Google to Give Data To Brazilian Court
Request Differs From U.S.'s, It Says

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 2, 2006; Page D03

Google Inc., which refused in the past year to hand over user search data to U.S. authorities fighting children's access to pornography, said yesterday that it was complying with a Brazilian court's orders to turn over data that could help identify users accused of taking part in online communities that encourage racism, pedophilia and homophobia.

The difference, it says, is scale and purpose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090100608.html

Although this seems to be as important as the case "Google vs US Gouv", I think Google will communicate more of the fact they fight racism & pedophilia than they share private data...

It´s good decision. Law has to work on the net too. Purpose is important.

Why is this a good decision ?

How is google going to know that the data provided will strictly be used to target – "users accused of taking part in online communities that encourage racism, pedophilia and homophobia." ??

I don´t know details about this topic, but Brazilian court wants simply information about users who offered or searched for child pornography, no? Orkut is full of that stuff, so I understand why Brazilians want it, imagine if somebody place an ad to newspapers, this is quite similar, I think. But as I said – I´m not fully informed.

From the Washington Post (use bugmenot)
<quote>
The difference, it says, is scale and purpose.

The Justice Department wanted Google's entire search index, billions of pages and two months' worth of queries, for a broad civil case. Brazil, by contrast, is looking for information in specific cases involving Google's social networking site, Orkut.

"What they're asking for is not billions of pages," said Nicole Wong, Google associate general counsel. "In most cases, it's relatively discrete – small and narrow."
</quote>

And an even better quote
<quote>
According to Google, the judge mistakenly thought the company was resisting because court orders had been sent to Google's Brazilian subsidiary, Google Brazil, instead of to Google Inc. headquarters in the United States. So far, has complied with 26 court orders that have been redirected to Google Inc., Wong said. Google has stored information relating to at least 70 more cases in anticipation of a court order, she said.
</quote>

and the finally quote which doesn't make any sense
<quote>
Google, in its statement, said "it is and always has been our intention to be as cooperative in the investigation and prosecution of crimes as we possibly can, while being careful to balance the interests of our users and the request from the authorities."
</quote>

I don't know how Google operates on this slippery slope. On the one hand, I don't think people have a problem with Google giving up information on pedophiles. On the other hand, most people don't approve of a company giving up info on a user writing against the government (ie Yahoo and reporters)

Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090100608.html?sub=AR

Nate: But what is so slippery? Google can easily said whether this or that user used orkut for offering child pornography. There are no doubts, whem somebody write to forum: "Hi all, I have really nice photos of 12-year-old pussy, write me for exchange.", it is really simple. And orkut really had (has) problem with that, so the Brazilian demand is rightful.

Orkut now slaps you with this message everytime you view your own profile. It's done in a ugly background so that you cannot miss noticing it.

A friendly reminder: We all love orkut.com so help us keep it clean. Please use the service responsibly and be proactive in reporting abusive profiles and communities. Illegal content will not be tolerated and will be removed.
View our Terms of Service.

Stay beautiful
- orkut team

jilm, your exactly right, Brazil's demand is rightful. But what about China where a bloger post some information bashing the Government. According to their laws, that againts the law. I know that the reason Google hasn't ported services like Gmail to China is exactly for this reason.

I've always wondered why there's so many Brazilian profiles on Orkut anyway. Many of them seems dodgy or fake, to say the least.

Sorry, I forgot to add that IMO it'd have been better that Google clean up their user base themselves and remove the abusive accounts, rather than now having to hand over user data to a court.

"I don't think people have a problem with Google giving up information on pedophiles" – I second the notion, but with a caveat.

Agree, but as a researcher in "pedophiles" what happens if I use such terms that mimmick a 'real world' pedohile ??

Most of the Sex Crime Units do exactly this.. but what about situations tht when a 'false postive' is obtained ?? Are we sure that the users rights are still upheld with the local law in a under a fair process mandate ?

I take Google's counsel to task for odious spin on the "small and narrow" justification, and misleading statements about the earlier US data request:

http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001062.html

/pd – "Agree, but as a researcher in "pedophiles" what happens if I use such terms that mimmick a 'real world' pedohile ?? "

-Ah, the slippery slope.

As phil said, it would have been better if Google cleaned house (never a good thing to air your dirty laundry)

> “What they’re asking for is not billions of pages ... In most
> cases, it’s relatively discrete – small and narrow.”

In *most* cases!? Even aside from Seth's disquiet at the spin, what about the other cases? Perhaps it's a number of specific complaint-based queries, plus *everyone* who gets matched by a keyword search for, say, [juvenile sex], [white power] or [gay bashing]?

Or, as seems not unlikely, everyone who can be connected with someone who's connected with a complaint-based query? What price six degrees of separation then, in a network comprising so many Brazilians, and so many legitimate and illegitimate ways to make socially tenuous but electronically traceable connections?

> I wonder if people will ever be unfairly accused based on such
> data. A security hole in Orkut once allowed others to make you
> join 100s of communities of their choosing – without you even
> noticing (let alone approving) this.

And if so, I wonder if some peoples' lives will be ruined or ended as a consequence? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-525-1669131-1187,00.html

"The hounding that has driven many suspects to suicide is based on
tainted internet evidence, says expert witness Duncan Campbell"

jilm, Google don't get to decide what they consider is, for example, "offering child pornography": they have to comply with (or fight) what the court order says. Even if it's beyond what even you might consider "really simple".

NateDawg, how can we possibly know whether or not Brazil's demand is "rightful", without seeing the terms of the order? We can all share their stated motives, of course, but we have no way of telling whether it's overreaching or misguided or a bad precedent.

And if there's one thing we know about Google, it's that they don't like to clean house, ever. They're the world's best packrats, and its our stuff they're packing ...

Why might a search for pedophilia appear on your computer? Well, you might be a pedophile. On the other hand, maybe you have some legitimate reason for the search – maybe you're a researcher, or a lawmaker, or a social worker, or a law enforcement worker. Or maybe your computer was used by someone other than you. Or maybe your system was hijacked or spoofed. Or maybe you were the victim of abuse and are working through issues or taking some remedial action. There are so many possibilities. The AOL data showed that there are some distinctly disturbing searches out there, and I certainly understand the impulse to act on the search data. But to efficiently find offenders by working back from internet search history would be a frighteningly massive enterprise that would raise concerns about a police state.

Why expect the worts? I trust Brazilian legal system. I believe that nobody will get to prison just because of what he searched. Orkut objectively has a problem. Do you have any reason why be so suspicious?

Milly – Think about this quote from the Washington Post arcticle

<quote>
So far, has complied with 26 court orders that have been redirected to Google Inc., Wong said. Google has stored information relating to at least 70 more cases in anticipation of a court order, she said.
</quote>

Google has already given up this specific information 26 previous times. Yor right Milly that I havn't seen the court oreder, but from the press release it would seem to imply this is specific information, not a broad sweep, (ie, these specifc users are bad and we need help locating them). Whatever Brazil is asking for, it not new to the legal department.

jilm, I don't expect the worst, I just consider the possibility. As for being suspicious, shouldn't we always be suspicious of our governments? As that great Brazilian Thomas Jefferson once said, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny".

NateDawg, yes, I saw that about the earlier orders. But the press release implies that it is not *only* specific information. The quote (which may just be inaccurate reporting, or sloppy language by Google's lawyer) is :-

"What they're asking for is not billions of pages," said Nicole
Wong, Google associate general counsel. "In most cases, it's
relatively discrete – small and narrow."

The implication of "in most cases" is clearly that in *some* cases it's *not* relatively discrete, small and narrow. That in some cases it's somewhere between discrete/small/narrow and billions of pages.