Brazil Approves Internet Bill of Rights 132
First time accepted submitter Dr.Potato (247646) writes "After more than three years being discussed, Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights was approved on April 22nd (and in Portuguese). It was rushed through the senate in order that president Dilma Roussef could sign it during the meeting on internet governance that occurs in São Paulo this week. In the bill of rights, among other things, net neutrality was maintained, providers will not be legally responsible for content published by users (but are forced to take it down when legally requested) and internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months and can't pass this responsibility to other companies."
Brazilian internet users may continue to have the right to be surveilled on social media, too.
"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly whose "rights" are they talking about?
Re: (Score:1)
From the original in Portuguese:
"O sigilo das comunicações dos usuários da internet não pode ser violado. Provedores de acesso à internet serão obrigados a guardar os registros das horas de acesso e do fim da conexão dos usuários pelo prazo de seis meses, mas isso deve ser feito em ambiente controlado."
which translates roughly as:
"The user's communication privacy cannot be violated. ISPs will be obliged to keep track of access and connection hours for six months, but
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds fair.
I don't think so. There should no forced retention of such data.
Re: (Score:1)
This seems like a well-written law for a change, and Brazilian government wasn't very Internet-friendly in the past as they used to block YouTube and ban video games (even rather innocuous ones like CounterStrike).
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it has always worked like this here in Brazil: you either log access, so that you can transfer blame, or you get the blame. It REALLY is that simple. So, before the Marco Civil, we had to log it *and* retain it for a loooooong while, and jump through hoops to answer the police (not the court!). Now we only have to do it for 6 months, and the law cannot request anything past that date, and all requests must be made by a court. They can, however, request that *specific* records be kept for longer i
Re: (Score:1)
Can you shows us some proof?
I'm not your personal Google or Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
True, that's not too bad, but an obligation to keep any records at all is still not really about "rights."
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing what they are legally obliged to do is very important to the ISPs. Knowing what the requirement is, frees them from collecting even more info because of ambiguity. It sounds a lot better than whats going on in the rest of the world at least.
Re: (Score:2)
No URLs, no content, just connection times.
What does "access" mean if not the URL or addresses of the sites you access during the time you are connected? If they had meant just "connection hours", they wouldn't have needed to say "access" because connection includes access to the ISP.
Re: (Score:1)
The new law states clearly that the records consist solely of the ip and time of connection, being illegal to make any analysis or record of the contents or protocols used in such connection.
The lack of this information kind of matters.
Rights are not things that are given (Score:2, Informative)
Rights given by men, can be taken by men; they are therefore not rights.
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like. But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.
You have the right to life for example, you do not have the right to eat steak every day. Do you disagree with this?
That some government recogize rights and some do not is clear, but you cannot just make them up as you please, it doesn't work that way.
Pretending that things are rights that clearly are not in fact cheapens those things that are rights.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like.
Rights are things created by humans in an effort to make society better. Society will usually dictate that governments (or people) can't infringe or take away people's rights except in extreme circumstances. Long and boring explanations that go into specifics are unnecessary; rights are not magic things that just exist.
But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.
Then, simply put, you believe all rights are privileges. Calling them "natural" does not make your notion of rights seem any less magical.
it doesn't work that way.
Stating that it does not work that way does not make
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Easy there slugger, these things are really quite simple.
Who gave you life?
Who gave you a steak?
You have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. You do not have the right to take food from another man just because you are hungry. There are others of course but you get the point.
You most certainly do not have the right to internet at some arbitrary service level, this is just so much bullshit made up to keep the proles thinking they are being cared for by their benelovent masters. You do
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's true, and I can prove it. Let then create another one, they cannot.
Do you mean another human life in general? Do you know if the poster has brothers or sisters? If you only count human lives created after you posted your challenge then, if the parents are alive and the mother isn't post-menopausal, they can have another one. Heck, with modern fertility medicine, they can have another one even if she is, either directly or through a surrogate. If you mean another one with the same DNA as the poster you're referring to, they can do that too by implanting a cell nucleus from
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow! A religious nutter. What a surprise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is far more interesting, I believe in, and our country recognizes, your right to be anti-religous, But you must understand that your belief that there is no god is itself an act of faith, is it not?
Do you understand that your believe that there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all acts of faith? Or do you simply lack a belief in those things?
Lacking a belief in something because there is no evidence that it exists is not faith. I simply acknowledge that science has a good track record (unlike your useless "faith") of getting us closest to the truth, and if there is no scientific evidence that something exists, I simply lack a reason to believe in it. If that is
Re: (Score:1)
The thing is you seem very insistent that I accept and understand your position on god, but clearly don't seem very willing to accept an alternate belief.
Because I believe the alternate belief is bullshit (in the sense that it's irrational to believe something you have no reason to believe in), just like you believe that 1 + 1 most definitely does not equal 3. There is nothing contradictory or startling here.
Let me put that a tad less politely; while I was trying honestly to engage in a discussion and was willing to attempt to understand your beliefs, you are kind of a dick.
It's nice that you think so.
Re: (Score:1)
Because a lot of Slashdotters are libertarians who only have the most cursory understanding of social philosophy, the Constitution, what lead to it, who created it and why, and are about as sensible as the Communists of the last century.
Rights exist because a majority of the power structure in a society agree that they do. Where that agreement comes from is rather irrelevant - church, open fora, private discussions, backroom deals between cigar-chomping fat cats, a sentimental upwelling; it all works the sa
Re: (Score:1)
"Rights exist because a majority of the power structure"
Hogwash, rights exist specifically to protect the minority from the majority. The majority do not need rights do they?
I am speaking of logic and philosophy, you are speaking about politics, they are not the same thing.
It is my belief that these righs are natural, you saying they are not is meaningless to me. And you certainly have the right to think whatever the fuck you want to, I could care less.
Now go fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Hogwash, rights exist specifically to protect the minority from the majority.
Please explain how those rights are enforced without resorting to laws, a court system, or other people part of the power structure.
Have fun.
It is my belief that these righs are natural, you saying they are not is meaningless to me. And you certainly have the right to think whatever the fuck you want to, I could care less.
That was certainly an eloquent and convincing argument. Not to mention, a great display of your grasp of the English language.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why Freedom of Speech is central to how the US operates politically
From the outside, with you Free Speech Zones, it doesn't look like that.
Re: (Score:1)
Iluvatar
I'm vegetarian, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the right to life for example,
Fun fact: your right to life is inviolate only for as long as everyone around you agrees to it. Fun fact #2: no one specified anything about what life.
In other words: your right to life is a privilege granted to you by everyone around you, and can be revoked by a single person in your environment. Feel free to explain how that differs from a privilege.
Re: (Score:3)
Fun fact: your right to life is inviolate only for as long as everyone around you agrees to it.
You are confusing rights with conditions. Your right to life is independent of your neighbors, otherwise "inalienable" it would not be. Whether your neighbors violate your right is a different matter.
Feel free to explain how that differs from a privilege.
Privileges can be revoked without legal repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Privileges can be revoked without legal repercussions.
Good. Step 2: how are legal repercussions determined? Compare and contrast your inalienable rights with those of blacks pre 1970.
Re: (Score:1)
You won't find your rights described in any physics books. There's no mathematical proof deriving them from base principles. In no biology textbook will you see your rights labeled next to your liver or spleen, or a section of the brain where rights are formed.
Rights are concepts, and as such are entirely the product of people, they are not "natural" or "god given" whatever that even means.
The reason we say they are is because everyone is better off if we treat them that way, and if you say they're arbitra
Re: (Score:3)
Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like. But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.
You have the right to life for example, you do not have the right to eat steak every day. Do you disagree with this?
These seem rather similar. I was granted life by my parents. I was granted nutrition by my parents, who acquired said resources through a complicated web of colleges, researchers, engineers, factories, government-built roads, culminating in high-yield farms growing special seeds with complex equipment, plus their jobs. You can't claim you have a right to life but no right to eat, because without food you die. You can't claim your privilege to life does not interfere with my right to shoot bullets wherever I
Re: (Score:1)
You have the right to life for example, you do not have the right to eat steak every day. Do you disagree with this?
Yes, in the USA, people can legally lose the right to life so while legally murdered people were alive and had right to live, they had it because it was granted by others (but later taken away). People agreed on granting the right to life for most people most of the time, but sometimes that's not the case, like in the US with death penalty or in China with abortion. Yours is a convenient opinion to have because you will always be correct in any jurisdiction no matter what anyone else thinks or even how soci
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”
So, jails and prisons are out, then?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"everyone has right to free healthcare"
Good for you. But it's still not a right.
Firstly nothing is free, this is not a matter of opinion, this is simply truth, like gravity, *things* cost *money* and healthcare is a thing.
If you have a right to healthcare, who pays for it? How much do doctors get paid? What if the doctor decides he wants more money than the state is willing to pay?
I will tell you what; if healthcare is a right that is to be enforced by the state, then the state has to force the doctor to wo
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No, you aren't following him. Doctors there are free to seek whatever pay they want, just like everyone else. Employers are free not to agree to that price, just like everywhere else.
BTW, your oxygen payment is past due. We'll send people around in a moment to clamp your nose and mouth shut.
Re: (Score:1)
No it is you who are failing to follow along here. Listen to me.
Assuming healthcare is a right of man, that means that the state must see to it that all men get care - it is your right is it not?
Unless the state can contract or hire enough doctors to provide this care at a reasonable cost the state will have to implement price controls. Physicians are highly skilled, as you may know, and expect to be paid well. It is certain that the state will want to pay them less than they want to work for.
Thus you wi
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The entire rest of the free world manages to hire enough doctors to provide the needed healthcare. Sometimes they get creative like taking care of their med-school tuition in exchange for professional services at a discount later (a perfectly fair bargain freely entered) or relieving them of the burden of malpractice insurance payments. None of those places conscript doctors. Interestingly, here in the U.S. we do have a shortage of doctors and nurses in some regions.
Every system has rationing, Some do it ba
Re: (Score:1)
The government sets it's price, which is actually pretty good. Doctors who agree to the price do work for the government. Doctors who don't agree work for themselves or insurance plans (that pay pretty close to the government's prices).
Doctors expect to be well paid, so when they are n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Universal healthcare here (Brazil) is paid with tax money. It is fairer than the private healthcare system because ...
you define "fair" to include the concept of taking things from someone who works to get them to give them to someone who doesn't. This is "fair" to the people who get things; patently unfair to those who get things taken away. Since there are generally more people who want their stuff to be paid for by other people than those who want to buy other people stuff, this make this, on average, "fair".
What isn't discussed in this idea of "fair" is what happens when the population of people this is "fair" for g
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It is because of this north-american mentality that humanity will be extinct soon, friend.
I am not your friend and your use of the term is insulting. There is also no such "north-american mentality" that you think exists. The idea that you don't get is one of personal responsibility, where the primary responsibility for one's well being is not "all those rich people", but oneself.
Where do you read what I wrote that would be "just for some"?
It is "just for some" because there are, indeed, people who make very little, if any, use of the health care system. The rich people who can afford private care to avoid the waiting time will pay to do so, meaning the
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry dude, but I will not bite. I will not spend my time trying to reason with you, is a waste of time. After all you live in a american fantasy world and I will not be able to convince you otherwise, there is no way to reverse years of your mind conditioning in a few minutes.
(P.S: It's because of things like this the world does not die of love for you north-americans...)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you have some friends with mod points to force your peculiar and destructive view of word on the others :-)
You are a nutter. I'm not forcing anything on anyone, I'm stating my opinion. An opinion that is hardly destructive, given that it was the founding basis for the US and we did pretty well getting past the colonial stage.
After all you live in a american fantasy world and I will not be able to convince you otherwise, there is no way to reverse years of your mind conditioning in a few minutes.
Had I wanted to be insulting to you I would have said that you are obviously conditioned to believe the system you live in is the best despite facts that contradict that and that you are a mind-numbed robot of the federal government in Brasilia. But I chose not to be insulting. Thanks for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you define "fair" to include the concept of taking things from someone who works to get them to give them to someone who doesn't.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France
That's the fairness of the law. Sometimes it swings the other way. Rich men and poor men alike have to, for example, contribute a percentage of their income above a certain amount in taxes. Poor men are just as obligated to pay in the highest tax bracket as rich men if they happen to have the same income. I have to say that the problem that you and your ilk
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we all know nothing is free. When people say "free healthcare" they are talking about a system where the cost difference between getting sick and not getting sick is 0. That's the thing. Of course they pay for it in taxes, but steadily paying tax is a lot easier than having to save a lot of money for in the event of illness, and woe betide they get sick twice. They don't have to fear repossession by the bank of their house/car/whatever, etc. etc. etc. That's the difference. It pains me you don't
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as free healthcare. Doctors and hospitals cost money.
Re: (Score:2)
rights are what rights do (Score:1)
You are basically wrong about rights. There is no objectively correct formulation for what a right is. The idea of rights precedes philosophical discussions about them. There are rights discussed in some of the most ancient writings we know of.
You can be given the right to enslave by a government. You might say 'in philosophy x you have no right to enslave' and you can also so 'philosophy x is the best way of thinking about this because' but you cannot say 'It is a rule of nature that you cannot enslave
Re: (Score:1)
Net neutrality does not involve guaranteeing all citizens will have internet connection.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that property rights are pretty important to you too. Do you mind the men with guns defending your property rights? Of course I'm also going to guess that you think you'll defend your property rights just fine single-handed with your own guns.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing natural rights and civil rights.
If a society offers no rights beyond natural rights to it's citizens, it may not ethically expect any obedience to it's laws nor payment of taxes.
As for your other claims, nobody said people aren't being paid.
Re: (Score:3)
Rights are a term used in rhetoric, originally invented to convince theistic believers that their god made them inherent.
You don't even have the right to breathe. You, instead, have the need to breathe. However, as has been proven throughout history, this need can be overridden by someone with more power. And then you die.
This same thing is true of all other "rights". The term was invented to arouse emotional support, and it works for that purpose. It has no other meaning or function in nature. It doe
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that is impossible for a set of rights to exist which can ever be in opposition to one another.
But, that's clearly false. For instance, you have a right to freedom of speech. But I also have a right not to enter into a contract under false circumstances.
Re:Rights are not things that are given - wrong (Score:1)
1. You are choosing one definition of right based on your personal preference and chosen literature, and you are stating that anything different is not and cannot be right (pun intended). Another definition is that a right is something a certain society agrees upon. Under your definition there can be no such thing as "the right to enslave". But in reality this right was used by many people over time. Even life is a society given right, thi
And the government... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, no. That already existed. There is very little freedom of speech protection in Brazil (mostly because it is ridiculously easy to claim "slander" here), and that hasn't changed at all.
Re: (Score:2)
"... e considerado o interesse da coletividade na disponibilização do conteúdo na Internet..."
"... and considering the collective interest in the availability of the Internet content..."
Basically it opens a can of worms. The judge can remove any content he pleases based on the vague concept of the "collective interests".
Re: (Score:1)
actually, this article says that it *IS* the collective interest that all internet content to be available to be seen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that DCMA crap can be turned back by judicial decisions when abusive.
I am certainly not a fan of DCMA take over notices, but here in Brasil we have a lot of "activist" judges who rule in opposition to the law. Until now their decisions were usually but not always turned on Superior courts. Now this law gives them a degree of legitimacy in their arbitrary decisions that will make it much harder to turn them.
Re: (Score:2)
Same as the FCC, mega church ascendancy (Score:2)
The FCC just substituted its oversight of subjective free speech protection for true net neutrality. What's funny about this is that while Comcast is chucking an evil chortle thinks they just actually crowned the mega church business incorporations as the new netflix. Mega churches are slowly taking over businesses due to their tax privledges, immunity from antitrust, large capitalization that let them operate a loss to kill competition and apple-scale brand loyalty. The mega churches just got another
Re: (Score:2)
Same deal in the U.S. but we didn't get network neutrality in the bargain.
Net Neutrality (Score:3)
"hat goes some length towards protecting net neutrality"
Where exactly is this stated in the actual document [netmundial.br]?
Re: (Score:3)
It is pretty clear in "Freedom of expression: everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek, receive, and impart information on the Internet without arbitrary interference." as in 'without arbitrary interference'. Also there is "avoiding arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" as in you can not analyse people's data packets in order to treat 'arbitrarily interfere' with different kinds of data being transmitted. Not to forget " Everyone should have the right t
This makes it easier for the NSA (Score:3)
internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months
Nothing like making it easy to build the list of links for an ISP by putting all the data in one place. Bet it's online accessible, too.
As a Brazilian (Score:3)
Keeping net neutrality is a huge win. Other articles in the bill are very positive too.
The shitty part is the record keeping. As far as my legalspeak goes, and that is almost nothing, what I understood is that if I have a website I have to maintain a 6 month record of all my visitors. I'm guessing that they refer to general access logs, just like Apache access log files or some equivalent. What I did understand is that ISPs cannot keep those records. But I might be very wrong. Either interpretation is bad anyway, so it does not matter much how bad it is.
What bothers me more is that our equivalent to the FCC (Anatel) is building a database and backdoor access to all ISPs client data. If what I heard is right (two sources working in a third party developer for a local ISP) they will have access to every byte sent through every Internet connection in the country. The buffer size I do not know. THAT bothers me a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's that true? (about the anatel backdoor)? :/
If it's true, it's time to show this in the light. It's outrageous, absurd and ridiculous (specially from a government that said that is wrong when talking about NSA).
Besides the 2 sources, there is anything wrote about it?
Re: (Score:2)
What I could confirm otherwise is somewhat old news. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/f... [uol.com.br]
The Republicans here... (Score:1)
would never allow that to happen in 'Merica. They fear and hate the Internet because it is against their religion. Also they do is plot against access. Even here in Seattle the conservatives have successfully destroyed Internet access. The fastest connection I can get is dial-up with copper.net. They provide great dial-up, but after over a decade with them, I fucking want faster access, but the city will not allow CenturyLink or Comcast to upgrade their equipment. I had DSL, but it was just too unreli
Re: (Score:2)
I have actually read that "Director's Rules" pdf, and dont' see how it would prevent equipment upgrades to allow faster Internet.
What I see in the pdf, is that working on or installing equipment on public property requires a permit, and it lists what documents must be provided to get the permit (like a plan with street names, etc).
I sure hope every city in the world has similar rules. What is the problem? What did I miss? And what do republicans have to do with that? Aren't they against any rules other than
Brazil approves Internet bill of rights (Score:2)
In the meantime, Harper is trying to pass laws [stopthesecrecy.net] against Canadians.
Message to Harper: you're supposed to be an elected official to represent the people, not a corporate puppet out to sell out our rights and natural resources to the highest bidder. Canada isn't your private land and property, it's the country you're supposed to be governing.
Re: (Score:1)
Will Canada become a worker's paradise once all resources and production are in state hands?
Brazil is not the U.S. (Score:2)
Dear everyone here,
Brazil is not the U.S. It has a different culture. Your cultural norms cannot be blindly fit onto Brazil. Please stop trying.
P.S. The rest of the world would like to express the same thing. They started a queue.