There is a great deal of talk these days about privacy and what a person can or should expect when dealing online regarding their information. Brazil, for example, is upset with Google and its Orkut Site (see article) for not agreeing to provide the Government with personal information on many of the members of Orkut. In fact, seems that nearly half of Brazil citizens have an Orkut profile, so its an interesting problem for both Brazilian authorities and Google I think.
It doesn’t have the cachet or name recognition of Myspace or Facebook, but in Brazil, Google’s relationship site Orkut boasts a coverage that its more celebrated rivals cannot match. Almost half of Brazil’s 32 million internet users have a profile on Orkut. Go to any cyber café in Rio de Janiero or Sao Paulo and wired youngsters will be leaving messages for friends, checking out potential dates and surfing through hundreds of thousands of communities, from the spiritual (“We love God”; 254,072 members), intellectual (“Addicted to books”; 46, 203 members) and physical (“I’ve got a big butt, what about it?”; 62,673 members). ( see full story )
If I sign up for some site, and give them my financial information, I expect them to take the necessary precautions to protect that information. I don’t want some felon getting ahold of it, nor would anyone else, so when it comes to a Government, should we expect any less from that company? I mean look at some of the provisions in the current Patriot Act II that is in effect. Information about any individual can be requested without any judicial process or with any notice being given to you, yet here is Google battling Brazil on a similar issue, in some respects. Makes me wonder why they aren’t opposing more strongly George Bush and his Patriot Act?
Though Google did try, the issue it seems hasn’t really sparked much media hype in the states, and I wonder why? Are those in the states so immune to the erosion of basic rights that it no longer matters, yet when they see it happening elsewhere it suddenly becomes an issue for them?
And you know, it is an interesting point on both sides. I mean, personally I don’t have a problem with the Canadian government getting my personal info from my host or some online business, though frankly I would if I lived in the States. Certainly would if I lived in Brazil, so makes you think twice before dropping some personal info onto a site. I mean just how much intimidation should they take before they cave in?
I suppose the answer lies in something very simple. If it is fine for my personal information to be kept private as a right, then it should be that way unless a court orders it otherwise. Seems to me that there has to be some protection from over zealous lawyers and governments. I mean look at the border patrol officers in the states? They could get 20 years in prison for doing their job, while the drug smuggler gets immunity? It doesn’t make much sense, but I wonder, will we as a people ever wake up?
I think Google is right to withhold the information, and that a Judge should be the one to make the order. I know that in a case up here the Supreme Court ruled no ISP could divulge information to the music industry, which really ticked them off. But that is as it should be, and unless those producers could prove wrong doing, then no access. The Justices were right, and that is how a government MUST BE HELD. To be accountable is nice phrase, but it is rare to see these days.
The argument that Google is sheltering pedophiles and criminals is just too much though. Funny how they always seem to bring up that chestnut. If you don’t do what you say, you are harbouring criminals or sick perverts, but in truth, by refusing to just hand the information over, Google is keeping to the notion, that a law applies to everyone, good or bad. After all, isn’t that what separates us from the Terrorists, Facists, and Communists?
Too bad Bush, Harper and their fellow klansmen don’t understand that yet. One Law, for Everyone… not the select few who paid enough in contributions.