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."
Not only that, but it appears in this case they are asking for data concerning "person X", which they apparently have the equivalent of probable cause to obtain.
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.
While that's true, it doesn't prevent google from providing the requested information if they wish to, it merely means that they (presumably) cannot be compelled to do so.
True, there is a probable cause, and it is a little bit worse than "promoting hate", but "conspiring to commit a crime". One (of the many) examples that comes to my head is a group of neo-nazi that harassed a particular user (a black young boy) not only online (messaging him via the site, and creating a "community" with a "let's kill him" theme), but using the info they gathered about him on Orkut to harass him on his own homeplace.
Anyway, there are anti-discrimination laws in Brasil since the nineties, and racism (bigotry, in general) is a federal crime there. But, if I'm not wrong (IANAL), there is a difference in our law between "I hate " and "I hate you John Doe, you fucking ". The former counts as free speech, the latter doesn't. I may be wrong, I don't know.
Why wouldn't the brazilian agency just say that then, and avoid all the fuss? Incompetence? Or lack of evidence?
Investigating conspiracy-to-commit-murder via Orkut would not generate nearly the same amount of news. Don't places in the US (myspace, etc) roll over with this information all the time?
"racism" and "prejudice" are against the law in Brazil, google has a branch here and the government is fining this branch for no-cooperation with the law. As far as I know, yes those are related to certain people that have been promoting those hate-crimes and pedophilia in the site. I like the fact that google resisted until the end, and I don't like the fact that the government forced him to release this data. This is a bad thing, first because I believe that if someone would like to catch those people, Ork
Unfortunatelly there are some racist and nazi-facist groups here at Brazil. And racism, and other forms of discrimination are crimes under the brazilian law. Also, there are some groups using Orkut to promote child pornography, and worst, child prostitution.
The brazilian authorities had been on a cruzade to erradicate children exploration, and I think that is fair to give them all the help we can.
Lumping your former examples with your latter is a bit unfair. They're not even in the same league. Of course, they do the same thing in America, too.
Racism shouldn't be a crime in and of itself -- freedom of speech is something every country should agree on. The same pithy claim google makes that "we have to abide by their laws!!!oneone" doesn't refuse the fact that they are legitimizing an unjust law.
Do i expect all the employees of Orkut to destroy the data and go to prison for it? No. But it still doesn't make handing over the data justified. What's that cliche about "I vas just following orders..."
Google's habit of logging EVERYTHING is starting to get a bit scary. EVERYTHING that a person has EVER done with ANY of Google's services has been warehoused and is subject to subpoena.
One could always do their searches and browsing without logging into Google first. Don't you think? I don't particularly like Google's personalized portal, so even though I have an account there I never use it. But even if I liked it, I wouldn't be doing searches and the like while logged in.
Same goes for GMail.
One could always do their searches and browsing without logging into Google first.
But then, still be careful not to do your "interesting" searches from an IP address that you've used before to check your adsense, or they still can tie a name on it.
And be careful you never do searches about your name (or other identifiable info) from the same IP than you do your "interesting" searches.
Oh, and even if you restart your DSL, beware of cookies!
Or, alternatively, don't bother, and consider google the first p
Well, you can easily keep yourself safe. Tell your browser to delete all cookies on close, and whitelist the cookies you do need for added safety. Just make sure the places you do use aren't a part of google.
Pretty much any company plugged into anything logs everything. How else do people magically produce emails 4 years old in court cases? The ISPs record everything, who you shop with records everything, search engines record everything. It's kept for x months/years as needed.
"Google's habit of logging EVERYTHING is starting to get a bit scary. EVERYTHING that a person has EVER done with ANY of Google's services has been warehoused and is subject to subpoena."
You know what cracks me up? A number of times over the last year, I've heard people brag about how much they love Google because they 'do no evil'. They've even gone as far as to state that they plan on trusting Google until they give them reason to do otherwise. (These comments were always modded up, to boot.) I imagine lots of these people use a GMail account... which they log in with using their browser. So, while they're logged in to GMail, they use Google to browse. The potential here is that they can trace back your searches and tie them to your login. Who needs to log IP addresses when they can identify you that way?
So why does this crack me up? By the time Google does do something 'evil', they've already handed a lot of personal goodies over to Google. Oops...
I do hope I'm wrong, though. I'd like it pointed out if I am. (you see, I like Google as well, and I use Gmail...) I'd feel a lot more comfortable if GMail had stuck to its own domain instead of using mail.google.com.
"Don't be Evil" was supposed to be the motto of the company. When they stood up to the Bush administration in court and defended it's user searches, I applauded them. Not because they were defending the search data, not because they were defending the people that made the searches, but rather because they were defending the end users *right* to make the search in the first place.
Yet, in past months, my view of Google has started to change. Headlines like the one in which their CEO defended their policy of
"Who knows? Maybe at somepoint some whacked law maker will make a twinkie illegal, and those searches that you made so that you could distill your own will be akin to taking a walk on the Dark Side."
My understanding is that the groups in question were little more subtle than "Hey guys, let's get together at 5pm tonight and go kill some gays" or worse still "Hey, that sucker we killed at 5pm is one less gay in the world!".
The Brazilian police were, not surprisingly, rather pissed off that criminals could communicate in anonymity like this, which was having a very real impact on the Brazilian communities those gangs operated in. If Google did not hand ove
Google was right to comply with the court order to hand over information it had collected provided it was very specific and constitutional. We shouldn't expect corporations to be in the business breaking the law.
However, Google was in the wrong for collecting identifying information in the first place. That is where my gripe is. They should be using technical measures to filter out identifying information before it reaches their database. That might include hashing IP addresses for instance so that equality comparisons can be made - but the original IP address rendered unobtainable.
- The brazilian law does not allow promotion of rage.
This case is not only about hate speech laws. There's a lot of other stuff going on, and what bothers authorities, primarily, are drug and child porn related crimes.
I was thinking about this general issue last night and realized the great irony that Brazil and "enlightened" Europe would have to outlaw a lot of South Park episodes because they would offend the sensibilities of some group, typically homosexuals. I'm entirely unimpressed with these countries and their "progressiveness" that says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not.
Oh don't even start that bullshit about majorities versus minorities. The minorities are just as bad as the majorities. I've met just as many gays that instantly assume I'm going to want to stone them to death because I'm technically a fundamentalist, as I have met pseudo-Christians who would probably join a mob to stone them. I'm an asshole, they're an asshole. EVERYONE'S AN ASSHOLE on these issues at some point!
You know what breeds hate and resentment? Empowering people to turn subjective feelings into a legal weapon. You instantly empower a hate group the moment you ban it. I bet the KKK would grow 50-100% every year if it were outlawed. It's just a way for societies to brush their issues under the national carpet and pretend that all is well.
Well guess what?! It isn't! All manner of bigotry is rampant around the world and the force of law is not going to change hearts. Law has been used to smooth these things over time and again in the past and it **always** fails. The only thing that changes bigotry into love is a spiritual rebirth and that is something that cannot be legislated.
I'm entirely unimpressed with these countries and their "progressiveness" that says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not.
The problem is that discrimination may also happen to those who don't flaunt it, and even to those that are trying to hide it. Or worse: to those that only appear to be of a certain orientation without actually being.
I'm an asshole,
Don't advertise that too loudly if you don't actually enjoy it, he!
Europe doesn't says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not. It says that even considering something like colour or number of people in a community for anything other than statistics is retarded; and that people should rather have fun. I don't think that is bad.
I think you're over simplifying the issue here. Hate speech isn't something that hurts someone's feelings, its something that incites someone to commit a crime.
"I hate niggers" is not hate speech. "black people deserve to be lynched" is hate speech. Do you see the difference there? Its not the words you use, its that you're encouraging racial violence.
If you find homosexuals disgusting, its fine for you to say so. But when you start talking about committing a violent act you're crossing a line.
Oh don't even start that bullshit about majorities versus minorities. The minorities are just as bad as the majorities. I've met just as many gays that instantly assume I'm going to want to stone them to death because I'm technically a fundamentalist, as I have met pseudo-Christians who would probably join a mob to stone them. I'm an asshole, they're an asshole. EVERYONE'S AN ASSHOLE on these issues at some point!
I agree, there are assholes in all groups, but there is a difference between what is happening
If you happen to believe in the literal truth of the Bible,
The literal truth of whichversion of the Bible, of which translation [religioustolerance.org]? In many cases, originals are lost, and all we can go by are later translations, which may be faithful to the original, or which might not be. And if original texts do turn up at a later date, translations are often not corrected out of fear of shocking the readership with a more accurate (but unexpected) rendering. And that's even without counting deliberate forgeries.
So Paul knows what the "arsenokoite" term means. But does he also know what hypokrytos [beliefnet.com] means? (sorry for the Greek spelling, this is not my first language).
And how does Ephesians 5:29 rhyme with 2 Corinthians 12:7 ? Even if we disagree about what that mysterious "thorn" actually is, there seems to be some contradiction between both verses, unless Paul considers himself to be nobody.
But google is not it. Seriously, why would anybody put any corporation up on a pedestal?
Google will do what's best for google. End of story. If that means digging in their heels because a legal request is over reaching and would comprimise some aspect of their operations, so be it. If, in another case, it means they hand over the data, that's fair too.
You want a hero? Go hug a firefighter, or a police officer. Or a doctor, or a vet. Not a corporation.
How can any of you seriously expect Google to take a stand and not turn over information about a guy trading child porn on Orkut? This is not some questionable case where the person is a political dissident, or something. They have records of this person's account, trading child porn. They want to know who he is. Do you honestly think there is any sane way to take a stand on this issue and not look like a complete monster? If they don't turn over the information, people will say they are protecting child moles
I maintain it'd have been much easier to get this information by having someone actually add the suspect as a friend on orkut and then communicating with them to get their personal information - after a court order so its not entrapment. So the logs that Brazilian law enforcement wants are very limited but the point was this could have been avoided all together. Google needs to take a good long look at what information it collects and how it matches up your google account information to your google searches
This is just another reason to behave on the web as if everyone knows who you are and what you are doing. As long as companies like Google, your ISP, and thousands of other players, are logging your login ids and search habits via cookies, or your IP address, governments have few barriers to finding out who you are. So while there are techniques that the technically knowledgeable can use to cover some of their tracks, unless you have a price on your head, it's ultimately not worth the effort. Sometimes the
This is what happens when Political Correctness becomes a matter of law. Political Correctness is nothing more than totalitarianism in the world of ideas. What's worse is that it is almost transparently so, making its presence in a supposedly free society all the more puzzling and maddening. Those who promote it are quite simply intellectually bankrupt.
The best discription of political correctness I know of comes from Theodore Dalyrimple:
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my stud
By "compelled to produce," the article is talking about Google obeying a court order. If a court has jurisdiction over a company, it doesn't matter where the information is -- the company has to obey that order or face the consequences (or try to convince the court the order is invalid somehow).
The article summary is horribly misleading (even more so than normal): this is nothing like Google refusing to give the US government access to search info. There was no court order to do so (think subpoena), and so Google told them to take a hike. IIRC, even at that time Google specifically stated that if there had been a lawful court order, it would have complied.
Jurisdiction isn't based on the quality of the legal system.
Unfortunately, though, you are right about the legal system in under-developed countries having a negative impact on investment: a company would rather operate somewhere there is danger of physical violence but can count on the legal system to be fair and consistent (enforce contracts, protect property rights, etc. - think Iraq at the moment) than to operate in a country that might be peaceful but where the legal system is arbitrary and can chang
And what, may I ask, constitutes a inferior legal system. Sure there are lots of things that I consider inferior in the US legal system, and I am sure that some of those points are what you would consider superior. People think diferent, even if you consider a single country people will disagree on what is fair and what is not.
People in diferent coutries have different morals, some people believe that the laws should reflect their religions, other takes pride in making their government non-religious. The core of this question is that your morals are different from mine, they may even be similar in some aspects but they are different so you can't judge how good is a legal system for me based on your morals.
People in diferent coutries have different morals, some people believe that the laws should reflect their religions, other takes pride in making their government non-religious. The core of this question is that your morals are different from mine, they may even be similar in some aspects but they are different so you can't judge how good is a legal system for me based on your morals.
That's all well and good, and foreigners setting up shop in another country certainly must "do as the Romans do."
At least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Government_and _Politics [wikipedia.org], Brazil is a democracy. This is a choice the people of Brazil made about how they choose to run their society, so not quite the same as the situation in China where the political system raises questions--at least in my mind--about how more than a small set of the population feels about it.
I wouldn't be the least surprised to find out that, if a data cable crosses through a country's territory, that country can follow its own
This is a choice the people of Brazil made about how they choose to run their society
Democracy does not equal freedom. Freedom is when a society recognizes that some things are none of its business. Democracy is about what to do with everything else.
The concept of legal jurisdiction for a court is a bit more complex but not too hard to understand. There are primarily two types: subject matter and personal (or physical). Subject matter is when the court has been given legal authority based on the actual subject being covered in the legal case. Personal / physical jurisdiction is rather easy to understand. If you are in the terroritory where the court has authority, that court has control over you and any posessions you have.
So your example is easy to deal with. While a Brazilian court may or may not under Brazilian law have subject matter jurisdiction over the specific records on your hard drive, if you go to Brazil with that laptop then all bets are off and jurisdiction is established.
Want to hear the real rub? If you are in an airplane flying over a particular country (or even state in the USA) then they have personal jurisdiction over you.
I'm afraid Google is not as invincible (and therefore somehow to blame for this) as everyone here seems to want to believe. The fact is, a judgment in a court in Brazil can be registered with a court in the US and enforced just like it was handed down by a US court (based on various international treaties and subject to all kinds of exceptions, of course). Even if that weren't the case, they could simply sue Google in a US court directly.
So, no, Google cannot just ignore the laws of countries in which it
You're right - shouldn't have assumed it was treaty based. In fact, it appears to be strictly common law, based on the principle of comity. See, e.g., Hilton v. Guyot, 159 US 113, 40 L ed 95, 16 S Ct 139 (1895) (enforcing on the basis of comity, but only where there is reciprocity).
I'd love to see them get re-elected after pulling that little stunt.
Yes, let us remember that it's a presidential election year in Brazil, and anything goes, especially for companies interested in little advantages. Plus, Google was being scalded alive by the local media. And, like I heard once: "a polemical headline exists as a bargain for a even more polemical request".
I don't think there's a court in the world that would say "oh, your business shut down? Guess we can't get that info then!"
In all likelyhood, that act would serve to further expedite the siezure of their assets and possibly charges of obstruction of justice against workers. After all, they wouldn't refuse to help the nice policemen unless they had something to hide, right?
"That way the people of Brazil would clearly know what the government is doing"
People of Brazil (including me) know exactly what the government is doing. It is going after people that are going beyond the "free speech" concept and getting into the "conspiracy to commit crime" realm. And it is not only about hate speech (that, in a certain extent, along with racism, is a crime in Brazil) but also members of criminal organizations ("traficantes") gloating about real world crimes like drug trafficking, weapon smuggling, etc.
This is not the government subpoena'ing for data of all users or random users, but users that broke the law in one way or another. There is probable cause, judicial oversight and a clear description of what is being searched.
(btw, as it is evident by some previous silly mistakes, english is not my first language)
Of course they could pull the plug on Orkut. But do they really want to do that?
According to Google's Press Release [google.com]:
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - November 17, 2005 [...] The launch of operations in Latin America further demonstrates Google's ongoing commitment to expanding its international business, and developing the search advertising market in new regions around the world. The office in Sao Paulo, Brazil follows the acquisition of Brazil's Akwan Information Technologies Inc. in July of this year. Akwan has
Before you start Google-bashing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before you start Google-bashing... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, this is ignoring the fact that "promoting hate" should not be a crime in the country Google hails from.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
While that's true, it doesn't prevent google from providing the requested information if they wish to, it merely means that they (presumably) cannot be compelled to do so.
Re:Before you start Google-bashing... (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, there are anti-discrimination laws in Brasil since the nineties, and racism (bigotry, in general) is a federal crime there. But, if I'm not wrong (IANAL), there is a difference in our law between "I hate " and "I hate you John Doe, you fucking ". The former counts as free speech, the latter doesn't. I may be wrong, I don't know.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Investigating conspiracy-to-commit-murder via Orkut would not generate nearly the same amount of news. Don't places in the US (myspace, etc) roll over with this information all the time?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I like the fact that google resisted until the end, and I don't like the fact that the government forced him to release this data. This is a bad thing, first because I believe that if someone would like to catch those people, Ork
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunatelly there are some racist and nazi-facist groups here at Brazil. And racism, and other forms of discrimination are crimes under the brazilian law. Also, there are some groups using Orkut to promote child pornography, and worst, child prostitution.
The brazilian authorities had been on a cruzade to erradicate children exploration, and I think that is fair to give them all the help we can.
Re:Before you start Google-bashing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Racism shouldn't be a crime in and of itself -- freedom of speech is something every country should agree on. The same pithy claim google makes that "we have to abide by their laws!!!oneone" doesn't refuse the fact that they are legitimizing an unjust law.
Do i expect all the employees of Orkut to destroy the data and go to prison for it? No. But it still doesn't make handing over the data justified. What's that cliche about "I vas just following orders..."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Round Up the Homophobes & Racists! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You hate coins [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are a misanthrope.
Maybe they should stop warehousing data (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Same goes for GMail.
Re: (Score:2)
But then, still be careful not to do your "interesting" searches from an IP address that you've used before to check your adsense, or they still can tie a name on it.
And be careful you never do searches about your name (or other identifiable info) from the same IP than you do your "interesting" searches.
Oh, and even if you restart your DSL, beware of cookies!
Or, alternatively, don't bother, and consider google the first p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe they should stop warehousing data (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what cracks me up? A number of times over the last year, I've heard people brag about how much they love Google because they 'do no evil'. They've even gone as far as to state that they plan on trusting Google until they give them reason to do otherwise. (These comments were always modded up, to boot.) I imagine lots of these people use a GMail account... which they log in with using their browser. So, while they're logged in to GMail, they use Google to browse. The potential here is that they can trace back your searches and tie them to your login. Who needs to log IP addresses when they can identify you that way?
So why does this crack me up? By the time Google does do something 'evil', they've already handed a lot of personal goodies over to Google. Oops...
I do hope I'm wrong, though. I'd like it pointed out if I am. (you see, I like Google as well, and I use Gmail...) I'd feel a lot more comfortable if GMail had stuck to its own domain instead of using mail.google.com.
Parent
No Evil. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ease up on the distilled twinkies and RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the groups in question were little more subtle than "Hey guys, let's get together at 5pm tonight and go kill some gays" or worse still "Hey, that sucker we killed at 5pm is one less gay in the world!".
The Brazilian police were, not surprisingly, rather pissed off that criminals could communicate in anonymity like this, which was having a very real impact on the Brazilian communities those gangs operated in. If Google did not hand ove
Google right and wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Google was in the wrong for collecting identifying information in the first place. That is where my gripe is. They should be using technical measures to filter out identifying information before it reaches their database. That might include hashing IP addresses for instance so that equality comparisons can be made - but the original IP address rendered unobtainable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Liberty versus Libertine (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh don't even start that bullshit about majorities versus minorities. The minorities are just as bad as the majorities. I've met just as many gays that instantly assume I'm going to want to stone them to death because I'm technically a fundamentalist, as I have met pseudo-Christians who would probably join a mob to stone them. I'm an asshole, they're an asshole. EVERYONE'S AN ASSHOLE on these issues at some point!
You know what breeds hate and resentment? Empowering people to turn subjective feelings into a legal weapon. You instantly empower a hate group the moment you ban it. I bet the KKK would grow 50-100% every year if it were outlawed. It's just a way for societies to brush their issues under the national carpet and pretend that all is well.
Well guess what?! It isn't! All manner of bigotry is rampant around the world and the force of law is not going to change hearts. Law has been used to smooth these things over time and again in the past and it **always** fails. The only thing that changes bigotry into love is a spiritual rebirth and that is something that cannot be legislated.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that discrimination may also happen to those who don't flaunt it, and even to those that are trying to hide it. Or worse: to those that only appear to be of a certain orientation without actually being.
I'm an asshole,
Don't advertise that too loudly if you don't actually enjoy it, he!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Europe doesn't says that throwing around human sexuality is ok, but saying offensive things is not. It says that even considering something like colour or number of people in a community for anything other than statistics is retarded; and that people should rather have fun. I don't think that is bad.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think you're over simplifying the issue here. Hate speech isn't something that hurts someone's feelings, its something that incites someone to commit a crime.
"I hate niggers" is not hate speech. "black people deserve to be lynched" is hate speech. Do you see the difference there? Its not the words you use, its that you're encouraging racial violence.
If you find homosexuals disgusting, its fine for you to say so. But when you start talking about committing a violent act you're crossing a line.
You ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, there are assholes in all groups, but there is a difference between what is happening
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The literal truth of whichversion of the Bible, of which translation [religioustolerance.org]? In many cases, originals are lost, and all we can go by are later translations, which may be faithful to the original, or which might not be. And if original texts do turn up at a later date, translations are often not corrected out of fear of shocking the readership with a more accurate (but unexpected) rendering. And that's even without counting deliberate forgeries.
In other
Thorn in my flesh (Score:3, Interesting)
So Paul knows what the "arsenokoite" term means. But does he also know what hypokrytos [beliefnet.com] means? (sorry for the Greek spelling, this is not my first language).
And how does Ephesians 5:29 rhyme with 2 Corinthians 12:7 ? Even if we disagree about what that mysterious "thorn" actually is, there seems to be some contradiction between both verses, unless Paul considers himself to be nobody.
We all need heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
Google will do what's best for google. End of story. If that means digging in their heels because a legal request is over reaching and would comprimise some aspect of their operations, so be it. If, in another case, it means they hand over the data, that's fair too.
You want a hero? Go hug a firefighter, or a police officer. Or a doctor, or a vet. Not a corporation.
This is about child porn (Score:2)
This is not some questionable case where the person is a political dissident, or something. They have records of this person's account, trading child porn. They want to know who he is.
Do you honestly think there is any sane way to take a stand on this issue and not look like a complete monster?
If they don't turn over the information, people will say they are protecting child moles
on the ground detective work (Score:2)
Google needs to take a good long look at what information it collects and how it matches up your google account information to your google searches
Everything's Public Now (Score:2)
PC strikes again. (Score:2)
Political Correctness is nothing more than totalitarianism in the world of ideas. What's worse is that it is almost transparently so, making its presence in a supposedly free society all the more puzzling and maddening. Those who promote it are quite simply intellectually bankrupt.
The best discription of political correctness I know of comes from Theodore Dalyrimple:
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my stud
Re:This is a horrifying precedent (Score:5, Informative)
By "compelled to produce," the article is talking about Google obeying a court order. If a court has jurisdiction over a company, it doesn't matter where the information is -- the company has to obey that order or face the consequences (or try to convince the court the order is invalid somehow).
The article summary is horribly misleading (even more so than normal): this is nothing like Google refusing to give the US government access to search info. There was no court order to do so (think subpoena), and so Google told them to take a hike. IIRC, even at that time Google specifically stated that if there had been a lawful court order, it would have complied.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jurisdiction isn't based on the quality of the legal system.
Unfortunately, though, you are right about the legal system in under-developed countries having a negative impact on investment: a company would rather operate somewhere there is danger of physical violence but can count on the legal system to be fair and consistent (enforce contracts, protect property rights, etc. - think Iraq at the moment) than to operate in a country that might be peaceful but where the legal system is arbitrary and can chang
Re:This is a horrifying precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
People in diferent coutries have different morals, some people believe that the laws should reflect their religions, other takes pride in making their government non-religious. The core of this question is that your morals are different from mine, they may even be similar in some aspects but they are different so you can't judge how good is a legal system for me based on your morals.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's all well and good, and foreigners setting up shop in another country certainly must "do as the Romans do."
Howeve
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't be the least surprised to find out that, if a data cable crosses through a country's territory, that country can follow its own
Re:This is a horrifying precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy does not equal freedom. Freedom is when a society recognizes that some things are none of its business. Democracy is about what to do with everything else.
Parent
Re:This is a horrifying precedent (Score:5, Informative)
So your example is easy to deal with. While a Brazilian court may or may not under Brazilian law have subject matter jurisdiction over the specific records on your hard drive, if you go to Brazil with that laptop then all bets are off and jurisdiction is established.
Want to hear the real rub? If you are in an airplane flying over a particular country (or even state in the USA) then they have personal jurisdiction over you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, no, Google cannot just ignore the laws of countries in which it
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Got news for ya - election year indeed (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, let us remember that it's a presidential election year in Brazil, and anything goes, especially for companies interested in little advantages. Plus, Google was being scalded alive by the local media. And, like I heard once: "a polemical headline exists as a bargain for a even more polemical request".
Parent
Memories... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In all likelyhood, that act would serve to further expedite the siezure of their assets and possibly charges of obstruction of justice against workers. After all, they wouldn't refuse to help the nice policemen unless they had something to hide, right?
Re:More Nonsense! (Score:5, Insightful)
People of Brazil (including me) know exactly what the government is doing. It is going after people that are going beyond the "free speech" concept and getting into the "conspiracy to commit crime" realm. And it is not only about hate speech (that, in a certain extent, along with racism, is a crime in Brazil) but also members of criminal organizations ("traficantes") gloating about real world crimes like drug trafficking, weapon smuggling, etc.
This is not the government subpoena'ing for data of all users or random users, but users that broke the law in one way or another. There is probable cause, judicial oversight and a clear description of what is being searched.
(btw, as it is evident by some previous silly mistakes, english is not my first language)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to Google's Press Release [google.com]: