Imminent Server Seizure Tests Brazil's New Internet Bill of Rights

sunbird (96442) writes "Less than one week after passing the Marco Civil da Internet, Article 3 of which purports to protect free expression and privacy of personal data from government intrusion, a Public Prosecutor in Brazil is seeking to seize a server hosting research groups, social movements, discussion lists and other tools. The server is hosted by the Saravá Group, which has adopted a policy of not storing connection logs to protect the privacy of users. The Public Prosecutor is seeking to identify individuals involved in Rádio Mudo, a project hosted by Saravá, but as Saravá does not store logs, there is no information on the server that is responsive to the investigation. This action comes as Brazil seeks to place itself in the forefront of protecting internet privacy after it hosted the Net Mundial conference. Saravá has called for a protest action today at 1PM local time (9AM PT/12noonET) to protest against the seizure."

Article 3 is OK with lawful collection ...

[perpenso]

Article 3's translation says "protecting personal data, as provided by law". So a prosecutor going to a judge to gain access to a server does not seem to violate the bill of rights. The article's goal seems to be to stop the type of snooping the NSA is accused of, not impede a court of law.

I don't even know that they were lies

[Sycraft-fu]

So much as just being full of shit. What I mean by that is that people in general, but governments in particular seem to be great at doublethink. They can seem to hold two different contradictory opinions in their head. So governments hate, HATE the idea of other governments spying on them and their citizens. They don't like foreign governments messing with their businesses, either.

However they see no problem when they do it. They don't even find it hypocritical. It is IMPORTANT and NECESSARY when they do it, you see. Not at all like those assholes in other countries!

I think that is probably what is going on with Brazil. They see the US's actions as deplorable, their own actions as essential. They really don't see a dichotomy there.