Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Crime Google Government The Internet Youtube Politics

Google Brazil Exec "Detained" For Refusing YouTube Takedown Order 131

Posted by timothy
from the taking-one-for-the-team dept.
h00manist writes that, as promised, "The police executed an order to detain Google's top executive in Brazil (Original in Portuguese), Fábio José Silva Coelho. Google refused an order to remove a YouTube video which accused a mayoral candidate of several crimes. Police say he will be released today; Brazilian law for the case allows for a one-year max sentence. Streisand Effect, anyone?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Brazil Exec "Detained" For Refusing YouTube Takedown Order

Comments Filter:
  • When in Rome... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:16PM (#41470331)

    If your company policy requires you to break local laws, you have two options:

    1) break local laws, and go to a local jail.

    2) quit your job.

    There are, of course, ways of changing the laws and such...but until such time as those happen, the two above options are basically your only options.

    • Re:When in Rome... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DL117 (2138600) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:18PM (#41470355) Homepage

      3) Break local laws and flee home before they arrest you

    • by mooingyak (720677)

      There are a couple more choices:

      Pass the buck ("I'm not capable of doing that, only the US guys can")
      or
      Ignore company policy.

      #2 may get you fired, but that's not a guarantee.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        #2 may get you fired, but that's not a guarantee.

        Surely it's illegal to fire someone for refusing to break the law? Everyone's first duty is to the law, not his employer.

        • Re:When in Rome... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mooingyak (720677) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:57PM (#41470763)

          #2 may get you fired, but that's not a guarantee.

          Surely it's illegal to fire someone for refusing to break the law? Everyone's first duty is to the law, not his employer.

          Probably true in most countries, but not being familiar with Brazil's labor laws I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what would happen to this guy. In the US, if they wanted to get rid of the guy, they'd come up with a paper reason that wasn't necessarily the *real* reason for the firing.

        • Re:When in Rome... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:07PM (#41470865) Journal

          Everyone's first duty is to their conscience [eserver.org].

          • by Anonymous Coward
            Unless you're a Starfleet officer. Then it's to the truth!
            • "The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform!" ...but he isn't wearing a uniform.
      • Re:When in Rome... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by icebike (68054) * on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:39PM (#41470567)

        Google has no data centers in Brazil.

        So your Pass the buck is the only true course. I'm sure that is exactly what the hapless Google employee did.
        He has no control over datacenters. He's probably a marketing droid.

        But Brazil decided to take hostages any way.

        So next time you travle to Brazil you can expect to be held accountable for anything your employer might do
        anywhere in the world.

        If the US did this, you would be championing the company and condemning the US for trying to extend its
        laws to other countries.

        • by mooingyak (720677)

          Google has no data centers in Brazil.
          So your Pass the buck is the only true course. I'm sure that is exactly what the hapless Google employee did.
          He has no control over datacenters. He's probably a marketing droid.

          But Brazil decided to take hostages any way..

          The data centers not being in Brazil doesn't mean that the Google Brazil exec has no control over them. He *might* not have any control over what happens there, but the physical location of the data centers doesn't dictate that.

          • by icebike (68054) *

            the physical location of the data centers doesn't dictate that.

            Yes, it does.
            Brazil's citizens sought information from the US, or maybe the closer Chili datacenters. The US, and US companies are under no obligation to prevent those citizens of Brazil from seeking data anywhere on the net. If all Google traffic to Brazil went thru a Google Datacenter, then Barzil might have a claim.

            You may be content to allow Brazil or perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to dictate to the world what information might be shown, but nobody else is. If Brazil wants to block Brazil at th

            • Re:When in Rome... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by mooingyak (720677) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:46PM (#41471253)

              If the US did this, you would be championing the company and condemning the US for trying to extend its
              laws to other countries.

              You may be content to allow Brazil or perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to dictate to the world what information might be shown, but nobody else is.

              Jump to conclusions much? Try focusing on what I say instead of what you imagine I might mean.

              The location means that the Brazilian Government can't physically storm the data center and do what they want with it. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Google Exec from Brazil has authority to block a video. That is entirely a matter internal to Google. I don't claim to know what Google's rules on the matter are, but if they gave him the OK to block videos, then he can do it regardless of where the servers are.

              • by sumdumass (711423)

                Not only that, but Google had blocked The Innocence of Muslims things in certain countries stating that they follow the laws and culture of the areas they have offices in.

                So we know that Google itself has the ability to block access to it on a country specific basis. The Google exec, even if he didn't have the ability, had the ability to ask Google to cooperate with local laws and local law enforcement agencies as they claim they do all across the world already.

                This entire situation seems to be more of a po

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm brazilian. The law here in this aspect is simple: if a judge commans something in a court order, whoever is ordered to must comply. Probably Google Brazil had the court order served, but didn't comply for some reason (slack, or someone at a lower position had forgot or intended to prank his manager for the kicks). As ultimately the responsible is the head of operations, the police went right to the guy. I believe it's not wise to mess with a judge anywhere on this planet. If it makes people more relieve

          • Re:When in Rome... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by icebike (68054) * on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:31PM (#41471111)

            He didn't comply because he couldn't comply.

            Are brazillian companies run in such a way that it is normal to expect a Janitor at a Sales office to be able to over rule the head office?

            If A US judge decided to hold a secretary of Embraer's US office hostage until the parent company nuckeled under to some unreasonable demand would Brazillians shrug? Or would they be burning the flag at the embasy gates.

            Why the the double standard when it comes to this type of behavior?

            • by Anonymous Coward

              In Brazil, when you cannot comply with a court order of this magnitude, you get your lawyers in the case ASAP to either talk the judge out of it, or get a temporary relief from another judge in order to have enough time to do something about it. And that will be at most 48H, I think.

              What you DON'T do is to ignore the judge. You WILL get detained (i.e. held within a police building, not in a cell) for a while until you manage to get the judge to understand why you cannot comply to his demands as written, an

            • Re:When in Rome... (Score:5, Informative)

              by taupter (139818) <taupter@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @08:30PM (#41471759) Homepage

              I'm the guy who posted comments before yours.

              Google complies with brazilian court orders by the thousands every year, and it should be no news. Google complies with court orders from every country it has a headquarter.
              Mr. Fabio, a brazilian citizen, Google employee and top executive, may not be able to obey the order by himself, but he's capable to command another Google employee to do so. So ultimately he is the main responsible person.
              I don't know how Google Brazil is run, but every company around the world with 10+ employees needs an hierarquical structure where someone at the top delegates to his tenants and it goes down under to the cleaning guy. And people make mistakes, get dismissed and so on. Someone messed up and will have to take the heat. And Mr. Fabio wasn't imprisioned, he just had to go to a police department to answer some questions and to be made aware of the problem and act upon.
              If an USA judge issued a court order the police must comply, be the target BillG, the elusive Embraer secretary or whoever. If the secretary is an USA citizen, that's it, if not the diplomacy will take place, as every UN member would expect to act.
              Burning flags is not a brazilian national sport. We're pretty orderly (fanfare to the common man playing in the backgound) and working people.
              There are no double standards here. Brazil respects international laws pretty much as everyone else. Please remember Flight 1907, when USA pilots downed a Boeing full of brazilian citizens just because some USA senator didn't want to be tracked in brazilian airspace by brazilian airspace authorities. Nobody burned USA flags, the pilots were repatriated to USA and propably nothing wrong happened to them, despite reaping more than one hundred brazilian souls. Because we respect the law.
              Brazilian judges aren't pluripotent tyrants in constant tantrum spree. They're accountable and overviewed by the legal system, that can punish the judge and overrule him/her if appropriate, just as every really civilized western country with representatives elected by the people.

              Sorry, but nothing to see here. Move along.

              • by Anonymous Coward

                Please keep your lies to a minimum. As for Flight 1907 incident, the Embraer Legacy 600 was not carrying any US senator, it was being delivered to US by Embraer with two employees of Embraer, two from the company who bought the jet and one NY Times journalist. It was the Brazilian air traffic controllers who sent the two planes toward each other on the same flight path and altitude. The Embraer pilots were blamed because they survived. Both Brazilian and US agencies placed blame on the air traffic controlle

              • Brazilian judges, like the judges of all countries in this world, are pluripotent tyrants who answer for very little. They are also completely unable to understand that in practice they hold no power over the information flow in the Internet. Someone should teach them about the Streisand effect...
                • by taupter (139818)

                  I only talk about local judges because that's all I know (and I have a brother that is a state judge). I concede most judges have an inflated ego, and in fact it may even prove to be necessary for the profession (as displaying authority may be a better deterrent than only having authority).
                  Judges, are people just like soylent green is. They make mistakes, some terrible. In 2005 a judge (Percy Barbosa), while drunken, killed a clerk in a supermarket just for the kicks. He got 15 years of jail time and had to

                • by taupter (139818)

                  About the Streisand effect, as long as the thing is played down, the problem dissolves in internet's white noise. That's why we got notice of this case, while the other thousands of court orders Google complies to in Brazil and around the world everyday take so little to no publicity.
                  Being exposed in a Youtube video may be very damaging, but having it on Youtube for ad aeternam is worse than having a big pop of publicity at once and people forgetting it in a week or less as the next fad/meme/news enters the

                • by xelah (176252)
                  Or, alternatively, perhaps the judge is fully aware that he can't control information flow on the Internet, and that the case will only draw attention to it, but has been asked to enforce a local law and is doing so. If the law says 'this is illegal and this is the punishment' and a prosecutor prosecutes it, and the facts put before him show that the prosecutor is right, what is he supposed to do?
              • by swillden (191260)
                Here is Mr. Fabio's comment on the issue:

                You may have read articles in the press over the last couple of weeks about YouTube videos in Brazil. Given all the interest, we wanted to explain what has happened, and why. First of all some basic principles about the service. Our goal is for YouTube to be a community that everyone can enjoy, as well as a platform for free speech around the world. This can cause real challenges, because what is OK in one country may be offensive or even illegal in another.

                So we have clear community guidelines about the kind of videos that are unacceptable--and when they are flagged, we review and if necessary remove them. If a video is illegal in a particular country--and we have a local version of the service there, as in Brazil--we will restrict access to it, after receiving a valid court order or government complaint. Because we are deeply committed to free expression, we often push back on requests that we do not believe are valid. For example, we were recently in court in the US arguing that videos were perfectly legitimate and should stay on YouTube.

                Now for what’s happened in Brazil. As usual during an election season, we have had a lot of court orders to remove videos that are critical of political candidates. As always, we have reviewed them all-- and pushed back on the many legal complaints that we believe are invalid. For example, last week, we appealed a court order to remove videos from YouTube. While we were waiting for that appeal to be heard, an arrest warrant was issued for me as country director of Google Brazil.

                Late last night, we learned that our final legal appeal has been denied and so now we have no choice but to block the video in Brazil. We are deeply disappointed that we have never had the full opportunity to argue in court that these were legitimate free speech videos and should remain available in Brazil.

                Despite all this, we will continue to campaign for free expression globally—not just because it’s a key tenet of free societies, but also because more information generally means more choice, more power, more economic opportunity and more freedom for people. As Article 19 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

                Ironically, the user who published one of the videos has now removed it and closed their account-- showing just what a chilling effect these episodes can have on free speech.

                Source: http://googlebrasilblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/youtube-no-brasil.html [blogspot.com]

            • by aaarrrgggh (9205)

              The buck stops here. The executive is the responsible party for local operation. Legal filings would indicate the same. It works the same in the US. An executive's only out is if the offense is the action of another individual rather than a department or such.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          If Google is doing business in Brazil, they have to abide to the laws of Brazil, whether the servers are hosted there or not.

          If that Fabio Silva guy does in fact work for Google, and is in fact working in Brazil, that would lead me to believe that Google does in fact have a business presence in Brazil, which means they are required to comply with the law there.

          BTW, last I heard, Google owned Orkut, which at some point was the biggest social network in Brazil.

          • I don't think Google Brazil *can* comply. If Google Brazil is set up anything like how my employer's international entities are set up, they are actually separate and distinct legal entities from the parent company (which is HQ'd in USA) that the parent company has 100% ownership of.

            The guy who is in charge of the Brazil office can't effect a decision at the home office.

            Brazilian law may deliberately hold executives of foreign subsidiaries responsible for their parent's actions, but from a legal perspective

            • by taupter (139818)

              Ok, but Google complies with such brazilian court orders by the thousands every year. The novelty is the SNAFU that made them forget to comply to this one.

        • "But Brazil decided to take hostages any way."

          I hope you're just saying that for rhetorical effect. Because like the US Brazil is a federal republic. Read TFA. It says this was a local court case, not an action of the federal government.

          The analogy I'd use would be some US state carrying out the death penalty on a person convicted in a controversial case by a local court. Would you blame Obama for the man's death? Unless there's a clear reason to see the case as "rigged" against the convict, it would do mor

          • by sjames (1099)

            The feds trample state laws all the time, especially when it comes to medical marijuana.

        • When in Rome do like the Romans do. When you offer your services in Brazil you have to comply with their laws. As simple as that.
        • by ulzeraj (1009869)

          Its not really about Brazilian laws. Its about stupid brazilian judges who are still living on the 19th century and hold way too much power.

          The guy was freed anyway.

    • by kasperd (592156)
      You forgot the more sensible option. Comply with the law and stay in your job.
    • by Hatta (162192)

      3) Comply with local law and sue your employer when they fire you for it.

    • 3) Break the local law and move your operations offshore.
      4) Break the law, but get away with it because you are a powerful corporation.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      Last I checked, human rigth laws such as the one protecting free speech were universal, not local.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's not like the Brazilian court is trying to hide something with this order that now it will be 10x public, you know?

    I don't like most of limitations to free speech, but you know, I also don't like transnationals corporations acting like they are above the law of the (several) countries they operate.

    A court order in Brazil gave an order, and google was in contempt, don't like it? change the law or don't operate there.

    • change the law or don't operate there.

      Exactly right. It would be nice if companies like Google would grow some balls and just say "OK. Fuck you. We're closing all our operations in your country".

      Why exactly does Google need an office in Brazil anyway?. I've heard of this thing called The Internet that lets you communicate and do business will people all over the world without having to actually be in their country.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bruno.fatia (989391)

        That's not how you do business and this is not a reason for not operating in some country. They earn money in Brazil and they would just lose that revenue by skipping a large economy just because of some silly youtube video. Having a local office helps you receive payments and is a major deal breaker expecially when dealing with corporate customers.

        If, during american elections, people posted videos saying Obama is a rapist and favors abortion I'm sure it would be removed.

    • Re:Streinsad Effect? (Score:4, Informative)

      by icebike (68054) * on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:32PM (#41470481)

      It's not like the Brazilian court is trying to hide something with this order that now it will be 10x public, you know?

      I don't like most of limitations to free speech, but you know, I also don't like transnationals corporations acting like they are above the law of the (several) countries they operate.

      A court order in Brazil gave an order, and google was in contempt, don't like it? change the law or don't operate there.

      Hints:
      Google works on the internet. The internet works everywhere (Except Iran, apparently).
      Google has no datacenters in Brazil [google.com].

      So Brazil was trying to enforce ITS laws in OTHER countries, something everyone here is quick to condem when the US does it.
      Failing to force the US to change its laws, Brazil takes hostages.

      • Re:Streinsad Effect? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:39PM (#41470571)

        It doesn't matter where the datacenter is located (good luck trying to enforce your rigths to your information based on that)

        What it does matter, is that google is incorporated (twice apparently) in Brazil

          Google Belo Horizonte
        Google Brasil Internet LTDA
        Av. Bias Fortes
        n 382 6th floor, Lourdes
        Belo Horizonte
        30170-010
        Brazil
        Phone: +55-31-2128-6800
        Fax: +55-31-2128-6801
        Google São Paulo
        Google Brasil Internet Limitada
        Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima
        n 3900 5th floor, Itaim
        São Paulo, 04538-132
        Brasil
        Teléfono: +55-11-3797-1000
        Fax: +55-11-3797-1001

        http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by icebike (68054) *

          So what?

          Do you think that little shell corportion allows Brazil to dictate what is on Google Servers all over the world?

          Gee, if that works for Brazil, why won't it work for the US? After all, every significant company of size
          is encorporated in the US as well as its home country.

          • Yes, it does actually. For example, if your company is incorporated in the USA, and its overseas subsidiary sells something to Cuba, guess what's gonna happen at your American office?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bruno.fatia (989391)

        They don't have a datacenter but they do have a local office and Google is a registred company in Brazil so they either (a) comply with local laws or (b) close the company local office. It really is that simple.

        • by icebike (68054) *

          Gazprom, the Russian State owned Gas producer has a registration in Texas, and an office there.

          So does that mean the US law extends to Gasprom, and we can dictate price caps to them?

          How bout a little consistancy from you?
          Back on August 11 you posted [slashdot.org]

          I understand OP point of view but with something as global as the Internet why should one government or another regulate it?

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I can't resist to reply to you again, as it seems you are making the same point over again.

            Yes, if there is a law that sets price caps locally on Texas, or at Federal level, Gazprom USA would be regulated for the oil it sells there. What it shouldn't be regulated if for the oil Gazprom Russia sells to China.

            This unregulated international corporatism you are advocating for is something bad for all the citizens in the world.

          • by TFAFalcon (1839122) on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:35PM (#41471155)

            If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.

            And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.

            • by icebike (68054) *

              If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.

              And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.

              Yes, they can try inside their own borders, Like Iran.
              But even Iran knows better than to order a company with nothing but a sales office in Iran how to act all over the world.

              Brazil can block Google at their borders. Just like Iran.
              We probably stop buying Airplanes from Brazil. Meh!

              • Brazil is not asking to order a company how to act all over the world. It asks for the video in question to be blocked specifically in Brazil. What's so unreasonable about that?

          • by xevioso (598654)

            Well, we could try. The company would, of course, ignore us. Eventually someone working for them gets arrested here in the US, and then either Russia retaliates, or the company leaves the US.

          • The US law does apply to Gasprom in US territory. And they either (a) comply with local laws or (b) are denied the right to act inside the United States. What you are implying is simply stupid, which is regulating the market with fixed prices. In this case we are not talking about the sale of a product but the streaming of a video which the court ruled infringes election laws thereby threatens the sovernity of a country. We really shouldn't let private companies interfere with elections because that just em

          • The US regularly fines foreign airlines for price fixing and other market manipulation, despite them being foreign companies - so yes.

      • by Snowbat (1118171)

        Maybe not a datacenter, but here on NET Virtua in Rio de Janeiro, YouTube videos are served from what appears to be a cache colocated at my ISP:

        # tcptraceroute o-o---preferred---sn-oxunxg8pjvn-bpbe---v17---lscache7.c.youtube.com
        Selected device eth0, address 192.168.1.5, port 46521 for outgoing packets
        Tracing the path to o-o---preferred---sn-oxunxg8pjvn-bpbe---v17---lscache7.c.youtube.com (201.17.31.76) on TCP port 80 (http), 30 hops max
        1 192.168.1.1 1.308 ms 1.173 ms 1.091 ms
        2 * * *

      • by dutchwhizzman (817898) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @01:24AM (#41474323)

        Google is known to comply with local law and not display video's that are in violation of several nations laws, when requested to do so by the local authorities. After Thailand blocked youtube, they removed any video that could be insulting to Thailands king Bhumibol, to give an example. Similar actions to remove or at least block content have been taken in several countries after legal and sometimes economical pressure from the country. I'm sure that a next step from Brazil would be to name Google a criminal organization and block all their services for the entire country. It may not be the very next step, but eventually it will get to that point.

        The most likely thing that will happens next is that Google will then comply because they can't afford to loose the business if it gets to that. Don't be evil, unless you are losing too much money. My analysiss of Google leaving China is that it wasn't about censorship, they complied to that for quite a while, but about too much effort for the money they were allowed to make by the Chinese government. They were being forced to censor *and* squeezed for the amount of cash they were allowed to pull out of the Chinese economy. The latter made applying the censorship just too much work to be profitable enough.

      • Some considerations:

        First of all, Google (the branch) is incorporated in Brazil, so by law it is a Brazilian company and has to follow Brazilian laws. This is way different than claiming jurisdiction because of nothing more than a top level domain, without any other kind of presence, like the US does. Google is a legal company in Brazil, with local offices, executives, employees and engineers and offers products in Brazil, in Portuguese, using a .com.br domain, to Brazilian customers. Users accept EULAs

    • by kasperd (592156)

      A court order in Brazil gave an order, and google was in contempt, don't like it? change the law or don't operate there.

      I doubt that he could have taken the video down in the first place. Google has a five digit number of employees. They do not all have access to remove videos from YouTube. I would have checked what the article had to say on that matter, but the link is broken.

    • by dnaumov (453672)

      A court order in Brazil gave an order, and google was in contempt, don't like it? change the law or don't operate there.

      This logic doesn't work. "There" is globally, across the world, in over 140 countries. A ton of countries have laws that are in direct contradiction with one another. No, this doesn't mean that global companies should tailor their online presense to each and every country individually. I am free to publish a funny Mohammed cartoon here in Finland and I don't have to give 2 shits about what some jackass in Pakistan or Iran or wherever thinks about it or whatever their laws say about publishing such material

      • If you don't want to be subject of the laws of some particular country, then simply don't open an office in the country. You can still provide Internet services to them (and said country can try to block them if they really hate you).

        But if you have an office, guess what? Its employees are all operating under the laws of the country in question. If a court of that country has issued a lawful order, what's unreasonable about them trying to enforce it on those employees?

  • Title says it all.

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by gwolf (26339)

      But it is!

      Brazil is even the United States of America. And so is Mexico. Brazil's official name is Estados Unidos do Brasil, and Mexico's is Estados Unidos Mexicanos — and they are both located in America. Yes, America is a continent.

      Even Argentina was, for some time, although the name was rather "United Provinces of Argentina". That name has changed, though.

      • Brazil's official name is Estados Unidos do Brasil

        Brazil is actually the Federative Republic of Brazil (República Federativa do Brasil), but thanks for playing.

        • by gwolf (26339)

          Bummer, so it's just Mexico now :-/ Brazil was "Estados Unidos do Brasil" between 1889 and 1968, when the military seized power. Thanks, Wikipedia.

          Anyway, please continue playing. Oh — But Brazil continues to be America, no way to get that revised!

          • America is not a continent. The two continents are North America and South America. Together, they're referred two as "Americas".

            So Brazil is in Americas - in South America, to be specific. But it's not America.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @06:43PM (#41470611)
    Really, i'm completely against any kind of censorship and when i read about this the first time i tough it was something abusive. But after looking at some of the videos... they are just a bunch of lies about the guy, with fake "documents" that doesn't exist showing things he didn't do it. Here in Brazil there's a law that says something like this: if you accuse some candidate about anything during election you have do identify yourself. That's to protect people against things like this. Google did not comply with the law, they were asked to remove and done nothing, now they say excuses like they aren't responsible about user content. When it' s major record company thay don't even ask.. google has their legs open to then. Ridiculous position from a company that i have a lot of respect, hope they apologize their attitude.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @07:19PM (#41470979)

      How do you know they are lies? And as far as I can see, the accuser does identify himself (unless he's using a fake full name as his YouTube username). I'm also Brazilian and I understand the need for this kind of law, but under Brazil's electoral law, it should be the accuser who is prosecuted, not the owner of the platform he's using to make the accusation.

      Brazil has a recurring problem with this - not sure how much it's the judges' fault or the prosecutors' fault, probably taking advantage of the fact that judges know nothing about how the internet works. Hopefully, our Internet Bill will be passed in Congress soon and end these bullshit interpretations of the law...

      (Definitely agree with you on record companies though - Google is always quick to comply with theirs and Hollywood's take down orders.)

      (Oh, and I'm not an Anonymous Coward, I just can't find where to identify myself! :P)

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Mmmm.. okay. You may agree or disagree with Google's policies. However, your post raises an interesting question. What would happen in your country if something produced a video full of lies about the candidates, and left it anonymously at the door of as many citizens as possible? Would the police try to arrest someone in that case? If they did try to arrest someone, how likely do you think it would be that they go after the manufacturers of the tapes or digital devices where the videos were stored?

      You also

      • by taupter (139818)

        Google is able to remove the video, and it can do it faster than waiting to discover who the guy/gal is and prosecuting him/her and demmanding the person to remove the video.
        Let's take some reductio ad absurdum and just imagine the criminal who posted the video died being hanged on a carrot. Should the defamed guy be defamed ad aeternam because the criminal met his/her maker? Isn't more sensible to order Google to remove the offending video, and for Google to comply? Let's just be reasonable, people. Should

      • by Maow (620678)

        Mmmm.. okay. You may agree or disagree with Google's policies. However, your post raises an interesting question. What would happen in your country if something produced a video full of lies about the candidates, and left it anonymously at the door of as many citizens as possible? Would the police try to arrest someone in that case? If they did try to arrest someone, how likely do you think it would be that they go after the manufacturers of the tapes or digital devices where the videos were stored?

        As a Canadian, and with regards to our last federal election, all I can say is that if a party posts lying and/or misleading videos accusing a candidate of things the accuser actually campaigns for but paints it in this case in a negative light... then the accusers get a majority government.


        • Accusers = Conservative Party of Canada (like US Republicans),

        • accused = Michael Ignatief, leader of Liberal Party of Canada (like US Democrats),

        • accusations = "Just Visiting Canada" (Ignatief taught Canadian Studies at H
  • @editors, the original article link is wrong.

  • We tried modernity, now it's time to return to the good old dark days of South American Fascism.

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Working...