MIUI pre-installed - with OTA updates so you don't have to 'nurse' it. But then you'd have to get a different phone.

Seems to me that with your desires, you're going to either just have to live with the Google Play integration bits, or ignore the part where you wanted Android to begin with, and jump ship to iOS, Windows Phone, FireFox OS, Sailfish, etc.

I don't mind that Google requires you to have all-or-nothing. I do mind that through Google Play Services it is able to change a device at will. This is the old argument about the device being mine and not rented/borrowed from someone. What goes in and out of it should, at very least, have me warned about. Mind you, I'm not even the overly paranoid type regarding privacy, my main concern is the device becoming useless or simply malfunctioning due to a bad update that got to it without my authorization or even knowledge.

No person or company is immune from making that kind of mistake, and I have read about Google Play Services destroying battery life with bad updates, for example.

So to be to the point and answer your question: I didn't say I don't want the Google parts of Android. I just don't want one very specific part: Google Play Services' ability to do anything it wants with a device, including updating itself at will and granting itself permissions I don't even know about. Besides that, I'd need it (the preventing that from happening) to be done via some sort of configuration or app that you can install without needing to use a different/non-official ROM (rooting would be fine).

To elaborate more: Android devices tend to be cheaper than its counterparts, but lately (post Google moving most of Android into a closed-source model), that comes at a cost: You have to "bend over" to Google's will, or choose to use a different ROM and forego Google entirely (or at least for the greatest parts). I think that is very important to take into account when switching to Android (I'm not an user yet). Like I said, I'm not excited about keeping such a close eye on that kind of thing anymore (I used to be), I just want something I can rely on and not have this sort of headache from.

I'm asking this here because I have overhyper friends who bug the hell out of me to "join the movement" of switching to Android. I'd be okay with that if it did not mean either leaving the device to Google's will, OR being forced to use custom ROMs and going Google-free. By the way, another important point in that would be the loss of the Google Play Store. As far as I know, if you don't have Google Play Services, you don't have the store. And if you don't have the store, that is yet another hit in the price-for-the-bang tag on Android.

Please correct me if I'm getting any of this wrong.

about 9 months ago

Google's Definition of 'Open'

cseg Re:Google Play Services (168 comments)

I did not discredit anyone or anything. I said that for many people, tinkering with devices is not an option (or ceased to be, like in my case).

Thanks for the suggestion, but like I said, I'm looking for a solution that does not involve nursing custom ROMs.

about 9 months ago

Google's Definition of 'Open'

cseg Google Play Services (168 comments)

Honestly, in my opinion the most offending point of Android is Google Play Services. Google making all its services depending on one another is something we've all been seeing for years now, one could argue that we're expecting and used to it. Now, a service at the center of it all, which can do anything it wants, whenever it wants, that's honestly going too far in my opinion.

That's point #1, actually.

#2 is the fact that for many people (myself included), the days of tinkering with devices is over. It can be a hobby sometimes/for some people, but I for one like to separate what I rely on from what I play with. So at best an Android device would be a toy, not something I rely on daily.

Now, if anyone can point me to a simple/reliable way to use Google's Android without Google Play Services owning the device, and without being forced to nurse custom/specific distros/ROMs for it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

about 9 months ago

Brazil Announces Secure Email To Counter US Spying

cseg Re:Good for Brazil (165 comments)

Sorry to pop the hope bubble, but that is not going to happen.

First, as stated above, this is a government-only (for now, at least) project. They think they can do it, and I'm sure they will unload tons of public money into it.. But I bet the result will not be nearly as effective as they say they will get, or that the money spent should have bought. That's just how things work in Brazil.

Secondly, to move from a gov-only project to something being sold to third parties, you'd need a sort of tech, infrastructure and skilled manpower that currently don't exist here. Brazil imports the vast majority of its tech (including almost all of IT), infrastructure is entirely imported and skilled manpower exists, but not in high enough numbers (and specially, willing to work for the government) to make that happen.

As a side note.. I worked for the government here (state, not federal) and left after 4 years. I couldn't stand the bullshit and the excessive slowness for everything, the pay was extremely low (I was part of the gov that actually worked [as a slave, almost], to make up for those who do not work and make shit tons of money) and the workload was higher than I currently have working for one of the world's biggest corporations.

about a year ago

Brazilians Can Now Buy an "iPhone" Loaded With Android

cseg Re:A couple of points (263 comments)

Yep, you got it mostly right.

Importation taxing is insane here, and like I said on my previous post, very nonsense. Most stuff fall into this retarded law where at the border, they'll get taxed "to match the price practiced in the country". This law has the limit of R$5000, so anything more expensive than that will have its own separate law for importation.

The problem is that it makes importing stuff unpredictable unless you have market information to match prices (which by itself is a lot of work for the average person). Not to mention that the final decision is made by the government and thus things can still differ wildly. You can appeal if you think it's wrong/unfair, but that will cost you extra money and most likely a lot of time (justice in Brazil is VERY slow). In the end, most people prefer to just pay whatever overprice they go for in the country, or have someone bring it from overseas (they can bring up to U$1500 in "undocumented personal gadgets" when (re)entrying the country).

Foxconn built their factory here with that cut in taxes in mind, but the cut never really got to consumers. The 8GB iPhone 4, built in Brazil, is only R$400 (~U$200) less expensive than an iPhone 4S 16GB. Apple does get the phones made in Brazil cheaper than the imported ones, but they simply don't turn that into cheaper final products, which is the exploitation I mentioned in the other post. They like their "elite" status, and the Brazilian market is golden for that.

about 2 years ago

Brazilians Can Now Buy an "iPhone" Loaded With Android

cseg A couple of points (263 comments)

First, why not sell the name to Apple?

Because Apple most likely isn't willing to pay what Gradiente wants. Apple has a track record for engaging in long and useless "negotiations" in Brazil. Years ago they wanted the right to set the pace within the App Store (defining age ratings for apps), and the Brazilian government didn't want that. Here the government decides that kind of stuff and Apple thought it wasn't an option, so the end result was that the App Store in Brazil was really shitty for years. Only a few games (those made by Brazilian developers) were available, many other apps were missing. Which even led to people coming up with ways to register their accounts in other countries' stores just to have access to apps they couldn't get here.

Apple also exploits the market here. Brazilians have this retarded idea that more expensive = better. An unlocked iPhone 5 starts at U$U$650 in the US (today that would be ~R$1300 in Brazil). The Brazilian government imposes the highest and most nonsensical volume of taxes in the world, but Apple starts the iPhone 4S (iPhone 5 isn't even selling here officially yet) at R$2000. Carriers have been offering pre-orders for the iPhone 5 starting at around R$2600 with an expensive plan, or around R$3100 without one. It is believed that Apple itself will sell them in the R$2400-3000 range once it's officially released here.

With those things in mind, the result is very likely that Apple wouldn't settle for a value Gradiente wanted.

The second point is about the name.. They (Gradiente) very likely went with something slightly different for the case Apple eventually does decide on paying for the trademark. In that case, Gradiente's trouble with getting around "iPhone Neo One" should be slightly less complicated than simply "iPhone".

about 2 years ago

Interviews: Ask Blendtec Founder Tom Dickson What Won't Blend?

cseg Does "backfire" hurt business for you? (118 comments)

That your products seem to be of much higher quality than average, I believe there is no question. However, people will always find something to complain about, or will attempt something clearly out of scope and then blame the product for the "failure." There is also, of course, those times when things just don't go so well, like on this video. Does that kind of thing "stick" and make people reconsider the product, and how bad does it get?

about 2 years ago

Does US Owe the World an Education At Its Expense?

cseg Re:We have the same... (689 comments)

A little intro here: I am Brazilian, and until recently I worked for a government agency that handles grants and general money distribution for college-level (undergrad and above) projects, research and scholarships. I can speak with a decent level of certainty about the relationship between Brazil and other countries on this regard.

First of all, let's get some things out of the way.

The first of them is an incorrect idea that when we talk about exchange programs, or students going to study overseas, we're talking of people who'd be in the lowest community colleges going to Ivy-League colleges in the US. That's simply not the case. The US schools require SATs, money guarantees and an array of extra information, tests and guarantees that American students do not require, as expected. The problem with this part is that it's most often than not, not accurate. The TOEFL for example, does very little to enforce a good output level of skill in English. It kind of ensures that the person _understands_ English, but writing and especially speaking it.. Yeah.

The second thing is that most students going from Brazil to other countries (and the US is the top choice) are part of at least 1 of 2 groups: Either they are from wealthy families and have had much above-average education throughout their entire lives, and therefore are usually just as good or often better than natives in the country they've chosen to go for higher education; or they are outstanding students (no matter the background) and earn their sponsoring through good grades, outstanding projects or simply put, what Obama called "being brilliant."

The third point is that, at least for Brazil, it is by no means "free." (and this is where my previous employment at that gov agency comes in.) A Brazilian student looking to go, for example, to the US for college, has 3 options:

1) They pay for it on their own (the wealthy family example I cited before);
2) The institution they are going to sees in them such an awesome potential that they sponsor it, much like they would with a native getting scholarship;
3) The Brazilian government (via agencies such as the one I used to work for) sponsors it, paying for it with Brazilian tax money.

Numbers #1 and #3 are obviously not free by any means, I believe that's clear. You could argue that #2 is "free" in the sense that the US is paying for it, and I'd agree with you if I didn't know some specifics of that deal. Here it is.

Countries around the world, and the US is probably the strongest one on this matter, enforce a rule about "exchanging students" in situations like #2 above. The way it works between a developed country, and the US in specific, is somewhat "exploitative" against developing countries like Brazil. Usually, US schools demand a ratio of X:1 (where X >= 1) to accept a Brazilian student under those circumstances. In exchange, Brazilian schools will have to accept X American students under similar conditions, and it's usually for Masters or PhD programs. In the end, the US still gains in the trade, because more American students come to Brazil to get higher-level education than Brazilian students get to go to the US for undergrad programs.

Another point to be cleared here is the fact that while Brazil does not have any schools standing at Ivy-League level of recognition, we have several, several schools that are good enough to be considered better than the alternatives right below Ivy-League. So at this point we need to remember that not everyone can be in an Ivy-League school. Most people end up going to "average" schools or below that "threshold". So in the end, coming to a top school in Brazil ends up being better than the alternatives they could face in the US, and that's not even taking into account the life experience of living in another country, learning another language, etc.

And yes, in the end, foreign students also come here "for free", get better education than most natives can get, and go back to their home countries with extra cultural and educational experience. It's not an exclusive thing in the US, the US is just under a brighter spotlight.


about 2 years ago

Mega Defends Its Security Practices

cseg Keep using the old method? (165 comments)

Encrypt it locally, upload it to the site for storage-only. Maybe use their whatever-it's-an-option encryption as added layer and call it a day. Isn't that how people do with other services like DropBox, anyways?

about 2 years ago

Woman's Nude Pics End Up Online After Call To Tech Support

cseg Jealousy rage more like it (197 comments)

I'd bet this is actually a case of jealousy.

My take is that she got jealous that her indian boyfriend fell in love with that blondie, then made all this crap up. Why? You can see a chat window where she was clearly talking to someone she had some sort of love (or at least close) relationship with. "I'm worried about you"? Is that something you'd tell a company's representative "helping" you with a tech problem?

So she got mad that he fell in love with someone else after "making" her send him a laptop, and made all this up.

more than 4 years ago

In Brazil, Google Fined For Content of Anonymous Posting

cseg It is much less damaging than you people think. (484 comments)

Hello, I'm going to start with a disclaimer:

Yes, I am Brazilian. No, I'm not a lawyer. My opinion on this matter is still undecided, as I think freedom of speech is necessary, but I disagree with lies and slander.

All that said, here's some info on what I'm about to post:

- The text I'm going to use is a technical analysis of the case by a lawyer, not my own. It is in Brazilian Portuguese, so feel free to make use of translation tools to verify anything you feel is incorrectly translated.

- I got the text from http://www.leonardi.adv.br/blog/decisao-tj-mg-1024107021588-40011/ , but I fear the /. effect should take that down rather quickly. I will try to paste the text in full here, in the faint hope that such thing will decrease the number of hits that poor site is going to endure.

Basically saying, what some of you have asked/pointed out/debated is exactly what happened here. The original story is one of many cases where the real story is "reworked" to make impact, selectively leaving out what is not adding to their "fancy argument" and causing debate.

The Brazilian judge did ask Google for information on an anonymous poster who created an Orkut Community defaming the priest in question. Google refused to provide such information (Google Brasil told the judge that this would have been a decision by Google Inc., not Google Brasil). The court then demanded Google to provide all information regarding the post(s) as possible, and Google said nothing could be provided because the Community in question had already been deleted, as well as the user ID who created it.

The court then ruled that Google should be fined for losing sensitive proof about the law suit and therefore it "helped" someone commit a crime and get away with it. As correctly exposed by others before, in Brazil it is legal to exercise your freedom of speech, but it is not legal to do so anonymously.

Let it be completely clear that regardless of how much was omitted from the original story, there still seems to have quite a lot of misunderstanding from the Brazilian law system on the matter (which is well-known for being still in development, also something someone else pointed before). The whole thing is a mess, but this is not a case of Brazil blocking freedom of speech. It is about someone posting lies and slander online anonymously, which is a against the Brazilian legislation.

TLDR: Google was not fined because someone posted lies and slander on one of its websites, it was fined because it refused to provide the government of Brazil with proof of who, what and when did it.

Here is the text, for those who want to play with it:

Decisão TJ-MG 1.0241.07.021588-4/001(1)

dezembro 21, 2007
Decisão do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Minas Gerais, entendendo que não há urgência no pedido de fornecimento de dados cadastrais e de conexão de usuário responsável por ato ilícito praticado por meio do web site Orkut.com.
De acordo com a decisão, “não se discute a importância do fornecimento, pelo responsável pelo site de relacionamentos, dos nomes e documentos referentes aos criadores e mediadores da página da internet, mas apenas a ausência de urgência ou necessidade de provimento antecipado do pedido, quando o mesmo pode ser realizado quando da fase instrutória do feito, que pode seguir o seu regular procedimento, sem que haja perigo para o direto da requerente”.
O equívoco da decisão, porém, está em desconhecer que, na esmagadora maioria dos casos, os dados de conexão fornecidos por um provedor de conteúdo precisam ser complementados com dados cadastrais de um provedor de acesso, os quais podem ser perdidos com a passagem do tempo, tendo em vista que não temos, ainda, legislação específica que determine o prazo de manutenção desses dados, por parte do provedor.
Número do processo: 1.0241.07.021588-4/001(1)
Relator do Acordão: ALVIMAR DE ÁVILA
Data do Julgamento: 20/06/2007
Data da Publicação: 30/06/2007
Inteiro Teor:

EMENTA: AGRAVO DE INSTRUMENTO – PEDIDO DE ANTECIPAÇÃO DE TUTELA – RETIRADA DE PÁGINA DA INTERNET – ORKUT – EXTINÇÃO DA ‘COMUNIDADE’ – PERDA DO OBJETO – FORNECIMENTO DE DOCUMENTOS SOBRE OS CRIADORES DA PÁGINA – AUSÊNCIA DE URGÊNCIA – INDEFERIMENTO. Julga-se prejudicado o exame das alegações de recurso em relação à determinação da retirada da página da internet, diante da sua exclusão do site de relacionamento. Ausente a demonstração da urgência, do fundado receio de dano irreparável ou de difícil reparação, impõe-se o indeferimento da tutela antecipada quanto ao fornecimento de documentos sobre os criadores da página da internet atacada, devendo-se observar o regular prosseguimento do feito.

Vistos etc., acorda, em Turma, a 12 CÂMARA CÍVEL do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Minas Gerais, na conformidade da ata dos julgamentos e das notas taquigráficas, à unanimidade de votos, EM CONHECER, EM PARTE DO RECURSO, PARA, NESTE PONTO, DAR PROVIMENTO.
Belo Horizonte, 20 de junho de 2007.
Trata-se de agravo de instrumento aviado por Google Brasil Internet Ltda., nos autos da “ação cominatória c/c indenização, com pedido de antecipação de tutela, em regime de urgência” movida por Neusa do Rosário Gomes, contra decisão que deferiu o pedido de tutela antecipada (f. 131/134-TJ).
A agravante, em suas razões recursais de f. 02/31, alega, preliminarmente, a ilegitimidade ativa ad causam da agravada, por não demonstrar sua relação de parentesco com o ofendido, e sua própria ilegitimidade passiva, sob o fundamento de que a empresa requerida não se confunde com a responsável pela veiculação do site de relacionamentos “orkut”, de responsabilidade da pessoa jurídica norte-americana denominada Google INC.. Aponta, ainda, a perda parcial do objeto da decisão liminar, diante da extinção da página atacada dos domínios da internet.
No mérito, sustenta que não tem capacidade técnica ou acesso à página do “orkut” para cumprir as decisões do Juízo de primeiro grau. Assim, assevera que está sendo coagida a realizar uma obrigação de fazer sobre a qual não possui qualquer ingerência ou poderes, sendo de se ressaltar a irreversibilidade da medida e o fato de que a multa diária cominada irá comprometer os ativos da sociedade de forma completamente ilícita.
Argumenta, ainda, que não há urgência necessária à antecipação de tutela quanto ao pedido de fornecimento dos protocolos de internet dos responsáveis pela veiculação das notícias no site, inclusive pela impossibilidade jurídica e técnica de se identificar o criador e os mediadores da “comunidade” veiculada no site, ante a proteção constitucional ao sigilo das comunicações e inviolabilidade do sigilo de dados previstas no art. 5, inciso XII, da CF/88, e pela impossibilidade técnica de obtenção de dados de usuários.
Por fim, aduz que, para que se cumpra a determinação judicial, dever ser expedido ofício à empresa Google norte-americana para que forneça os dados porventura existentes dos responsáveis pela “comunidade” objeto da demanda. Pugna pela reforma da decisão, com o indeferimento da tutela antecipada. Junta documentos de f. 39/160-TJ.
A agravada apresentou contraminuta de f. 172/174, pugnando pela manutenção da r. decisão recorrida.
Primeiramente, alega a agravante, em sede preliminar, a perda parcial do objeto da decisão liminar, uma vez que não mais se encontra disponível na internet a “comunidade Judas X Esmeraldas”, objeto da demanda. Aponta que, provavelmente, a página foi retirada do ar pelo próprio site de relacionamentos do “Orkut” ou pelo criador da página, usuário denominado “Judas Iscariotes”.
Todavia, tem-se que, in casu, não ocorreu a perda parcial do objeto da liminar, que foi devidamente cumprida, ainda que não o tenha sido pela requerida.
Ocorre que, o que perdeu parcialmente o objeto foi o próprio recurso, uma vez que, cumprida em parte a antecipação de tutela, tal como deferida em primeiro grau, a recorrente não possui interesse em recorrer contra questão já ultrapassada nos autos.
Dessa forma, infere-se que, efetivamente, parte das razões recursais restaram prejudicadas pela exclusão da página atacada do site da internet.
Contudo, por vislumbrar que o agravo de instrumento aviado encontra outras razões de fundamento, conhece-se, em parte, do recurso, já que presentes os pressupostos para a sua admissibilidade.
Inicialmente, vale ressaltar que a r. decisão primeva de f. 165, que concedeu efeito suspensivo ao recurso, apenas fez análise perfunctória dos fatos, à luz dos requisitos ensejadores da medida postulada, evidentemente, sem adentrar no mérito, que, posteriormente, seria analisado.
Entretanto, sem intuito de travar qualquer questiúncula processual, rechaço por inteiro as aleivosias assacadas contra o prolator da decisão, em contraminuta (f. 172), que pouco recomendam o seu subscritor.
Feitas essas considerações, passa-se à análise dos argumentos lançados no recurso.
Preliminarmente, alega a agravante a ilegitimidade ativa ad causam da agravada, por não demonstrar sua relação de parentesco com o ofendido, e sua própria ilegitimidade passiva, sob o fundamento de que a empresa requerida não se confunde com a responsável pela veiculação do site de relacionamentos “orkut”, de responsabilidade da pessoa jurídica norte-americana denominada Google INC..
Em que pese a inteligência das alegações da recorrente, entende-se que as preliminares argüidas não merecem apreciação nesta oportunidade, uma vez que sequer foram decididas pelo Juízo monocrático, o que importaria em violação ao duplo grau de jurisdição, devendo o recurso limitar-se tão somente à concessão da antecipação de tutela pela magistrada a quo.
Nesse sentido, o escólio jurisprudencial:
“Agravo de Instrumento – Apresentação de matéria nova não apreciada na decisão recorrida – Inadmissibilidade – Interpretação do art. 524, I e II do CPC.
- É inadmissível o recurso de agravo de instrumento que apresenta matéria nova não apreciada na decisão recorrida, tais como as ilegitimidades ativa e passiva ad causam e a inadequação do meio processual utilizado pela agravada para conseguir o deferimento da liminar requerida na ação ordinária inominada, uma vez que não atende as exigências determinadas pelo art. 524, I e II do CPC” (RT 735/380).
Assim, ultrapassam-se as preliminares de ilegitimidade ativa e passiva argüidas pela agravante e passa-se ao exame das questões relativas à concessão da tutela antecipada.
Constitui o instituto da tutela antecipada, estabelecida no artigo 273 do Código de Processo Civil, meio apto a permitir ao Poder Judiciário efetivar, de modo célere e eficaz, a proteção dos direitos em via de serem molestados, e a sua outorga deve assentar-se na plausibilidade do direito substancial invocado pela requerente, verossimilhança do que foi argüido, impondo-se a necessidade de se ter uma aparência inconteste de que se trata da verdade real e, ainda, que “haja fundado receio de dano irreparável ou de difícil reparação”.
Esses requisitos, básicos e essenciais ao deferimento da medida em tese, necessariamente, hão de ser observados pelo magistrado com as cautelas naturais inerentes ao exercício da atividade jurisdicional, analisando, com rigor, a gravidade e a extensão do prejuízo alegado pela demandante, e a real existência da verossimilhança do direito deduzido pela parte.
Sabe-se que a tutela antecipada exige, diversamente da tutela cautelar, requisitos muito mais rígidos para a sua concessão, posto que importa em antecipação provisória dos efeitos da sentença.
Teori Albino Zavascki, ensina a este respeito que:
“Antecipar, portanto, significa satisfazer, total ou parcialmente o direito afirmado pelo autor e, sendo assim, não se pode confundir medida antecipatória com antecipação da sentença. O que se antecipa não é propriamente a certificação do direito, nem a constituição e tampouco a condenação porventura pretendidas como tutela definitiva. Antecipam-se, isto sim, os efeitos executivos daquela tutela. Em outras palavras: não se antecipa a eficácia jurídico-formal (ou seja, a eficácia declaratória constitutiva e condenatória) da sentença; antecipa-se a eficácia que a futura sentença pode produzir no campo da realidade dos fatos. ()
Pois bem, conforme antes se afirmou, a medida antecipatória é medida que se destina a atender uma situação de urgência, a afastar um perigo de dano ao direito de uma das partes, em função da demora da prestação da tutela definitiva.
Ora, quando se fala em urgência, em dano, em periculum in mora, está-se falando em fatos, e não em abstrações. Perigo é fenômeno concreto, e não formal. No plano jurídico-formal, ou seja, no mundo dos pensamentos, a eficácia da sentença não se sujeita a perigo algum. A mora jamais será empecilho a que a sentença definitiva produza seus efeitos no plano abstrato.
Não há perigo que possa comprometer a tutela jurisdicional no que tange a declarar direitos, ou a constituir e desconstituir relações jurídicas, ou a impor condenações. O perigo, quando existe, diz respeito à eficácia social da sentença, ou seja, à sua aptidão para tornar concreta sua eficácia jurídico-formal. É nesse plano que se instala o periculum in mora, e é a eficácia nesse plano, conseqüentemente, a que deve ser antecipada.
Daí a razão de se reafirmar antecipar efeitos da tutela definitiva não é antecipar a sentença, mas, sim, antecipar os efeitos executivos que a futura sentença poderá produzir no plano social (Medidas Cautelares e Medidas Antecipatórias: Técnicas Diferentes, Função Constitucional Semelhante”, Revista de Processo, n. 82, p.56).
Assim, a antecipação da tutela é medida excepcional e deve ser deferida quando presentes os seus pressupostos autorizadores, inseridos no art. 273 da lei adjetiva: a existência de prova inequívoca das alegações contidas no pedido, o fundado receio de dano irreparável ou de difícil reparação ou abuso de direito, além da ausência de risco da irreversibilidade do deferimento antecipado.
Na hipótese dos autos, aponta a agravante que não há urgência necessária à antecipação de tutela quanto ao pedido de fornecimento dos protocolos de internet dos responsáveis pela veiculação das notícias no site, inclusive pela impossibilidade jurídica e técnica de se identificar o criador e os mediadores da “comunidade” veiculada no site de relacionamentos, ante a proteção constitucional ao sigilo das comunicações e inviolabilidade do sigilo de dados previstas no art. 5, inciso XII, da CF/88, e pela impossibilidade técnica de obtenção de dados de usuários.
De fato, entende-se que, in casu, o fornecimento de documentos que demonstrem a identidade dos criadores da página atacada, responsáveis pelas notícias degradantes à imagem do Padre Celso, não se reveste da necessária urgência, requisito para a antecipação dos efeitos da tutela.
Ora, não se discute a importância do fornecimento, pelo responsável pelo site de relacionamentos, dos nomes e documentos referentes aos criadores e mediadores da página da internet, mas apenas a ausência de urgência ou necessidade de provimento antecipado do pedido, quando o mesmo pode ser realizado quando da fase instrutória do feito, que pode seguir o seu regular procedimento, sem que haja perigo para o direto da requerente.
Ademais, como aduziu a recorrente, a concessão da tutela antecipada para o fornecimento dos documentos, tal como requerida, esbarra em uma discussão quanto à garantia constitucional do sigilo de dados, que deve ser cuidadosamente analisada, no momento oportuno, pelo que não cabe uma análise superficial e perfunctória do pedido, diante de sua complexidade.
Pelo exposto, CONHECE-SE, EM PARTE, DO RECURSO, PARA, NESTE PONTO, DAR-LHE PROVIMENTO, para reformar parcialmente a r. decisão recorrida, indeferindo-se a tutela antecipada quanto ao pedido de fornecimento de informações e dados técnicos dos responsáveis pela criação e manutenção da “comunidade Judas X Esmeraldas” no site de relacionamentos do “Orkut”. No mais, mantém-se a r. decisão agravada, por seus próprios e jurídicos fundamentos.
As custas recursais devem ser igualmente repartidas entre as partes, ficando suspensa a sua exigibilidade em relação à agravada, por litigar sob o pálio da justiça gratuita.
Votaram de acordo com o(a) Relator(a) os Desembargador(es): SALDANHA DA FONSECA e DOMINGOS COELHO.
AGRAVO N 1.0241.07.021588-4/001
Textos relacionados:
Decisão TJ-MG 1.0024.08.041302-4/001(1)
Decisão TJ-MG 1.0040.06.047973-6/001(1)
Decisão TJ-SP 554.668-4/8
Decisão TJ-RS 70020106688
Decisão TJ-MG 1.0024.07.448859-4/001(1)

more than 3 years ago


cseg hasn't submitted any stories.


cseg has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?