Slashdot Log In
The End of Net Anonymity In Brazil
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Nov 06, 2006 01:40 PM
from the good-while-it-lasted dept.
from the good-while-it-lasted dept.
DieNadel writes, "The Brazilian senate is considering a bill that will make it a crime to join a chat, blog, or download from the Internet without fully identifying oneself first. Privacy groups and Internet providers are very concerned, and are trying to lobby against the bill, but it seems they won't have much success." From the article: "If approved, it will be a crime, punishable with up to 4 years of jail time, to disseminate virus or trojans, unauthorizedly access data banks or networks and send e-mail, join chat, write a blog or download content anonymously."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
So remember boys and girls... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So remember boys and girls... (Score:4, Funny)
You will get to practice unzip, touch, finger, grep, strip, mount. And last but not least, fsck, dump and sleep
Parent
Holy Smokes (Score:2)
So many, many ways around this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, there are so many ways around this when you are a criminal. Crack someone else's machine and you can do whatever you want as if you were legally that person. Who stupid is that?
If you're really good, you'd crack 2 machines outside Brazil and use them to bounce traffic around before it got to you. Your machine and record would be 100% clean.
Finally, let's talk wireless. Unless the government wants to crack down on unsecured wireless connections, they're going to lose this one.
This is nothing more than an attempt to scare the good citizens into self-censoring their legal activities. And that is disgusting.
Parent
Re:So many, many ways around this. (Score:4, Insightful)
If we paid attention to that logic, we'd have 50% fewer laws than we do.
Not that you're wrong, of course, just that passing laws is how the government proves it's Doing Something, irrespective of wheter the law does anything other than screw the innocent.
And I don't think this varies appreciably from government to government.
Parent
I think we need to change that. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, how about if all the laws on the books had a limited life span? After 8 years (or 16 or 32 or whatever), they expired and needed to be passed again?
That way Congress could continue to "be tough on X" without needing to do any actual work or impact our Freedoms at all?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What about kids? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, but unless Brazil has changed very much in the last few years since I was there, if you're on internet regularly then you're probably fairly well off, or you are taking higher education. I guess that sounds funny to you and me (we've got 50% broadband coverage here, don't remember Internet in general). China isn't building their firewall just for fun either.
Usenet? (Score:2)
When all Usenet posts are legit I'll believe it.
In other words, the only people this will affect are those who do take precautions to adequately hide themselves, those ignorant of the law, and those where the government just wants to tack on 4 more years!
How long until anomyity is a crime world wide? (Score:2)
Terry Gilliam Was Right? (Score:2)
I wish I were in China instead! (Score:3, Informative)
The worst part is what I saw on the local news: they want us not only to provide our ID data, but also PROVIDE A XEROX COPY OF OUR ID CARDS to the sites we wish to have access to! After they approve our data, we will be able to access them.
Politicians don't have the slighest idea of how technology works...
Re: (Score:2)
For as many problems as we have in the states (yes, we have a lot), I sure as hell don't want anyone else dictating the rules of the net. If you live outside of the U.S., and feel the same way, create your own "master" DNS and make your own rules. Nothing is stopping you.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I thought they said turn the Internet over to the The Onion [theonion.com]. Never mind, then. If hilarity is not going to ensue, then take my name off the petition.
Anonymity is illusion (Score:2)
You have an IP address that response packets are routed to. The server knows that IP address. So does every node routing the traffic on the internet -- every "hop" can see both sender and receiver IP addresses.
A DNS lookup identifies the service provider.
An authorized data access maps the IP address to a service address and possible customer identification. Hopefully this is a rigorously documented and monitored process in your nation.
Anonymizer routing can still be tracked, it just takes more wor
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good thing I use a PC! Mwuahahah
(it's just a joke)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the MAC adddress of my analog modem?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it would totally suck if a decision like this got stuck in committee for 20 years while 50 different countries' representatives argued over it before it finally got permanently vetoed by China for the express purpose of pissing another country off.
More like it gets approved for the express purpose of pissing the US off, and after the US vetoes it, the rest of the world whines that the US is "forcing their values on the rest of the world."
Re:As always... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, right, despite thinking you're being sarcastic. Because collecting huge amounts of information about legitimate travellers does nothing to stop terrorists. Just look at the No Fly List, that catches every terrorist who books a ticket under his own name (i.e., none) while inconveniencing thousands with similar names. Idiotic security theatre. And how many times must it be pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists mostly had legit IDs and clean records; they would have walked though today's security just as easily, after surrendering their shampoo bottles. Money tracing? Similar profiling goes on here, inconveniencing every poor schmuck trying to send money home to his family, if his name happens to be Mohammed, while the actual terrorists duck the whole system.
All the information needed to predict, and prevent, 911, was already in the US government's hands before the event. They need better, smarter analysis, more people on the ground, not more noise. But that's what bureaucrats know how to do, and that's their solution to every problem.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I am very serious (Score:4, Informative)
If you mean "assuming the requirement is not abused", that would not be a serious question. Every coercive power over others is always abused, to the greatest degree that interested parties can get away with. The whole problem of freedom is minimizing the opportunities for such abuse.
Of course no one objects to a prohibition of spreading malware. Here are a few of the more obvious problems with the removal-of-anonymity part.
Parent
Re:Don't Brazil Bash (Score:4, Informative)
This is slashdot, and you didn't think a question like that would go unanswered, did you ?
PSDB is Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (http://www.psdb.org.br/ [psdb.org.br]) translates to the Brazilian Socio-Democracy Party. MG stands for Minas Gerais, the state Senator Azeredo represents.
As a Brazilian I should add:
* PSDB is the leading opposition party in Brazil. Its candidate just lost the presidential race (39% to 61%).
* Normally I wouldn't think this sort of thing to come out of PSDB (usually more liberal than the government). But heck...
* Mr Azeredo has been involved in an unrelated corruption scandal after proposing the law ("valerioduto").
* I also do not agree with such a law, as many brazilians don't (babelfish this, for instance: A Liberdade da Rede corre Perigo [ig.com.br])
* This law may not pass (be approved) -- I hope it won't.
* Even if it does, it may not be enforceable, as someone here already pointed out -- Freenet comes to mind.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess all cell walls soon will contain the words "First Post".