russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Legal jurisdiction applies where the government says it does
When it comes down to it, it's all about force -- who can apply it to whom. Google could have its data on the moon and the Brazilian government could legally force them to give it up, provided the Brazilian courts agreed and they could apply enough force to Google. Google's only way around that is to cease operations in Brazil. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Google caved into Brazil over Orkut when profits threatened
I agree that Google should comply with the Brazilian courts request for info. But Google made a big deal about resisting over a period of time. But the minute they saw that Brazil was serious about millions of dollars in fines or shutting them down, they complied. So, the Google reputation for doing what they feel is right folded when faced with reduced profits. So much for their reputation.
»www.bizreport.com/news/10028/
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| quote:
is there ever a compelling reason to afford data access to the legal system?
...only when you need to curry regulatory favors from the government (i.e. AT&T) :0
--
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" - and stop the NeoCons |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | minimal contact
doesn't there have to be minimal contact and then through the long arm statute they could pull them into court in thier native land? Or does that only apply to the United States?
--
www.LakeSemaJ.com |
|
holmantp
join:2003-12-20
Rosamond, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Google caved into Brazil over Orkut when profits threatened
The link you provided just rehashes what was said in the first link above. Did you even read the second link.
And your link is covered with Goggle ads. it makes me wonder "media company" seeking more ways to make money, let's see any publicity is better then none.
--
Tim |
|
R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
·Comcast
| Google put itself in this predicament
Had they complied from the start, they would have come out ahead. The Brazilian court wasn't asking for wholesale data, it was asking for specific accounts with strong evidence of pedophilia and other criminal offenses. What google was doing was aiding criminals by keeping their information from the courts.
I have an orkut account to keep in touch with my Brazilian friends and the stuff you see in some accounts is outrageous and downright criminal. There was this one community blatantly selling illegal drugs from their forum.
Google's stance was unsustainable. It was basically saying "We don't care what they do, we're not telling you who they are". |
|
BarneyBadAss
Badasses Fight For Freedom
Premium
join:2004-05-07
00001
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to russotto
Re: Legal jurisdiction applies where the government says it does
your correct... it's about force...
Now, did the governements get the data in an encryped format; and keep it that way?
I doubt it. Bet the data these companies are giving to the g'ments will find it's way into the wild... won't that be luverly?
--
---Barney |
|
BarneyBadAss
Badasses Fight For Freedom
Premium
join:2004-05-07
00001
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to R4M0N
Re: Google put itself in this predicament
Your correct, Google put itself into this position.
And the reason they got there was becasue they were capturing data about search requests and storing it.
If they had never done that in the first place, now these g'ments woudn't be asking for the data.
Personally; I think they shouldn't capture the data at all.
--
---Barney |
|
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs: 
| reply to R4M0N
It does seem shameful that a refusal to give up personal information had to be made for such an obnoxious cause. But I think here in the States we've become accustomed to seeing strong defense of the accused's rights. To a degree this goes in that direction. I don't think Google was trying to protect the guilty so much as
#1 - protecting their information base,
#2 - protecting their income
#3 - protecting all from unreasonable search and siezure in the future.
No company should be forced to turn over such information if proper procedures haven't been followed. I wouldn't think badly of a company if they voluntarily handed over that kind of informationi for a situation like this, but even that sets a bad precendent the next time the company has to go to court to try to prevent such disclosure just because some one (RIAA comes to mind) or government comes at them and says "you have to because I said to". |
|
