Dear all Brazil is one of the governments that have requested Goggle to censor content. Here are notes taken at the IGF08 Workshop 36 : Strategies to prevent and fight child pornography in developing countries<http://intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=38> Child pornography in Brazil has grown out of the popularity of social networking. However the main challenge has been issues related to jurisdiction as content is resident in ISPs based in the USA and trans-national ISPs like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google which have branches in strategic markets and have tailored the services for these markets in terms of language and content. Brazil was therefore unable to deal with serious offences related to content – specifically child pornography - committed by Brazilians using Brazilian IP addresses. The government has been able to sign an agreement<http://www.safernet.org.br/site/noticias/google-deal-brazil-fight-child-porn>with Google to fight child pornography on Google's orkut <http://www.orkut.com/About.aspx> social network. The following are consideration taken in drawing up the agreement 1. Which criteria should be used to define the ability of a particular country to legislate over and sanction conducts committed on the internet? - Where the data is located? - International law principles (territoriality or nationality) shall be used to define the sovereignty of a state regarding – cyber space – which is a network of networks - Define some reasonable standard – for example managed by Brazilians and is local content and local language - Access points in Brazil, harmful conduct felt in the country – taken obligation under international law to take offence – country of origin approach would force thousands of users to unfamiliar rules and travel – offence under human rights therefore apply local legislation 1. It is legitimate to enforce the conduct of local office –as it impracticable to send legal request to the US. Kind regards Mwende On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:52 PM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
Walu, see my reax in lower case ;-)
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
McTim - my reaction in caps (though am not shouting ;-) on some of your
comments
<snip>
2. Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not
"blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all.
MUCHERU COULD CLARIFY. BUT BASICALLY I DO NOT THINK GOOGLE REMOVES CONTENT "GLOBALLY"
Of course they do, if it's a violation of their AUP in one country, its a violation in another.
While possible, it's fiendishly difficult to update algorithms on an hourly basis to serve different content and search results to different IP ranges.
BECAUSE WHAT IS ILLEGAL IN ONE COUNTRY IS NOT NECESSARILY SO IN THE OTHER - THINK HITLER-RELATED CONTENT; THAT'S LARGELY A BIG NO IN GERMANY BUT ELSEWHERE ITS NOT A BIG DEAL.
That's nearly a Godwin!
<snip>
4.I can't parse this one, sorry. NO PROBLEM - UPDATE YOUR COMPILER ;-) NWAY, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN OMNIPRESENT TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS GOOGLE. A TIME IS COMING WHEN MUCHERU AND Co (GOOGLE) WILL CONTROL WHAT YOU READ, SEE AND HEAR. I CAN ONLY ENVY THEIR POSITION.
Only if you choose to use Google services.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmail...