Slashdot Log In
Google to Give Data To Brazilian Court
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Sep 05, 2006 08:22 AM
from the not-much-they-could-do dept.
from the not-much-they-could-do dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
U.S. Government Wants Google Search Records 917 comments
JimBridgerBowl writes "According to the San Jose Mercury News, The Bush administration wants access to Google's huge database of search queries submitted by users to track how often pornography is returned in results. This information would be used for Bush's appeal of the 2004 COPA law, targeted to prevent access to pornography by children. The law was struck down because it would have restricted adults access to legal pornography. Google is promising to fight the release of this information." From the article: "The Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn. As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn."
[+]
Google's Response to the DoJ Motion 315 comments
neoviky writes "Google Inc. on Friday formally rejected the U.S. Justice Department's subpoena of data from the Web search leader, arguing the demand violated the privacy of users' Web searches and its own trade secrets.
Responding to a motion by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Google also said in a filing in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California the government demand to disclose Web search data was impractical."
[+]
Justice Dept. Rejects Google's Privacy Concerns 350 comments
Philip K Dickhead writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department rejected Google's concerns over a Bush administration demand to examine millions of its users' Internet search requests on privacy grounds. The department claims this will help revive an online child protection law that the Supreme Court has blocked, by proving that Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography online. A federal court hearing is scheduled in San Jose, California, March 13th."
[+]
Google Avoids Surrendering Search Info 226 comments
Mercury News has details of a San Francisco judge's decision that Google should give the DoJ some details on its search engine, but is not required to turn over records to the government. From the article: "McElvain emphasized the study would be more meaningful if it included search requests processed by Google, which by some estimates fields nearly half of all online queries in the United States. Ware concurred with the Justice Department on that point, writing in his order that 'the government's study may be significantly hampered if it did not have access to some information from the most often used search engine.' But Ware said the government didn't clearly explain why it needed a list of search requests to conduct its study, prompting him to conclude the Web site addresses would be adequate." Reaction to the news is available on the Google Blog.
[+]
Google Brazil Pressured to Give Up Names 263 comments
Kordau writes "Google Brazil is under pressure to release user info from Orkut, relating to a child porn investigation by the Brazilian government. Google Brazil maintains that the info officials want is held on US servers and if they want the info, they should talk to Google USA."
[+]
Google Denies Data In Brazil Orkut Case 183 comments
mikesd81 writes, "The AP reports that Google filed a motion in response to a Brazilian judge's deadline to turn over information on users of the company's social networking service Orkut. An earlier AP story gives the background: 'On Aug. 22, Federal Judge Jose Marcos Lunardelli gave Google's Brazilian affiliate until Sept. 28 to release information needed to identify individuals accused of using Orkut to spread child pornography and engage in hate speech against blacks, Jews and homosexuals. Google claims that its Brazilian affiliate cannot provide the information because all the data about Orkut users is stored outside Brazil at the company's U.S.-based headquarters. Google maintains that it is open to requests for information from foreign governments as long as the requests comply with U.S. laws and that they are issued within the country where the information is stored.'" Eight million
Brazilians, about a quarter of the country's Internet-using population, are members of Orkut.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
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.
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)
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.
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)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 chil
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..."
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)
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 b
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.
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 g
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 t
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 p
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wh
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 disagr
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
on the ground detective work (Score:2)
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
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.
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 physi
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
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 jus
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to Google's Press Release [google.com]: