Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Turns Over Data on Suspected Pedophiles In Brazil

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday April 24, 2008 @09:44AM (#23181882)
    On Wednesday they handed over information on pedophiles

    On Thursday they handed over information on terrorists

    On Friday they handed over information on file-sharers

    On Saturday they handed over information on everyone

    Wednesday was the hardest. Every day after that it got easier and easier.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Xacid (560407)
      Actually, on Friday I'm in love. :) However, privacy and yadda yadda yadda. Pedophiles are the lowest of the lowest in my book. Why not use social networking sites as tools to catch those guys? If anything it'll deter them from using those sites to chase their prey.
      • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:08AM (#23182174)
        They always start with the "lowest of the low" precisely because they know no one will object to it. But they NEVER stop there. The next step is "Well, since you gave us information on these really bad guys, you can't object to giving us info on these *sorta* bad guys" which snowballs to the point where the government eventually just has its own monitoring room [wired.com] at your facility to watch *everyone*.
        • by kestasjk (933987) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:14AM (#23182252) Homepage

          They always start with the "lowest of the low" precisely because they know no one will object to it. But they NEVER stop there. The next step is "Well, since you gave us information on these really bad guys, you can't object to giving us info on these *sorta* bad guys" which snowballs to the point where the government eventually just has its own monitoring room [wired.com] at your facility to watch *everyone*.
          Are you saying Google shouldn't do everything it can to wipe this evil from our planet? Pedophile!! Burn the witch!
        • Given that goggle have been using picture analysis to help catch paedophiles for a long time, and that catching pedos inst evil by anybody's standards, id say that they draw the line at paedophiles.

          Also this has nothing to do with google search, just their social networking site.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by tha_mink (518151)

            Given that goggle have been using picture analysis to help catch paedophiles for a long time, and that catching pedos inst evil by anybody's standards, id say that they draw the line at paedophiles.

            I think it's funny that the same people who would argue against the "slippery slope" stance when it's used in situations like video game violence or television censors, have no problem standing on the slippery slope soapbox when it comes to internet privacy. Why is it so hard for people to believe that yeah, there can be a line. If a law is being broken in full view of the public on the internet and Google can help the authorities find out who is doing it, then yeah, give it up. What's the difference be

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nospam007 (722110)

          They always start with the "lowest of the low" precisely because they know no one will object to it.

          Problem is laws change over time. Once it was the liquor smugglers, the blacks, the jews, nowadays it's the peds or the maryjane growers.
          Lot's of cultures have no problem marrying/having sex with 10-12 year olds, some of those cultures even in the US if I believe the recent news about that mormon sect.
          Shakespeare had no problem in his puritan times with a play about Juliet being "not yet fifteen".
      • by ultranova (717540) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:00AM (#23183094)

        However, privacy and yadda yadda yadda. Pedophiles are the lowest of the lowest in my book. Why not use social networking sites as tools to catch those guys? If anything it'll deter them from using those sites to chase their prey.

        Apart from the fact that "pedophiles" and "child molesters" aren't the same group, but two partially overlapping groups, the chances are that you are the lowest of the low in someone's book. If it's okay to ignore someone's rights because he's a pedophile, then it's also okay to ignore someone's rights because that someone happens to be you. Sure, you'd disagree - but then again, the people who's rights you refused to defend also disagreed, and it didn't do them much good, so it won't do much good for you either.

        Child molesters are certainly scum. However, if you allow them to be deprived of their rights - including the right to privacy - then you are eroding the rights of both them and the children. Please think of the children and nip this in the bud !

        Please also understand that "pedophiles" are, as far as authorities are concerned, no different than "terrorists" - a convenient boogeyman to keep people scared and act as X in "if we don't pass this law, the X win". It's a lot easier to turn the Internet into a tighly-controlled channel - and thus unable to threaten the status quo by letting people publish leaked information anonymously - if you can sell it as protecting children rather than protecting politicians.

        Finally, the pedophilia boogeyman is already starting to hurt the very children supposedly protected; as an extreme example, there was a teen who got busted for uploading her own pictures, not to mention the couple who were arrested for sending each other pictures of themselves. Of course it hurts everyone else too - for example, this guy [www.cbc.ca] was thrown to prison and put to sex offender register for writing fiction.

        • by LingNoi (1066278)

          was thrown to prison and put to sex offender register for writing fiction.
          Can you not even read your own links?! Second sentence.

          He pleaded guilty earlier this year to distributing child pornography.
          He was distributing pictures of naked children, it had nothing to do with his fiction.

          Wanna stop your pro child pornography speech now?
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ultranova (717540)

            He was distributing pictures of naked children, it had nothing to do with his fiction.

            The fiction is the pornography in question - you did know the term covers literature too, rather than just pictures ? From the link, with emphasis added by me for your benefit:

            On Tuesday, a judge sentenced Simon Houston to 15 months in jail, to be followed by three years of probation.

            He pleaded guilty earlier this year to distributing child pornography.

            Court heard Houston posted stories about having sex with childr

      • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:02AM (#23183144)
        I'm pretty sure filesharers are the lowest of the lowest in the books of the RIAA. So who gets to decide where to stop? Or where to start? Or what to do altogether? You? The RIAA? The government?

        It's called the salami attack. You start with something everyone (or nearly everyone, except maybe the pedophiles) agrees with. Or at least doesn't dare to speak out against. Who'd stand up to defend the pedos? Many people would readily agree that this is actually a good idea. Some more won't care. And a few won't mind. Then you tackle the next fringe group. Terrorists are a good target, mostly because it's another group nobody readily allies with. In the wake you will find someone from another group that just happens to be in one of the first groups, which is a nice tool to say that this other group needs to be monitored, too, because you noticed that, say, a few gays also happened to be pedophiles, so it's time to monitor the gay communities. Again, some will agree, some will not care, some will not mind.

        Over time, it becomes the norm. And it doesn't matter anymore whether you agree, care or mind.
      • by Cairnarvon (901868) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:22AM (#23183534) Homepage
        The sad part is that you got modded Insightful. Note that these are only *suspected* pedophiles, and apparently the authorities couldn't even be bothered to get a warrant to get the same information through legal, uncontroversial channels.
        Kneejerk reactions like yours ruin society for the rest of us, far more so than a handful of pedophiles, real or alleged, ever could.
    • by JSBiff (87824) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @09:57AM (#23182042) Journal
      Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting people's rights from undue invasion by governments. But there is also a need for governments to get access to information for criminal investigations. It's just as unreasonable to say that government should have no access to information about suspected terrorists and pedophiles, as it is to say that the government should have access to *everyones* information.
      • There's a mile of difference between "probable cause" and "suspect".
        If I called in a tip that I heard my neighbor's kid cry the other day, that would make my neighbor a child abuse suspect, no matter how likely he is to be innocent. Should that be enough to void all his rights to privacy?
      • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:20AM (#23182318)
        If you had RTFA, you would see that the government didn't get warrants for any of these "suspects" and freely admitted that there wasn't enough evidence to do so. This isn't a case of some cop going before a judge and saying "Your honor, I need to subpoena this guy's records because I suspect he's a pedophile and here's my preliminary evidence." This was a case of the government saying "Here's a list of names. Give us all their information and don't ask any questions."
      • by Sancho (17056) *
        That reasonable middle ground is due process. The article was extremely light on the details of how due process works in Brazil, and whether or not such processes were followed.

        If this had been the US government, the Constitution and years of constitutional law and judicial rulings would have required a subpoena, signed by a judge, and pertaining to specific data before Google would give up the information.

        Of course, 6 years of recent executive power would have required only the waterboarding of Google's C
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The current investigation is not part of a judicial process. It's a congressional one. Kinda like how your congress brought in a bunch of baseball players to talk about performance enhancement drugs (so they could avoid actually getting work done).

          It is basically a flimsy list. Lots of it is just teenagers being raunchy. The line does get blurred between the 16-22 demographic.

          As an aside:

          If this had been the US government, the Constitution and years of constitutional law and judicial rulings would have required a subpoena

          Brazil doesn't use "English" Common Law. It uses "Roman/French" Civil Law, which means the only thing that is pertinent

      • We're *all* suspected terrorists and pedophiles in the eyes of the government.
      • by MrMacman2u (831102) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:57AM (#23183036) Journal

        It's just as unreasonable to say that government should have no access to information about suspected terrorists and pedophiles, as it is to say that the government should have access to *everyones* information.
        The problem with your statement is that pesky little word "suspected".

        ANYONE can be a "suspect" in the eyes of the government if they want information about you. Granted, your logic is all fine and dandy IF the ruling bodies of this country could be trusted any further than I could throw the White House. (Just a FYI, I CAN'T)

        It plays like this:

        Gov't: "We want information on the online activities Mr. John Doe of 333 West Burbank Ave., WTF, TX 11123"

        Web Service: "Sorry, that information is private to the individual."

        Gov't: "Ok then, we want information on the online activities of the SUSPECTED TERRORIST/PEDOPHILE/CURRENT 'EVIL' PERSON OF THE MINUTE Mr. John Doe of 333 West Burbank Ave., WTF, TX 11123, but, we don't have a warrant so we'll just invoke the 'Patriot Act'"

        Web Service: "Oh! Ok then!

        The sad part is, Mr. Doe has never done anything more wrong in his meager life than cross against the light.

        What's that do for your "warm fuzzies" for helping rid the world of "suspected evil"?

        The word "suspect(ed)" is used faaaaar too liberally by the government in order to get what they want. If they had our best intentions at heart and only used "suspect" when it was GENUINELY APPROPRIATE, I'd have far less of a reason to complain or worry.

        But they don't, so I do.

        Frankly, I'm disappointed in Google. Yes, the whole "stop the pedo's" has a strong pull, but there are so many ways to track/monitor/obtain evidence against "wrong-doers" today that there is practically no circumstances where a corporation turning over a individual's private information should be acceptable.

        Ignorance causes people to hide behind the falsity "If you have nothing to hide then why do you need privacy?". The sad fact is, everyone, and I really DO mean EVERYONE, has SOMETHING that they don't want to be made public knowledge, period.

        The all mighty governing body of this or other countries does NOT need to know everything about everyone and nor should they.

        Our society has regressed several hundred years and we're all the way back to the Salem Witch Trials where we are all going around accusing each other of being hepatics when now many of the REAL criminals and wrong-doers are RUNNING THE COURTS while the rest of the ones that should be being caught are still running around doing what they will because we're all too busy hurling accusations at innocent people.

        Just to wrap up here, allowing the government access to private factors of an individual by simply slapping the term "suspect" in front of their name is an extremely slippery slope that will only lead to tears as yet more of the principals this country was originally founded on crumble to dust.

        This was NOT a good thing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Phyrexicaid (1176935)
      Pedo's ruin it for everyone!
    • by kabocox (199019) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:00AM (#23182072)
      On Wednesday they handed over information on pedophiles
      On Thursday they handed over information on terrorists
      On Friday they handed over information on file-sharers
      On Saturday they handed over information on everyone
      Wednesday was the hardest. Every day after that it got easier and easier.


      What are you talking about? Wednesday they had to hand over every one's data because everyone is suspected of being a pedophile, which is now defined as communicating in any form with a minor.
    • Guess your post says it all. For those who didn't RTFA, here is the really short dramatic version:

      ... Authorities had threatened Google with criminal and civil lawsuits ...
      ... ceding to pressure to lift its confidentiality duty to its users ...
      ... a wide-ranging deal that would see the US company systematically providing data on suspect Orkut users to Brazilian authorities ...
      ... the company had "no problem cooperating with Brazilian justice" ...

    • I was watching some TV news show 2 or 3 weeks ago, about the idea of businesses becoming "Big Brother". (May have been a Dateline episode or some such thing... I only caught the middle of it.)

      But anyway, it went into the ways the big ISPs and search engine sites are co-operating with govt. and law enforcement, happily turning over considerable amounts of information. It told a story, for example, of a guy who was convicted of murdering his wife on the beach, despite his initial alibi holding up. Appare
    • I don't know anything about Brazilian law - so somebody who does might clue the rest of us in, but...

      In most countries the deal is that if you know somebody is a pedophile (convicted or registered by choice - rare as that may be), then a case worker gets to know 'their every move' as it is, including online dealings. If the caseworker thinks the person has a MySpace account and wants access to it - that case worker can order the person to reveal their login details. If the person then refuses, they can ge
    • And that's what's called the Slippery Slope fallacy [wikipedia.org].

      Where is the link between information obtained on criminal activity and information obtained on everyone?

      As for your inclusion of file-sharing: that's an issue of the law, not an issue of privacy. If it becomes illegal to share files, then it's the fault of the lawmakers for making it so, and the voters for voting them in, not Google or anyone else for complying with the law and turning over information on criminal activity.

      Of course, there's a time and pl
    • It's funny how everyone bends over backward to prevent companies from doing the right thing and then at the end of the day they wonder why our society is going to hell in a hand-basket.

      The other day some local journalists were very upset because police used their unedited film footage to identify and arrest store looters (rioting occurred after a local hockey game).

      I mean, the *nerve* of that police! How dare they try to arrest looters? Today they're using the footage to arrest looters, tomorrow they'll use
      • by arth1 (260657)

        After all, they weren't cracking down on the pedophiles because the way they look or because of their personal beliefs, rather they did this because some of these people actually went out and abused children!

        Note your words "some of". Should the rest of them be punished for what some of them did?

        This isn't about protecting criminals. It's about protecting innocents, because it does happen that innocent people become suspects. That's why they're called suspects, and not criminals.
        Except by the lynch mob w

    • Do you honestly believe the privacy should trump child molestation?

      Absolutes are wrong more often than not.

      Which do you think applies more to "Don't Be Evil", protecting pedophiles, or protecting privacy?

      And for the record, Google has the best privacy record out there. When the government wanted search data, Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo handed it over instantly. I believe Microsoft and Yahoo handed it over even BEFORE THEY WERE ASKED for the data.

      Google fought to protect it. Privacy should be preserved, but
      • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @11:18AM (#23183474)
        Do you honestly believe the privacy should trump child molestation?

        I believe privacy should trump having a hunch. There is a difference between "we have good reason to suspect that person and need something to nail the coffin" and "we think he might be a pedo, so hand over anything you have about him so we can get some evidence against him".

        I'm fairly sure you can nail me as a terrorist by my google search records. Or as a communist. Or drug cook. Or as anything you want, bluntly. I have a wide range of interests, none of which are in any way "illegal" per se, but can sometimes be used for illegal means.

        We're on the verge of making knowledge illegal. Scratch the verge, we're already there with making it illegal to inform people of bomb building. Yes, I know how to make a bomb out of rather easily gathered over the counter chemicals. That doesn't make me a terrorist. I know how to make LSD. That doesn't make me the next drug cook. I read "The Capital" online. That doesn't make me a communist. And I did a lot of other things online that can be forged into evidence with some creativity. I wouldn't even deem it impossible to make me a pedophile by my search records, maybe something I searched for was some sort of code for a pedo page.

        That's the difference here.
    • On Saturday they handed over information on everyone

      Including information on the police, the lawyers, the judges, the politicians and their favourite prosties...
    • Oh no, it's the easiest. Or do you want pedophiles to run free? Are you supporting kiddy porn? Thinkofthechildren!
  • Ask (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Joseph1337 (1146047)
    Let`s ask Google how much our private data is worth.
    Many times 'suspected' means 'guilty' after emotions applied
  • Do no evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arth1 (260657) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @09:51AM (#23181980) Homepage Journal
    Cause you know, everyone is entitled to protection of privacy unless suspected (quite possibly innocent, but suspected) of crime-du-jour, whether today's hatred is towards child abuse, terrorism or being member of a communist party. And of course, a government would never abuse the special right to treat suspects of such a crime differently to, say, use suspicion of such a crime as a pretext to get at others. Oh, no, that'd never happen!

    As much as I may hate child abusers and terrorists, I think suspects of such crimes should be offered the same Ius Commune rights as everyone else -- they should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and mere suspicion should never be enough to remove rights that you and I enjoy. But then again, I'm a commie mutant, so I probably shouldn't have any rights either...
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Tim C (15259)
      Cause you know, everyone is entitled to protection of privacy unless suspected (quite possibly innocent, but suspected) of crime-du-jour, whether today's hatred is towards child abuse, terrorism or being member of a communist party.

      Playing devil's advocate for a moment, but surely investigation of a person suspected of criminal behaviour requires an invasion of their privacy? How else do you gather the information necessary to ascertain their guilt or innocence?

      Now TFA makes no reference to subpoenas being
      • by iamsamed (1276082) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:16AM (#23182280)
        ...need to be denied suspects until their innocence is proven,...

        Interesting slip there.

        You are innocent until proven guilty; at least, in theory, in America.

        • Mod Parent UP! (Score:3, Informative)

          by steelfood (895457)
          Wish I had mod points myself.

          Innocent until proven guilty is not by any means a recent concept. The concept was around even during ancient greece.

          This idea is key to democracy, as otherwise, there can be no freedom if everyone has to prove their innocence at every turn. Because the US is turning into a guilty until proven innocent state, especially where heinous crimes like terrorism or child abuse are concerned (and Iraq--musn't forget Iraq), it is exactly the kind of indicator that this country is turnin
      • by arth1 (260657)
        Suspicion should never be enough to get a warrant. Probable cause, yes, and even strong suspicion with corroborating evidence. But mere suspicion? Never. That will open the barn door to abuse, and we're back to McCarthy.

        Or, for immediate actions without a warrant, only when you can justify a belief that immediate action was needed to save the lives or health of others.
      • by FauxPasIII (75900)
        > It's not as cut and dried as that unfortunately. Sometimes certain rights - like the right
        > to liberty - need to be denied suspects until their innocence is proven, due to the risk of
        > their committing further offences, or of fleeing justice.

        That all depends on where your society places its priorities. Is it more important to take
        every possible opportunity to capture lawbreakers, even if it means casting an overly wide net?
        Or is protecting the rights of the innocent the most fundamental priority
        • by nametaken (610866)
          I guess the difficult part then is context.

          I'd rather 1 innocent person had their Orkut info turned over to their Gov than let 100 pedo's get away with the things they do.

          Now if we're talking about falsely imprisoning or god forbid executing 1 innocent person in our efforts to lock up 100 pedo's... the situation becomes unacceptable.

          Maybe it would be a non-issue if I had a better idea of the difference between suspicion and probably cause was, in Brazil.
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      Okay but.
      It does appear that they where posting data to a social networking site. Sorry but right there I say even if it is marked private it isn't really all that private.
      Also it does look like they where guilty of the crime. Sorry but child abuse isn't exactly the crime-du-jour. Kiddie porn has been an issue for a while and so child molestation.
      I am trying to see just what is wrong here? It isn't like Google was handing over bloggers that where pushing for democracy. It looks like Google turned over data
    • by DrWho520 (655973)
      He stressed that Brazilian officials had received 50,000 allegations of pedophilia in recent years, and that Orkut was suspected of being an online gathering point for sexual predators of children.

      The state prosecutor for Sao Paulo, Sergio Suiama, last month said 90 percent of the 56,000 pedophilia allegations received in the past few years related to Orkut.

      "They are exchanging telephone numbers, names of possible victims, the situations in which they live" as well as photos, the senator said.

      How m
  • Although I usually hate the "slippery slope" argument, I think this is really one case where it is valid. Today they decide that it is ok to release the information on SUSPECTED pedophiles. Once you've opened the gates on something like this it is very hard to close it. If suspected pedophiles are ok, how about suspected terrorists? Suspected murderers? Where do you draw the line?
    • by Chrisq (894406)

      Where do you draw the line?
      Suspected copyright infringes? Suspected "time thieves", who are using the internet at work? ..... oh.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by InlawBiker (1124825)
      You draw the line with a court order. No court order no data. This way it becomes a legal issue instead of a moral issue.
    • by arth1 (260657) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:07AM (#23182170) Homepage Journal
      Also, when did pedophilia become a crime? Child abuse, yes, that is a heinous crime.
      But why should someone who just fantasizes about sex with children be treated as a criminal? Because he or she might have a higher risk of abusing children in the future? Is that potential risk a criminal act people should be punished for? Does our hatred of the crime blind us so much that we are willing to harshly punish others who have done no wrong in order to possibly save more children?

      In my opinion, this doesn't turn the pedophiles into monsters; it turns us into monsters.
      • But why should someone who just fantasizes about sex with children be treated as a criminal?

        Because BEST CASE is someone who doesn't act on their desires. That is the best case. Figure everyone is somewhere close to the middle of best/worse case scenario. That is the law of averages. Now think about that. Your next door neighbor loves fantasizing about sex with children, and you have a child. Said neighbor has the likelyhood of being somewhere in the middle between "Harmless man who likes fantasizing abou
      • Also, when did pedophilia assimilate the meaning of ephebophilia.
        Are we simplifying the language to make thought-crime impossible?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cowwoc2001 (976892)
      If they have a reasonable lead and take it to a judge then I really fail to see your line of reasoning here.

      If there *is* a strong suspicion that someone is involved in murder or terrorism (whether through physical evidence or witness testimony) and a judge clears this then I hope to heck they don't pussyfoot around the guy's privacy.
      • This is precisely the reasoning in search warrants. When you have a warrant or probable cause, then up-holding laws at that moment trumps the privacy of the suspect.

        Honestly I will be alarmed and concerned when Google hands over data of every user in Brazil as a means to catch a small group of pedophiles.
  • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @09:58AM (#23182060)
    Lets hope the police are better than the UK police, who basically ruined this man's life on a false allegation of being a paedophile [bbc.co.uk].

    It would be one ting if they had a reasonable amount of evidence, but it seems that it was all based on his credit card being used to pay for kiddie porn. Like how many purvs will use their own cards. Anyway, he later found that the computer that entered his details was in Indonesia, and could prove that he was in the UK at the time ... something the police should have looked into before charging him.
  • by Janos421 (1136335) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @09:59AM (#23182070)
    "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
    -Cardinal Richelieu

    I took this quote from Scroogled story...
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
      -Cardinal Richelieu

      I took this quote from Scroogled story...
      Would you please write 5 more lines?
  • by obonicus (1090353) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:16AM (#23182274)
    what the Brazilian government asked for is access to several private photo albums for these suspected pedophiles. Apparently there were several Orkut communities being used to trade kiddy porn.
  • by prxp (1023979) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:22AM (#23182364)
    If a crime is committed, there will be a police investigation. The police then requests court orders to acquire private data belonging to the suspects. If the court finds there's reasonable evidence backing up the requests, it will gran them.. The police will then present the court order to the ISP and the ISP has to comply. That's how things already work in the US for all ISPs, including google.
    The exact same procedure was followed in Brazil for this pedofilia case. As a matter of fact, the procedure was followed several times, but google failed to comply with all Brazilian's court orders regarding this matter. The case had to reach a senate comittee investigation ( which in Brazil functions similarly to a judicial investigation, but with more resources) in order to Google to comply with the court order.
    Google's excuse for not complying with court order, you ask? Well, google told the Brazilian justice system that since the order wasn't isued within the USA they couldn't do a thing about it.
    So that's it, folks, do panic for the same thing that's happening in Brazil has been happening in the US for quite a long time. The only difference is that google has kind of a hard time respecting Brazil's sovereigny.
    • Google's excuse for not complying with court order, you ask? Well, google told the Brazilian justice system that since the order wasn't isued within the USA they couldn't do a thing about it.
      So that's it, folks, do panic for the same thing that's happening in Brazil has been happening in the US for quite a long time. The only difference is that google has kind of a hard time respecting Brazil's sovereigny

      Mostly right except you are forgetting several things:

      • Google US is a US based company and is subject
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24, 2008 @10:24AM (#23182398)
    The article simply says "Authorities had threatened Google with criminal and civil lawsuits if it did not comply with opening the restricted online photo albums of users under suspicion".
    Which isn't quite the entire truth.
    See, for example, http://www.denunciar.org.br/twiki/bin/view/SaferNet/Noticia20071019015559En
    and you'll discover
    "But Google faced a growing wave of complaints, many instigated by Mr. Tavares. Sérgio Gardenghi Suiama, a federal prosecutor in São Paulo in charge of human rights, began flooding the company's Brazil office with subpoenas seeking identifying information, such as email addresses, of Orkut users accused of committing crimes online.

    Under direction from Google's U.S. headquarters, Mr. Hohagen refused to accept the subpoenas. Google's chief legal officer, David Drummond, traveled to Brazil to explain the situation."

    Eventually, authorities threatened to start arresting Google employees in Brazil, and courts started issuing threats of contempt, so they complied.

    Not sure what else you guys were expecting to happen?
  • by peter303 (12292) on Thursday April 24, 2008 @12:13PM (#23184622)
    Google logo change.

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...