[governance] Google's officer with detention order in brasil

Fri Sep 28 14:53:04 EDT 2012

Em 28/09/2012, às 13:31, Milton L Mueller escreveu:

> What about the users? Shouldn’t they have a say in the rules?

Of course YES.  However, who has - or should have - the power and legitimacy to "decide" witch rules are acceptable when the users opinions are in conflict? One private company based in your own criteria or the judiciary branch based in the due process of law?

>  
> Are you proposing to re-territorialize the Internet so that national governments can have full authority?
>  

definitely NOT. What I am arguing is that when one international private company decide to make money and open a local office in a democratic country like Brazil, they should respect the judiciary branch and the due process of law.  I am not discussing the content of the local laws, but the risks to democracy to give to a private company the power and legitimacy to decide which laws and court orders they should comply with.  The risk, obvious, is to create a new kind of supranational "private court" based not in human rights international treaties and conventions, but in their own terms of services (new kind of transnational legislation for the Internet).

> According to one Brazilian commentator I interacted with, the law in question is a holdover from Brazil’s dictatorship period. Even if it were not, the law in question is an anachronistic attempt to control all public discourse about candidates prior to an election (e.g., it would even be illegal to wear a T-shirt with a candidates’ name on it).

This commentator could be myself! I totally agree that the brazilian electoral law is anachronistic and very restrictive to freedom of expression. We said this in public when this case arose (https://twitter.com/safernet/status/246816290411524096  -  The Brazilian electoral legislation is draconian, analog and restrictive with freedom of expression of the citizens on the Internet. The censorship prevails in brazilians elections), and since the last election process in Brazil (2010) we are pushing pressure to reform this legislation and also for decriminalization of the defamation in Brazil.  However, the point here is not the content of the local laws, but the power and legitimacy of a private company to decide based on their own criteria what court orders should be respected or not in democratic - and sovereigh - countries like Brazil.

> The child porn case you cite was a highly politicized exploitation of the issue, and overlooks the fact that Google was being asked to monitor/spy on its users (just as certain laws in the US asked for massive data retention). Next you will say that Google has to be regulated by govt to protect its users privacy, right?
>  

NO. I assume that you are very misinformed about the case and about my role and positions in this debate. Please take a look on the Google's statement on this case and also on the agreement signed before said certain things: 

Google's Statement: http://www.orkut.com.br/Main#About?page=keep
Agreement signed: http://www.safernet.org.br/site/sites/default/files/TAC-MPF_Google-EN.pdf

>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:07 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ivar A. M. Hartmann
> Subject: Re: [governance] Google's officer with detention order in brasil
>  
> Em 28/09/2012, às 10:35, Ivar A. M. Hartmann escreveu:
> 
> 
> For those overlooking the key issue in this and similar cases in Brazil, it is not whether Google wants to secure its holding as a market leader or ensure its profit. The key issue is free speech.
> 
>  
> No, is it NOT. The key issue is about power, as highlighted on this Der Spiegel article:  http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html
>  
> The key issue on democracy countries like Brazil is: 
>  
> "who sets the rules in this business: Google, with its terms of use, or the government and courts?"
>  
> I remember you that this was NOT the first time that the chief of Google's office in Brazil faces criminal charges for not comply with brazilians court orders. The former Google Brazil president (now Facebook VP for Latin America) was indicted in 2006/07 for not comply with dozens of brazilians court orders that demanded Orkut users data to assist brazilian law enforcement authorities on child sexual abuse and neonazi cases: http://www.prsp.mpf.gov.br/prdc/sala-de-imprensa/noticias_prdc/noticia-3294  (english auto translation: http://bit.ly/S62POw)
>  
> ps: an english background reading on this case is avaliable on WSJ website: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119273558149563775.html
> 
> -- 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e 
> acredita-se estar livre de perigo.

-- 
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus da
SaferNet e acredita-se estar livre de perigo.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120928/af27d256/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t