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

[Riaz K Tayob]

Milton

The issue is very simple. There was due process of law, and a decision 
was made - rightly or wongly (recognising that it is well established 
jurisprudence in the ECHR - which is largely fair except to muslims and 
the US deferring against or in favour - for "margin of appreciation" to 
cope with "cultural" differences).

The problems I have with your perspective, excluding the commitment to a 
liberalism (which I have admired for the longest time), in the context 
of discourses on this list, is that developing countries are set a 
higher standard than that applicable to rich countries. The implicit 
exceptionalism of the rich countries is what worries me because why is 
it ok ot have California state law (or US anti-trust, etc) apply 
extra-territorially but it is not acceptable to have developing 
countries' laws apply territorially. There is a double standard here 
that unfortunately does not pass robust disinterested scrutiny... 
perhaps multilateralism is NOT so bad when compared to the status quo 
(but then we would need to be evolutionary in a true sense, if so then 
even sincere reformists of ICANN would rally to get Parminder's IT4C 
radically altered while keeping the thrust of his politics into the 
ICANN processes... but alas, just more of the same...)...

I recognise that even the framing of the debate, as is too prevalent on 
this list, forecloses decolonising the people-centred imagination to 
deal with issues of the internet being one global space, not confined to 
national boundaries, with proxies to bypass national laws available... 
there is something really new here that makes a mockery of the facidism 
that such state action allows... while not discounting the need to show 
umbrage in some form... now no one is seriously believing that issues 
can be totally suppressed (except perhaps for the RIAA and the USTR on 
IPRs) and things can be found, so what use the expression of approbrium 
(that is culturally necessary in some quarters, and may as well be given 
leeway unlike the lawless protestations of some of the muslim countries)?...

Just some thoughts, take as you please - and if you feel this is not the 
right tenor for discourse here do let me know... I am open to that, even 
if we disagree,.

riaz

On 2012/09/28 07:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> What about the users? Shouldn’t they have a say in the rules?
>
> Are you proposing to re-territorialize the Internet so that national 
> governments can have full authority?
>
> 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).
>
> 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?
>
> Google or any other multinational social media provider isn’t perfect. 
> But terms of use constitute a private ordering that users can opt out 
> of if they don’t use the service. Who in Brazil (or any other country) 
> gets to opt out of dumb laws and dumb judges?
>
> *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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120929/f002fa0f/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