Google Turns Over Data on Suspected Pedophiles In Brazil

Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, points to a Yahoo! story which begins "Google on Wednesday handed over data stored by suspected pedophiles on its Orkut social networking site to Brazilian authorities, ceding to pressure to lift its confidentiality duty to its users, officials said."

As far as I can tell...

[obonicus]

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.

Who posed for the pics, jackass?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a minor appears in a pornographic image, then a crime has already been committed. What, you can't find any willing partners, so you have to get off looking at pics of kids who were either forced or coerced by older, wiser adults? Doing so makes you a party of the original crime.

Have you guys even followed this case?

[Anonymous Coward]

These people had POSTED private albums that contained pornographic images of children. The gov wanted their identity in order to prosecute them.

It's not a case of "let's see if they are doing something wrong", it's a case of "what is the identity of the people who posted those images there and what else is in the now-private albums?"

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20080410-129449/Brazil-Senate-orders-Google-to-identify-website-pedophiles

The case for investigation has been made a long time ago not only for pedophiles groups but also for communities that were being used to traffic and sell illegal drugs. Google just didn't want to open up for search claiming the Brazilian court had no jurisdiction over it.

Some of you people seem to think privacy trumps everything else even when anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that crimes are being committed.

Isn't the entire story.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:There must be a reasonable middle ground somewh

[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 are the current laws on book. Judges give little weight to past jurisprudence.

Also we don't really have a bill of rights. We have a section in the constitution that enumerates rights but it contradicts itself (Not a bill of rights because it doesn't supercede the constitution). It starts by saying that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law but then mentions a few special rights for special groups. People with college degrees get to be in a jail cell by themselves for example.

Re:Once the government's bitch, evermore their bit

[foobsr]

Please name one example of facism we have in the US where someone was prosecuted for speaking out against the government.

McCarthyism [wikipedia.org]

CC.

Re:Once the government's bitch, evermore their bit

[Cairnarvon]

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.

Re:There must be a reasonable middle ground somewh

[tha_mink]

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.

What??? What article are you reading? Please quote said passage in the article.

Mod Parent UP!

[steelfood]

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 turning away from democracy and into something far worse.

Re:Stop it

[Enderandrew]

Not really. The Constitution touches on this. You can't be forced to self-incriminate, thusly you have a semblance of privacy. However, you can be searched with probable cause.

Re:Once the government's bitch, evermore their bit

[HiredMan]

Yeah - no one would be arrested for voicing their opinions. Like in NYC during the Republican convention. Or just standing next to someone who was...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/nyregion/12video.html [nytimes.com]

The FBI wouldn't spy on you for being in a peaceful anti-war group, right?
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MIL20060127&articleId=1835 [globalresearch.ca]

No one would be arrested because they wore an anti-Bush Tshirt, right?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/17/3243/ [commondreams.org]

And you accuse others of not seeing? Look the f*ck around.

=tkk

Re:Once the government's bitch, evermore their bit

[ultranova]

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 children on a website called the North American Man-Girl Love Association.

In his decision, the judge said pornographic fictional stories stimulate pedophiles and place children at risk in the real world.

Re:U.S. definition of child pornography

[russotto]

. In the U.S. (U.S.C. 18 Sec. 2256), child pornography does not require visual depictions of actual children in actual or simulated sexual activity to be present. Child pornography also includes visual depictions of simulated children in sexual activity. You know, that web site you visit with the 18 year old dressed like a school girl? If the government want to press a case against you, that counts as possession of child pornography.

That provision was struck down by the US Supreme Court. News Article [freedomforum.org]