Slashdot Log In
Google Denies Data In Brazil Orkut Case
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Sep 30, 2006 04:31 PM
from the whose-laws? dept.
from the whose-laws? dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Google Brazil Pressured to Give Up Names 263 comments
Kordau writes "Google Brazil is under pressure to release user info from Orkut, relating to a child porn investigation by the Brazilian government. Google Brazil maintains that the info officials want is held on US servers and if they want the info, they should talk to Google USA."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Google to Give Data To Brazilian Court 182 comments
Edu writes to mention a Washington Post article about Google's olive branch to the Brazilian courts. Despite previously refusing to reveal search information to the U.S. government, the company has announced they'll be releasing information on hate groups to the Brazilian courts. The move is intended to allow the Brazilian government to identify users associated with homophobic and racist groups. From the article: "Orkut pulls objectionable words and pictures from user sites, but Google stores content it feels could be useful in a lawsuit. Orkut is especially popular in Brazil, which accounts for 75 percent of its 17 million users. Legal and privacy experts said that Google had no choice but to comply with the court order. 'From the law enforcement perspective, if the records are in the possession of the business, the business can be compelled to produce them,' said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Kudos to google for protecting user's rights, though.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Kudos to google for protecting user's rights, though.
And kudos to you, sir, for using the word kerfuffle.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there was the small issue of a civil war, so i reckon there's probably a couple of constitutions with a beter track record.
The part about democratic is also flawed: i suggest that investigate "gerrymandering" to see how politicians make sure they get reelected whether or not they do a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, but "criminals" are different in each country, aren't they? From the article:
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 cri
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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!").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Orkut Policy .vs. ongoing enterprise (Score:2)
Google is no longer an ongoing enterprise, folks.
A serious question: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Who owns the data? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
They would have to prove you distroyed it interntionally. You know, hard drives crash, backup routines fail for mechanical and human error reasons...
brazilian orkut users? (Score:4, Funny)
Google is refusing for now... (Score:2)
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]
The downgrading of freedom (Score:2)
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
It is very simple (Score:2, Insightful)
So no, they are not preserving user rights, they are preventing the investigation to go forward.
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:2)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, not "criminalizing anything" but "criminalizing possession".
Second, Wikipedia is no place for opinions, including right/wrong values.
Incidentally, "outrageous" is also a value judgement.
Third, the AC reply (post #16264725 [slashdot.org]) presents a good case.
> where does this viewpoint come from?
Thinking about the society we live in and, analyzing where it is headed, talking to various peopl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:National soverignty vs the Internet vs pedophil (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Speech is Speech whether talking hate or sex.
Within the past week [thehometownchannel.com] a woman in my state, PA, was indicted by federal authorities for posting sexual stories online that included sex with children. My personal feelingis that as long as it was just words she shouldn't have been indicted, but the feds pretty much get to do whatever they want.
LK
Not (just) trolling (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)