Brazil judge orders Google to disclose users' data
Posted by Hurmoth on 02 September 2006 - 00:46 · 69 comments & 29286 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Hurmoth
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Hurmoth
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(3 replies)
#1 Posted by excalpius on 02 Sep 2006 - 01:11
- Dear Brazilian Judge,
Here is my arse. Kiss it.
Google -
#1.2 Posted by Rodrigo on 02 Sep 2006 - 06:30
- Quote - nvme said @ #1.1hahahahahaha
Actually, this is only getting bad for Google.
They STILL have to pay for the fines on Brazil.
And what if the US law agrees that the informations DO NEEDS to be given?
I think Google is on a big problem. (Google Brazil I suppose)
-
(5 replies)
#2 Posted by The Teej on 02 Sep 2006 - 01:22
- If the freaking US government can't get google to give them the data, what makes some judge believe he can?
-
#2.1 Posted by aristofeles on 02 Sep 2006 - 01:46
- Hmmm... because child pornography and (in brazil) racism is against the law?
There is a Google office here on brazil, so they must obey these laws or get out. Like in China. -
#2.2 Posted by kizzaaa on 02 Sep 2006 - 03:31
- Quote - aristofeles said @ #2.1Hmmm... because child pornography and (in brazil) racism is against the law?
There is a Google office here on brazil, so they must obey these laws or get out. Like in China.
How are they suppose to submit the data if they don't have access to it? The data the Brazillian judge wants is in the United States, and the besides the office in brazil only deals with marketing and sales. Read the actual article next time.Quote -Google officials in Brazil have said all clients' data is stored on a server in the United States and is subject to U.S. laws, which makes it impossible for them to reveal the data in Brazil. They also said the local affiliate only deals in marketing and sales and has nothing to do with Orkut. -
#2.3 Posted by em_te on 02 Sep 2006 - 05:21
- How are they suppose to submit the data if they don't have access to it?
I don't think they can and hence they will get fined. Of course it's still Google who pays the money since they own that company so Google will have to do something about it in the end. -
#2.4 Posted by aristofeles on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:35
- What the judge is saying is that if they can make money from their office on brazil, they can respect the law.
It would be too easy if I could invest in a country, but never answer from the actions of my company there.
Last edited by aristofeles on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:41 -
#2.5 Posted by orcsbr on 03 Sep 2006 - 22:35
- Quote -What makes some judge believe he can?
Because Google has business interests in Brazil and a subsidiary here (Google Brazil). The subsidiary needs to obey to Brazillian laws if it doesnt wants to bear with any consequences.
The statement that the data is stored on US servers under US laws doesn't seem very feasible, because the user data that brazillian justice wants to gather is from users that logged on orkut with brazillian IPs. While people are accessing a foreign server to sell drugs, pedophilia, etc., they don't phisically travel to foreign sovereignty, instead, they are comitting crimes here. Also, the brazillian justice normally doesnt consider the argument that subsidiaries are not responsible for management decisions of the headquarters (i.e keeping the data of brazillian users on foreign servers), when it's pretty obvious that it's the same business, as in this case. Google has a subsidiary on brazil and i bet they do a lot of data shifting every day, so if requested, they can cooperate, without brazillian police and justice having to do the extra work of asking FBIs and American Justice to intercede on that (this would the case only if Google Brazil didn't exist).
If they will cooperate, is a whole new business, but i guess that he brazillian justice won't take a step back on that, even if appealled, and Google Brazil will have to pay the bill.
-
#3 Posted by billyea on 02 Sep 2006 - 01:26
- I'd be happier if Google didn't start handing out information to everyone that 'acts important' on request.
-
(14 replies)
#4 Posted by Hurmoth on 02 Sep 2006 - 01:33
- So all of you against this would rather let this racist pedophile walk than put the sick ****** behind bars? I mean for all that is good in this world it is search data! If you haven't done anything wrong, what the hell does it matter? I mean seriously!
-
#4.1 Posted by Spark_§ on 02 Sep 2006 - 01:45
- Quote - Hurmoth said @ #4So all of you against this would rather let this racist pedophile walk than put the sick ****** behind bars? I mean for all that is good in this world it is search data! If you haven't done anything wrong, what the hell does it matter? I mean seriously!
I agree with you -
#4.2 Posted by sentio on 02 Sep 2006 - 02:50
- Shouldn't Brazillian law enforcement get off their feet and gather enough evidence to prosecute without having to rely on a search-engine's results? Or was 'Use google' part of the curriculum in 'Criminal Apprehension 101'?
Their negligence and failure to acquire information should not be overlooked, nor is their making a scapegoat out of a webtool. -
#4.3 Posted by RAID 0 on 02 Sep 2006 - 04:14
- Quote - Spark_§ said @ #4.1Quote - Hurmoth said @ #4So all of you against this would rather let this racist pedophile walk than put the sick ****** behind bars? I mean for all that is good in this world it is search data! If you haven't done anything wrong, what the hell does it matter? I mean seriously!
I agree with you
Putting away sick B****ARDS is fine with me. The ONLY thing I don't understand is... where do you draw the line? This could* be the first step in the government having an eye on everything you do over the net....and off. -
#4.4 Posted by em_te on 02 Sep 2006 - 05:27
- However much I'd like to put that sick ****** behind bars, I'm more scared of the government trying to sneak a bush behind our back.
-
#4.5 Posted by Rodrigo on 02 Sep 2006 - 06:32
- Quote - sentio said @ #4.2Shouldn't Brazillian law enforcement get off their feet and gather enough evidence to prosecute without having to rely on a search-engine's results? Or was 'Use google' part of the curriculum in 'Criminal Apprehension 101'?
Their negligence and failure to acquire information should not be overlooked, nor is their making a scapegoat out of a webtool.
You are probably from Mars.
Isn't asking Google to give them information what you call "gather evidence". Holy ****, that must be a joke.
Besides, it will not only incriminate the mother ****ing pedophile but more of them. -
#4.6 Posted by sentio on 02 Sep 2006 - 08:31
- Quote - Rodrigo said @ #4.5
You are probably from Mars.
Isn't asking Google to give them information what you call "gather evidence". Holy ****, that must be a joke.
Besides, it will not only incriminate the mother ****ing pedophile but more of them.
You're hopeless, mate... utterly hopeless. -
#4.7 Posted by Julius Caro on 02 Sep 2006 - 08:43
- Google handling out information about its users to any judge it's not what concerns me. What does concern me is that fact once the information is released, there's no guarantee that the information won't 'leak' to the public. After all, when the investigation ends, everything can become public.
-
#4.8 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 02 Sep 2006 - 13:38
- Quote -So all of you against this would rather let this racist pedophile walk than put the sick ****** behind bars?
As has been said... where do you draw the line? If you have an oppressive government that doesn't like political dissension then it becomes very dangerous. So yes, obviously paedophiles should be locked up but the risk for abuse is what makes this dangerous and it is not where I think things should be heading.
The internet should be a tool for freely exchanging information, not a resource that allows the government to track down a citizens every move. We're already being censored - searching for how to make a bomb or a neurotoxin doesn't get appropriate articles and with terrorism on the rise I believe this will get worse. So governments are forcing, or putting pressure on, search engines to hide potentially dangerous information and we're sitting here completely unaware. That's why I object to measures like this where it is going to be ripe for abuse. I'd rather have a few wackos walking about than curtail the freedoms of the populous. -
#4.9 Posted by Jugalator on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:58
- Quote -If you haven't done anything wrong, what the hell does it matter? I mean seriously!
This is as bad as the "if you have nothing to hide, you don't need encryption" argument, or "if you need encryption, you're probably a criminal".
If you have done nothing wrong, what matters is potential misuse of the information. I'm fine with your argument, but only if we can trust anyone and everyone to use this information 100% correctly and that it is 100% impossible it will ever leak to anyone in the world, but can we really trust law enforcement agencies in doing so? Has history shown they are truly infallible? If not, we need to protect our private information as long as we are not suspected of a crime. Encryption is a cornerstone in privacy, and if you don't understand why we need privacy, the Bush regime has been more successful in their work than I imagined. And if I am not suspected for anything wrong, what rights do any law enforcement agency have in digging in my details?
I sure hope Microsoft won't render their Vista BitLocker technology encryption useless by handing out backdoors to law enforcement so they can unlock anyone's drive at will even if you're not suspected of a crime because they think "what the hell does it matter, they're law enforcement so you're automatically having no reason of protecting it then unless you're a criminal".
I'll end this with a quote from a wise man:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Last edited by Jugalator on 02 Sep 2006 - 15:03 -
#4.10 Posted by bangbang023 on 02 Sep 2006 - 16:53
- Quote -So all of you against this would rather let this racist pedophile walk than put the sick ****** behind bars? I mean for all that is good in this world it is search data! If you haven't done anything wrong, what the hell does it matter? I mean seriously!
It matters because I'm entitled to my privacy just like every other citizen. Sure, I want the child molesters to be taken care of, but not at the expense of my privacy. I've done nothing wrong, therefore, what I do and when I do it should be of no concern to people investigating some creep on the internet.
As for racists, they are free to believe what they want. -
#4.11 Posted by Rodrigo on 02 Sep 2006 - 19:06
- Quote - sentio said @ #4.6Quote - Rodrigo said @ #4.5
You are probably from Mars.
Isn't asking Google to give them information what you call "gather evidence". Holy ****, that must be a joke.
Besides, it will not only incriminate the mother ****ing pedophile but more of them.
You're hopeless, mate... utterly hopeless.
Oh, yeah?
Well, let me tell you this: I don't care if you don't agree with me, but if you are going to post NONSENSE ****, at least try to act smart.
Then, you can call me whatever you want.
END. -
#4.12 Posted by Rodrigo on 02 Sep 2006 - 19:10
- Quote - bangbang023 said @ #4.10It matters because I'm entitled to my privacy just like every other citizen. Sure, I want the child molesters to be taken care of, but not at the expense of my privacy. I've done nothing wrong, therefore, what I do and when I do it should be of no concern to people investigating some creep on the internet.
As for racists, they are free to believe what they want.
If it really matters for you it would be common sense to stop using Google products since they can archive every piece of personal data. And while I can see your point, it's a little obvious that, if needed, Google will make use of this information as much as they want, because it's theirs. -
#4.13 Posted by RAID 0 on 03 Sep 2006 - 17:57
- Quote - theyarecomingforyou said @ #4.8Quote -So all of you against this would rather let this racist pedophile walk than put the sick ****** behind bars?
As has been said... where do you draw the line? If you have an oppressive government that doesn't like political dissension then it becomes very dangerous. So yes, obviously paedophiles should be locked up but the risk for abuse is what makes this dangerous and it is not where I think things should be heading.
The internet should be a tool for freely exchanging information, not a resource that allows the government to track down a citizens every move. We're already being censored - searching for how to make a bomb or a neurotoxin doesn't get appropriate articles and with terrorism on the rise I believe this will get worse. So governments are forcing, or putting pressure on, search engines to hide potentially dangerous information and we're sitting here completely unaware. That's why I object to measures like this where it is going to be ripe for abuse. I'd rather have a few wackos walking about than curtail the freedoms of the populous.
Well put -
#4.14 Posted by orcsbr on 03 Sep 2006 - 22:44
- Quote -Shouldn't Brazillian law enforcement get off their feet and gather enough evidence to prosecute without having to rely on a search-engine's results? Or was 'Use google' part of the curriculum in 'Criminal Apprehension 101'?
Reading 101 for you. Go back to the article. Read it carefully.
You will notice that it is about Google's Orkut social network/message boards, not the search engine.
Now, drop your arrogant head in shame.
Good boy.
-
#5 Posted by cardg on 02 Sep 2006 - 01:49
- A brazilian speaking here...
I guess in 2 weeks Google will be leaving Brazil.
Thats not good to google who already invested money here, but i guess its also not good to Brazil.
Even i believing that privacy is sacred, and that the brazilian law is still full of influence from the 70's dictatorial regime (wich was putten there by the USA) and that this case demonstrate a case of this kind of influence; I also think this might be a case of National Supremacy.
I don't know there on the US, but here a judge is a judge, and there is no Senator, President, Governor or like over him. , so its not "just" a judge, it is the federal law...
I don't know how its going to end... but google just arrived here, and in Brazil, having a orkut profile is almost as important as having an e-mail adress (and yes, even being a 3rd world country, everybody uses - and much - internet). I guess the governaments all arround the world should ALWAYS be OVER the corporations and companys, but i also think that people's privacy should never be broken.
Still, the way google makes a big database of our lifes trough Orkut really scares. They unify our searchs on google with our profiles, with who we visit, what we write there, our gmail, etc etc etc. Google is a database in wich you can know VERY VERY much about the life of any brazilian.
I argue why to go so far and so deep in knowing people's life. It's not only a matter of advertising... but in protecting corporative interests. So, if someday someone on the actual youth generation becomes Republic's President, google knows everything about his life, since everybody communicates trough orkut and gmail, and the big diferencial on these services are that they do log EVERYTHING, even what is deleted after posted.
So, i really think that what is really happening is the Brazilian Federal Police (something like FBI here) saying trough a judge: "This is not nobody's land, and here we are above corporations, not the inverse", and using children pornography as a mere way to do this.
Last edited by cardg on 02 Sep 2006 - 01:56
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by admiraljustin on 02 Sep 2006 - 04:06
- Oh get off the high "think of the children" horse.
Yes, this stuff is bad.
They want access to the data.
Unfortunately, they haven't gone through the proper channels, like the proper jurisdictions. The data they are after isn't in Brazil, and therefore is not subject to Brazilian law.
All Google is saying is that they won't hand over the data until PROPER procedures have been followed.
If the Brazilian government can't follow the proper procedures to obtain the data, Google is under no legal obligation to provide the data.
Also... why is horrible for search engines to give out info on Chinese citizens, but not for Brazilians? It's just a matter of perspective. -
#6.1 Posted by saccrant on 02 Sep 2006 - 06:11
- erm.. when did google ever give out info on chinese citizens? Last I heard they blocked sites, but never gave out any info.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by war on 02 Sep 2006 - 06:25
- Why "we" let it get this far is behind me.
It is "our" fault. Not the governments, the companies, judges, presidents, God, etc.
By "we" and "our", I of course mean "citizens". It is "our" duty to make sure that laws, or what have you, are set fourth, passed, just, ideal, etc.
If it is anyones fault, it is ours!
I am so sick of everyone blaming everyone else. Has anyone here taken a real stand? Has a single one of "us" written to congress (or what have you), the president (or what have you), senators (or what have you), etc. ?
Has anyone spent money, time, will power, etc. on changing "just the way it is" policy that we have today? Has anyone of us publicly criticized our elected officials (or what have you) to change the laws for the better?
I very much doubt a single one of "us" have! We all have our own lives and **** to deal with. For most of "us" crap like this is not very important, if it even measures up to the scale, yet everyone here seems to think it's some sort of big deal, even when "nothing" is really done to change what is by a single one of "us".
Those are the real questions that should be asked! -
#7.1 Posted by Leo Natan on 02 Sep 2006 - 07:01
- Lol, this is one of the best written generic answer I've ever seen... I mean, this is something you can post on any subject.
-
#7.2 Posted by crimsonhead on 02 Sep 2006 - 07:27
- Quote - Leo Natan said @ #7.1Lol, this is one of the best written generic answer I've ever seen... I mean, this is something you can post on any subject.More quotation marks then periods..
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by MaceX on 02 Sep 2006 - 06:55
- Why would an internet company such as Google have a regional office in brazil anyway?
-
#8.1 Posted by badazzEVO8 on 02 Sep 2006 - 07:28
- cheap labor. why else
-
#9 Posted by Leo Natan on 02 Sep 2006 - 07:04
- I'd close the brazil offices... They can't afford to lose their credibility, and they wouldn't want to afford the fines, so that's the only rational solution.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by Xionanx on 02 Sep 2006 - 07:09
- Honestly I dont see what everyone is getting into a fuss about, google should just hand over the search records and be done with it. Want to hear my reason why?
Google makes it service publicly available to all. You do NOT sign an agreement with them stating that your search information wont be handed out, in fact you should assume that it will be since thats how they make thier money. If I were to walk into a downtown bar and ask the bartender if he knew where I could find some child porn then no one would think anything at all about him giving that information to the police. Why is it any different from someone using google and looking for it? I say its not.
This isn't about censorship, freedom of speech, or loss of citizens rights. This is about obstruction of justice and refusal to comply with a reasonable request to provide information obtained from a publicly available source. If your stupid enough to break in the law in a public accessible area then you should not complain when the police come knocking on your door.
And for those people who seem to think this is some retarded ass "border" issue, well I think I just made it clear what I think about that. The "internet" exists as a borderless, governmentless, entity. Anyone who tells you otherwise clearly hasn't thought on the subject much. Google conducts thier business on the internet, so it really doesn't matter where thier physical offices are. They could be physically located on mars and declare themselves thier own sovriegn nation. The fact of the matter remains that IN BRAZIL they are legally required to submit the information requested no matter where the physical data is located.
I good analogy for this would be trying to claim that since you are a US citizen you aren't required to obey any laws in a foriegn country. Claiming "my legal residence is in the US so you cant really hold me accountable" would NOT work.
To sum it up, I hate lawyers. -
#10.1 Posted by MaceX on 02 Sep 2006 - 10:16
- This article is about orkut, not google search, but both adhere to this privacy policy.
http://www.google.com/privacy_faq.html -
#10.2 Posted by Julius Caro on 02 Sep 2006 - 10:30
- Yo don't sign any agreement? You have to accept their terms of service, privacy policy and stuff, to use some products. There, they state in which circumstances they use your personal information. It's legally binding, I supose. Fine, they can change it whenever they want, but they have to inform the users.
-
(4 replies)
#11 Posted by aniv on 02 Sep 2006 - 07:56
- Brazil is a corrupt country, I wouldnt give a cent to them if I owned Google. I sent a package to a friend in Sau Paulo. It was worth $30 and it was marked as a gift. The customs in Brazil charged my cc $50 and the delivery boy demanded $10 from my friend in Brazil to let him have his package. My calls to their office were unanswered and so was written communication.
Later I found out such things are normal in Brazil.
Kiss my big (_|_) judge from Brazil.! -
#11.1 Posted by WebMotiva on 02 Sep 2006 - 09:55
- Quote - aniv said @ #11Brazil is a corrupt country, I wouldnt give a cent to them if I owned Google. I sent a package to a friend in Sau Paulo. It was worth $30 and it was marked as a gift. The customs in Brazil charged my cc $50 and the delivery boy demanded $10 from my friend in Brazil to let him have his package. My calls to their office were unanswered and so was written communication.
Later I found out such things are normal in Brazil.
Kiss my big (_|_) judge from Brazil.!
Why attack the brazilians? We are trying to stop crimes. Do you have children? Do you have feelings?
I lost my suitcase flying from USA to UK and I don't think americans and brits are terrorists and war addicted people.
It happens everywhere.
Brazil is going to be a super power. We still have lots of problems since european colonialism and natural resources illegal traffic. We need respect. Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC
Sao Paulo: aopaulo_copan.jpg" target="_blank">http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem
aopaulo_copan.jpg -
#11.2 Posted by aniv on 02 Sep 2006 - 11:30
- Quote - WebMotiva said @ #11.1Quote - aniv said @ #11Brazil is a corrupt country, I wouldnt give a cent to them if I owned Google. I sent a package to a friend in Sau Paulo. It was worth $30 and it was marked as a gift. The customs in Brazil charged my cc $50 and the delivery boy demanded $10 from my friend in Brazil to let him have his package. My calls to their office were unanswered and so was written communication.
Later I found out such things are normal in Brazil.
Kiss my big (_|_) judge from Brazil.!
Why attack the brazilians? We are trying to stop crimes. Do you have children? Do you have feelings?
I lost my suitcase flying from USA to UK and I don't think americans and brits are terrorists and war addicted people.
It happens everywhere.
Brazil is going to be a super power. We still have lots of problems since european colonialism and natural resources illegal traffic. We need respect. Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC
Sao Paulo: aopaulo_copan.jpg" target="_blank">http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagemaopaulo_copan.jpg
Nobody is attacking Brazilians, I am attacking the corrupt Brazilian govt.! Is that so hard to percieve? No I dont have children and yes I do have feelings. I will talk to you have when Brazil is a superpower for now I am visiting Sau Paulo next week and my company has given me 2 armed bodyguards..would you like to talk to them?
We are discussing why should Google pay or disclose any data without the Brazilian govt. following a proper process? What is the guarantee that data wont be misused? -
#11.3 Posted by Rodrigo on 02 Sep 2006 - 19:21
- Quote - aniv said @ #11.2Nobody is attacking Brazilians, I am attacking the corrupt Brazilian govt.! Is that so hard to percieve? No I dont have children and yes I do have feelings. I will talk to you have when Brazil is a superpower for now I am visiting Sau Paulo next week and my company has given me 2 armed bodyguards..would you like to talk to them?
We are discussing why should Google pay or disclose any data without the Brazilian govt. following a proper process? What is the guarantee that data wont be misused?
LMFAO.
Wait, what?
"2 armed bodyguards". Right.
LMFAO.
Anyway, I do hope they got the proper permissions (even if your "bodyguards" are real, which I doubt) to carry weapons in Brazil and remember, you (and your BGs) have to stick to Brazilian law, LIKE IT OR NOT. -
#11.4 Posted by aniv on 03 Sep 2006 - 00:38
- Quote - Rodrigo said @ #11.3Quote - aniv said @ #11.2Nobody is attacking Brazilians, I am attacking the corrupt Brazilian govt.! Is that so hard to percieve? No I dont have children and yes I do have feelings. I will talk to you have when Brazil is a superpower for now I am visiting Sau Paulo next week and my company has given me 2 armed bodyguards..would you like to talk to them?
We are discussing why should Google pay or disclose any data without the Brazilian govt. following a proper process? What is the guarantee that data wont be misused?
LMFAO.
Wait, what?
"2 armed bodyguards". Right.
LMFAO.
Anyway, I do hope they got the proper permissions (even if your "bodyguards" are real, which I doubt) to carry weapons in Brazil and remember, you (and your BGs) have to stick to Brazilian law, LIKE IT OR NOT.
Obviously you are not important enough, else you wouldnt be laughing like a bonobo. Open you eyes and get a clue.
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by shirike on 02 Sep 2006 - 10:22
- I feel bad that this information could stop pedophiles/racists and help put them away to rot in jail but may not become available due to the judges lack of knowledge; surely he must've been aware the data was held in the U.S and therefore would not be under Brazilian law. Regardless of reasons, the law must be supreme in all cases otherwise each "special circumstance" will further weaken it to a meaningless set of jibber jabber. Silly judge should have followed procedure rather than trying to improve his P.R as the little man fighting the big beastly corps.
Shouldn't he be chasing the Brazilian I.S.P's for similar information anyway?? Not sure what information I.S.P's hold nowadays but surely that would be a more successful line of enquiry.
Last edited by shirike on 02 Sep 2006 - 10:28 -
#12.1 Posted by DeMo_BR on 04 Sep 2006 - 04:13
- Quote - shirike said @ #12Shouldn't he be chasing the Brazilian I.S.P's for similar information anyway??
That's exactly how it works!
But without an IP address you can't even start tracking these "internet criminals".
Here's an example.
There's a lot of child porn (photos/videos) exchange in Brazilian IRC servers.
Federal Police officials join these networks to identify who are the biggest file exchangers.
The agent stays there 15.. 30 days and sees the very same people every day.
Once he has a suspect in mind, he requests the guy's IP address do the IRC server admin.
With the IP address in hand they can find out which company provides the guy with internet access.
Then they have a judge order the ISP to search their records and report which customer was using that specific IP address on a given day on a given time. The ISP has all the information about their customers (name, address etc), and with that info in hand they can go there and arrest the guy.
The case with Google is the same thing.
There are lots of pornography communities on Orkut where boys and girls sell their "services" and where people post links to porn sites and porn downloads. The only way the police can track and identify these people is by doing the same thing they already do on IRC, only difference is that now Google has the IP addresses.
You guys seem to think that if the information is given out once then every judge can request it and have it without a good and plausible reason, come on guys! This is a specific case, they're after racists and pedophiles. If a judge requests information on somebody just because he wants to, then Google (or whatever company it is) is not forced to give it away. They need a good reason to start disclosing information.
-
#13 Posted by Disjunto on 02 Sep 2006 - 11:31
- google are screwed, they cant legally give the info and so will be fined.
problem is, they shouldn't be getting fined because Google in Brazil has nothing to do with this case so Brazilain courts shouldn't be able to touch them
-
#14 Posted by Davebo on 02 Sep 2006 - 12:22
- When the hell did Google become responsible for everyones Internet woes...
I bet they're beginning to despise their killer search engine... (and maybe they'll eventually dump it altogether to avoid this BS in future)
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by tiago on 02 Sep 2006 - 13:33
- im brazilian and i'm ashamed of it...
that's ridiculous, instead of catch killers, robbers, etc...they loose their time visiting Orkut to arrest people...
ridiculous -
#15.1 Posted by Rodrigo on 02 Sep 2006 - 19:23
- Yeah, because every judge is on this case, and every policeman, EVERYONE.
-
(3 replies)
#16 Posted by ksalter on 02 Sep 2006 - 13:52
- It is better a few guilty go free than to imprison one innocent.
It is better that the private data of a few criminals is protected that the private data of innocents is releaesed.
All of the pro-release arguments are slippery slope arguments and are logically flawed. Perhaps some critical thinking training would help out. -
#16.1 Posted by mrmckeb on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:18
- You would rather three pedophiles molest multiple children and post it online so they can share their adventures than for one innocent person to have some trouble caused for them? I disagree and think that you need to start thinking.
-
#16.2 Posted by ksalter on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:46
- Quote - mrmckeb said @ #16.1You would rather three pedophiles molest multiple children and post it online so they can share their adventures than for one innocent person to have some trouble caused for them? I disagree and think that you need to start thinking.
Sounds like the rational for pre-emptively invading another country - we gotta get the few bad guys, so it is "okay" if a some/a lot of innocents suffer because we are all about the "greater good". You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, right?
Edit to add: I have a daughter.
Perhaps, in the future you might be the innocent who has to suffer. I expect no complaints. Or you expect the police/government to never punish the innocent. Take a look at how many people on death row in America are released because of DNA evidence that proves their innocence.
Last edited by ksalter on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:56 -
#16.3 Posted by Jugalator on 02 Sep 2006 - 15:10
- Quote -You would rather three pedophiles molest multiple children and post it online so they can share their adventures than for one innocent person to have some trouble caused for them? I disagree and think that you need to start thinking.
If one is caught in this mess because they're looking for paedophiles and want even records from innocent and unsuspected people, and it leaks out they're looking for paedophiles among the public, you'd still be labelled as a once suspected paedophile, because you were. And then, all you could then hope for would be that your career wouldn't get ruined for life because "he was suspected, so there's sure something fishy with him". I hope you're put into this situation sometime in your life to taste it.
If 3 paedophiles molest children, and innocents could be wrongly accused, I think it's not a reason to stop trying to get them caught, but start looking for better, more accurate, ways to get them caught.
-
(2 replies)
#17 Posted by mrmckeb on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:09
- Go Brazil! It's about time someone set some logic into privacy laws.
What's the point of protecting the guilty? And if you aren't guilty, why do you care? -
#17.1 Posted by brandnewfantx on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:45
- I'm stepping a little away from the Brazilian topic, taking a move into the privacy issue. Doesn’t matter if your guilty or not, It comes down to your privacy which is you really have left, because they listen to your telephone calls, emails, they see your spending habits. If you would so willingly give your rights away then you’re a just poor citizen who has been brain washing by their government into believing "if you aren't guilty, why do you care?" type of thinking. It is my RIGHT to privacy under the bill of rights of the United States (Amendment I). The though of giving a right away, that so many fought to get sickness me.
-
#17.2 Posted by Jugalator on 02 Sep 2006 - 15:17
- Quote -And if you aren't guilty, why do you care?
Wow, another one.
See my first reply in this thread... This is typical Bush argumentation, and indicative that their brainwashing seem to be working. People, if American, simply don't even value their 1st amendment anymore. Move to North Korea and find out if you want a real world example of eroded rights of the innocent. Have you not needed to fight for your privacy for so long that you don't value it anymore? If I'm not guilty, why would the law enforcement care? That's far more scary to me; people with much greater power than me are looking into my records because... well, because I'm not suspected of anything. If law enforcement = god and would be completely infallable in their use of information and it would be impossible for them to leak any of this info by mistake, yes, then I'd at least understand what you're talking about, but looking at the harsh reality, I don't understand you at all.
-
#18 Posted by Shycho on 02 Sep 2006 - 14:38
- You know whats even worse than that some pedophiles got arrested because they signed up to some sick websites which the police got hold, they then took down their addresses and went and arrested them. Surely this is wrong, what ever happened to data protection.
Oh wait thats right who cares if the government want information on who searched naked little boys or lets kill all black people, I don't its not like they are asking for everyone search information just so they can comb through it and try to arrest everyone!
I don't care if i somehow popped on the brazilain judges list, because i wouldn't be using the search terms they are probably wanting IP of, but I could deal with the inconvience if it meant the bad guys got sent down.
-
(2 replies)
#19 Posted by Apple Fanboy on 02 Sep 2006 - 17:15
- Brazilians really should care because comunism facing the country in next years.
My friend Nicolas talked about Heloísa Helena a higly charismatic marx-communist woman and now after Lula she must give the country to new comunist era. Well, China is also comunist but this does not hinder the possibility for open-Economy but I really doubt brazilians accept work for the same money as chinese people.
This is Lula da Silva. -
#19.1 Posted by tiago on 02 Sep 2006 - 19:04
- Quote - Apple Fanboy said @ #19Brazilians really should care because comunism facing the country in next years.
My friend Nicolas talked about Heloísa Helena a higly charismatic marx-communist woman and now after Lula she must give the country to new comunist era. Well, China is also comunist but this does not hinder the possibility for open-Economy but I really doubt brazilians accept work for the same money as chinese people.
This is Lula da Silva.
lol
too much ****...Brazil communist? get a life... and get out of the bubble..you americans... -
#19.2 Posted by Rodrigo on 02 Sep 2006 - 19:29
- Quote - Apple Fanboy said @ #19Brazilians really should care because comunism facing the country in next years.
My friend Nicolas talked about Heloísa Helena a higly charismatic marx-communist woman and now after Lula she must give the country to new comunist era. Well, China is also comunist but this does not hinder the possibility for open-Economy but I really doubt brazilians accept work for the same money as chinese people.
This is Lula da Silva.
Haha, wow.
What a load of lies.
Sorry to tell you this and bring tears to your blind eyes, but Brazil is getting closer to become a pretty big power.
-
#20 Posted by Cidinho on 02 Sep 2006 - 21:07
- Heloísa is just ****...
About Google, I listen to it at everytime, its about 120m reais the should give the government and also the informations otherwise the company Google Brasil will close.
For Brazilians:
Don't care, that's Google's problem, they already said they WON'T block our ip from their services EVEN if they close
-
(1 reply)
#21 Posted by AnarKhy on 02 Sep 2006 - 21:56
- the data brazilian gov wants from google is only those related about pedophilia, racism and drug sells, wich is growing in orkut.
since google owns orkut they should be responsible and respond for their content.
brazilian gov have done well, or google is to irresponsible or dont give a s* about the abuses in their network.
sorry my bad english... -
#21.1 Posted by DeMo_BR on 04 Sep 2006 - 04:36
- You are completely right my friend.
Orkut's terms say that porn and illegal content is forbidden, yet they don't move a finger to stop it.
The whole site is full of communities devoted to porn and drugs, communities about anorexy that teach girls how to stop eating so they can become "slim and beautiful". There are also loads of fake profiles and profiles with porn and nude pictures everywhere.
Some time ago some people developed a software to spam everyone's scrapbook with ads.
Google took action and implemented new mechanisms to detect and prevent spam.. it worked.
However, they don't do anything regarding these porn & drug communities and profiles, they are all still there.. growing and growing everyday.
People are acting against the service terms, but Google isn't doing anything about it too.
And now that a judge asked for IP addresses of these people (only 15 people to be exact) they will refuse to help?? Come on.. this is ridiculous.
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by plastikaa on 03 Sep 2006 - 15:34
- This is simple really... there needs to be a third party organisation set up which sifts the data and hands it over to the police. This was the police only gets the data they requested nothing more.
-
#22.1 Posted by excalpius on 03 Sep 2006 - 20:23
- This mechanism already exists...it is called a SEARCH WARRANT signed by a JUDGE after legitimate LAW ENFORCEMENT has established PROBABLY CAUSE to indicate that a CRIME has been committed.
Companies like Google, etc. always respond to such legitimate and legally valid requests.
Fishing expeditions (like this ridiculous Brazilian judge's issue) violate everything that makes a FREE society FREE. And therefore I continue to urge companies like Google to tell these penny ante fascists that they are NOT above the law.
-
#23 Posted by jwjw1 on 03 Sep 2006 - 17:27
- that Brazilian judge...actually wanted the data to be safe with US laws...nows he's happy all his child porn searches are safe.
Late Thursday, federal judge Jose Lunardelli ruled that Google be given 15 days to disclose the information, including the IP addresses, which can uniquely identify a specific computer on a network.
The judge set a daily fine of 50,000 reais ($23,255) for each individual case if Google refuses to reveal the data.
Google officials in Brazil have said all clients' data is stored on a server in the United States and is subject to U.S. laws, which makes it impossible for them to reveal the data in Brazil. They also said the local affiliate only deals in marketing and sales and has nothing to do with Orkut.