Archive for February 17th, 2008

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.

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.”

Google released a statement yesterday saying it was complying with the Brazilian court orders following a ruling Thursday by a Brazilian judge that threatened Google with a fine of $23,000 a day for noncompliance.

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.

The Brazilian authorities are particularly interested in Internet protocol addresses with time and date stamps that can help trace a specific user. Registration information Google could provide includes names and e-mail addresses.

Orkut pulls objectionable words and pictures from user sites, but Google stores content it feels could be useful in a lawsuit. Orkut is especially popular in Brazil, which accounts for 75 percent of its 17 million users.

Legal and privacy experts said that Google had no choice but to comply with the court order. “From the law enforcement perspective, if the records are in the possession of the business, the business can be compelled to produce them,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The larger point, civil libertarians said, is that as long as Internet companies retain data that can identify people, which they use for marketing purposes, they will become targets of law enforcement.

That can raise dilemmas for the companies, they said.

“Suppose the Chinese government sought the identities of people who visited dissident Web sites? Or the Iranian regime wanted to identify those who posted material critical of Islam? ” said David Sobel, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Washington.

Last year, Yahoo Inc. confirmed that it had given Chinese authorities information later used to convict a Chinese journalist imprisoned for leaking state secrets.

“It’s almost a defining moment for the industry,” Rotenberg said. “They need to decide if they want to become a one-stop shop for government prosecutors.”

European and Latin American laws permit prosecution for hate speech — an approach the U.S. Constitution does not allow, though hate crimes can be prosecuted.

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.”

Research assistant Alice Crites contributed to this report.Request Differs From U.S.’s, It Says

By Ellen Nakashima

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

Read Full Post »

Hello document.writeln( reg.getUserName() ); undefined

News Alert

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay Indicted

Comcast Defends Role As Internet Traffic Cop

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 13, 2008; Page D01

Comcast said yesterday that it purposely slows down some traffic on its network, including some music and movie downloads, an admission that sparked more controversy in the debate over how much control network operators should have over the Internet.

In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast said such measures — which can slow the transfer of music or video between subscribers sharing files, for example — are necessary to ensure better flow of traffic over its network.In defending its actions, Comcast stepped into one of the technology industry’s most divisive battles. Comcast argues that it should be able to direct traffic so networks don’t get clogged; consumer groups and some Internet companies argue that the networks should not be permitted to block or slow users’ access to the Web.

Comcast’s FCC filing yesterday was in response to petitions to the agency by the consumer group Free Press and the online video provider Vuze, which claimed that the cable company was abusing its control over its network to impede video competition.

Separately, the FCC began an investigation of Comcast’s network practices after receiving those complaints. That review is ongoing, according to Comcast, which said it hasn’t received any specific orders based on the complaints.

The FCC prohibits network operators from blocking applications but opens the door to interpretation with a footnote in a policy statement that provides for an exemption for “reasonable management.”

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee‘s subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet, plans to introduce a bill today calling for an Internet policy that would prohibit network operators from unreasonably interfering with consumers’ right to access and use content over broadband networks. The bill also calls for the FCC to hold eight meetings around the nation to assess whether there is enough competition among network providers and whether consumers’ rights are being upheld.

“Our goal is to ensure that the next generation of Internet innovators will have the same opportunity, the same unfettered access to Internet content, services and applications that fostered the developers of Yahoo, Netscape and Google,” Markey said in a written statement yesterday.

The case with Comcast illustrates the high-stakes battle between those who argue that the Internet should remain open to all traffic, and the companies who argue that some governance of their networks is in the best interest of their customers.

In its comments, Comcast said network controls are necessary, especially for heavy Web users. Specifically, the company imposes “temporary delays” of video, music and other files shared between computers using such technologies as BitTorrent.

Comcast compared its practices to a traffic-ramp control light that regulates the entry of additional vehicles onto a freeway during rush hour. “One would not claim that the car is ‘blocked’ or ‘prevented from entering the freeway; rather it is briefly delayed,” the company’s statement said.

Marvin Ammori, the general counsel for Free Press, said Comcast’s behavior is the second major example of an service provider overstepping its authority in an attempt to quash competition. In March 2005, the FCC fined Madison River Communications for blocking calls by competitor Vonage, which provided free calls over the Internet.

Ammori said that by interfering with video transfers, Comcast is trying to protect its television and On Demand video services.

BitTorrent said Comcast should respond by increasing bandwidth on its networks and upgrading its systems rather than limiting how customers use its service.

“It’s like putting a Band-Aid on the problem to achieve a short-term fix,” said Ashwin Navin, co-founder and president of San Francisco-based BitTorrent.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: