Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Brazil Approves Internet Bill of Rights

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the bad-examples-world-wide dept.

The Internet 132

First time accepted submitter Dr.Potato (247646) writes "After more than three years being discussed, Brazil's Internet Bill of Rights was approved on April 22nd (and in Portuguese). It was rushed through the senate in order that president Dilma Roussef could sign it during the meeting on internet governance that occurs in São Paulo this week. In the bill of rights, among other things, net neutrality was maintained, providers will not be legally responsible for content published by users (but are forced to take it down when legally requested) and internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months and can't pass this responsibility to other companies." Brazilian internet users may continue to have the right to be surveilled on social media, too.

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (4, Insightful)

PapayaSF (721268) | about 5 months ago | (#46834043)

internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months

Exactly whose "rights" are they talking about?

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (1)

JayJay.br (206867) | about 5 months ago | (#46834869)

From the original in Portuguese:

"O sigilo das comunicações dos usuários da internet não pode ser violado. Provedores de acesso à internet serão obrigados a guardar os registros das horas de acesso e do fim da conexão dos usuários pelo prazo de seis meses, mas isso deve ser feito em ambiente controlado."

which translates roughly as:

"The user's communication privacy cannot be violated. ISPs will be obliged to keep track of access and connection hours for six months, but this must be done in a controlled environment".

So yeah, I think it is pretty good. No URLs, no content, just connection times. Six months so your IP can be tied to a person in case the police needs to come after you, but no content and no invasion. Sounds fair.

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834943)

Sounds fair.

I don't think so. There should no forced retention of such data.

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (1)

ZeRu (1486391) | about 5 months ago | (#46835171)

So, what when someone uses an Internet to reveal their plans of a terrorist attack? How would the police get them if their IP cannot be traced?
This seems like a well-written law for a change, and Brazilian government wasn't very Internet-friendly in the past as they used to block YouTube and ban video games (even rather innocuous ones like CounterStrike).

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46837585)

Well, it has always worked like this here in Brazil: you either log access, so that you can transfer blame, or you get the blame. It REALLY is that simple. So, before the Marco Civil, we had to log it *and* retain it for a loooooong while, and jump through hoops to answer the police (not the court!). Now we only have to do it for 6 months, and the law cannot request anything past that date, and all requests must be made by a court. They can, however, request that *specific* records be kept for longer if an investigation is ongoing... through a *court* order.

And there are NO SECRET COURTS in Brazil. At most, a process can be under seal *during the police investigation*, and that's it. And while under seal, it is available to some restricted parties, but the *existence* of the process *IS PUBLIC*.

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (1)

PapayaSF (721268) | about 5 months ago | (#46834965)

True, that's not too bad, but an obligation to keep any records at all is still not really about "rights."

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#46835523)

Knowing what they are legally obliged to do is very important to the ISPs. Knowing what the requirement is, frees them from collecting even more info because of ambiguity. It sounds a lot better than whats going on in the rest of the world at least.

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46836049)

"keep track of access and connection hours"

No URLs, no content, just connection times.

What does "access" mean if not the URL or addresses of the sites you access during the time you are connected? If they had meant just "connection hours", they wouldn't have needed to say "access" because connection includes access to the ISP.

Alternate translation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46837271)

But this is just a description of the law, not the law itself (from the linked article in Portuguese).

> "O sigilo das comunicações dos usuários da internet não pode ser violado. Provedores de acesso à internet serão obrigados a guardar os registros das horas de acesso e do fim da conexão dos usuários pelo prazo de seis meses, mas isso deve ser feito em ambiente controlado."

"The secrecy of the communications of the internet users cannot be violated. Internet access providers (sic, presumably ISPs) shall have the obligation to keep record of access times and of connection ending (disconnect time, probably) for six months, but that must be made in a secure environment."

See, no IP control, but from the law itself ("Rights and Guarantees",article 7, VI):

"VI - ao não fornecimento a terceiros de seus registros de conexão e de acesso a aplicações de Internet, salvo mediante consentimento livre, expresso e informado ou nas hipóteses previstas em lei;"
"VI - to not having their connection and access records to Internet applications provided to third parties, except through free, express and informed consent, or in cases predicted by Law;"

"Cases predicted by Law" being the key expression...

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834987)

You're complaining about details while missing the big picture. If we don't have the right to Internet access then the other details don't matter at all. If I'm not allowed to connect to the Internet in the first place then what does details about neutrality matter? They don't matter! Not at all. I recently moved from Seattle where my entire condo building was not allowed Internet access because of the "director's rules." One neighbor said they didn't want Comcast to install equipment so the entire building was blocked from having cable TV or Internet. A neighboring house didn't want a new CenturyLink pedestal so we were denied DSL. I don't give a fuck about your whines about logging when I wasn't allowed to even have Internet access in the first place.

Re:"Obliged to keep records of users' access" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46836717)

The new law states clearly that the records consist solely of the ip and time of connection, being illegal to make any analysis or record of the contents or protocols used in such connection.
The lack of this information kind of matters.

Rights are not things that are given (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834047)

Rights given by men, can be taken by men; they are therefore not rights.

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

If the internet is turned off, does a Brazilian have the right to force other men to turn it back on? This is absurd, there is no "right" to internet service any more than there is a right to free healthcare, housing, MTV or iPads.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834079)

Rights given by men, can be taken by men; they are therefore not rights.

So, rights don't exist, then? Or are you going to say something about how all True Rights have been infringed upon, but not actually taken? Well, having your right perpetually infringed upon by a government that doesn't recognize them sure seems to be the same thing as not having them at all, and no amount of appeals to magical rights fairies (How else does your silly notion of rights work?) will change that.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834133)

Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like. But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.

You have the right to life for example, you do not have the right to eat steak every day. Do you disagree with this?

That some government recogize rights and some do not is clear, but you cannot just make them up as you please, it doesn't work that way.

Pretending that things are rights that clearly are not in fact cheapens those things that are rights.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834219)

Rights are inherent things, call it god given or natural, whatever you like.

Rights are things created by humans in an effort to make society better. Society will usually dictate that governments (or people) can't infringe or take away people's rights except in extreme circumstances. Long and boring explanations that go into specifics are unnecessary; rights are not magic things that just exist.

But they are not things granted by others, those things are privliges.

Then, simply put, you believe all rights are privileges. Calling them "natural" does not make your notion of rights seem any less magical.

it doesn't work that way.

Stating that it does not work that way does not make it so. By all accounts, it does work that way. There's no reason to think that it doesn't, just like there's no reason to believe in a god.

Pretending that things are rights that clearly are not in fact cheapens those things that are rights.

Pretending that things are not rights that clearly are in fact cheapens those things that are rights.

Have you consulted your magical rights fairy to see what is and is not a right? How do you even find this shit out, except by making up your own definition of what constitutes as a "right," or mindlessly repeating the words of others?

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834299)

Easy there slugger, these things are really quite simple.

Who gave you life?

Who gave you a steak?

You have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. You do not have the right to take food from another man just because you are hungry. There are others of course but you get the point.

You most certainly do not have the right to internet at some arbitrary service level, this is just so much bullshit made up to keep the proles thinking they are being cared for by their benelovent masters. You do of course have the right to remain blissfully blind to this and be as happy as you like accessing facebook and the like over your Free Citizen Internet Service Account. Must be wonderful to be you. (that's snark if you missed it).

If you do not believe these things that is your choice, and good for you I say. But what I say is truth, all you need do is think about it. I could be wrong... but of course I am not.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834329)

Who gave you life?

My parents.

Who gave you a steak?

Whoever gave me the steak. What sort of stupid question is this?

You have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. You do not have the right to take food from another man just because you are hungry.

I would if society invented such a right. Fortunately, it didn't. Are you this stupid?

But what I say is truth, all you need do is think about it.

But what I say is truth, all you need do is think about it.

I could be wrong... but of course I am not.

Which is it?

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834369)

"Who gave you life?

My parents."

Really? How did this happen?

I don't think that's true, and I can prove it. Let then create another one, they cannot.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834395)

Your parents created a baby, god creates life.

Man creates a steak, yes it requires a cow but a cow cannot provide you with a steak alone.

It is you who choose not to see these things that are so easily seen, I can't help you with that.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0, Troll)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46834453)

Sorry, I flunked Weed Philosophy 101.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (2, Insightful)

BiIl_the_Engineer (3618863) | about 5 months ago | (#46834557)

Wow! A religious nutter. What a surprise.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834635)

Ahh, an athiest, what a surprise.

The truth is far more interesting, I believe in, and our country recognizes, your right to be anti-religous, But you must understand that your belief that there is no god is itself an act of faith, is it not? (And yes I am putting words into your mouth for the sake of argument here).

Irregardless, the rights I believe in and are god given (or natural or whatever you want to call them) have at their core, the belief that all men have these rights and that no right may infringe on the rights of another man. That's pretty reasonable don't you think?

It doesn't really have anything to do with religeon, it has to do with morality, and you don't disagree with morality do you?

And you will note that at no point do I refer to you as a nutter. You're welcome.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (3, Insightful)

BiIl_the_Engineer (3618863) | about 5 months ago | (#46834781)

The truth is far more interesting, I believe in, and our country recognizes, your right to be anti-religous, But you must understand that your belief that there is no god is itself an act of faith, is it not?

Do you understand that your believe that there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all acts of faith? Or do you simply lack a belief in those things?

Lacking a belief in something because there is no evidence that it exists is not faith. I simply acknowledge that science has a good track record (unlike your useless "faith") of getting us closest to the truth, and if there is no scientific evidence that something exists, I simply lack a reason to believe in it. If that is "faith" to you, then your definition of "faith" is indeed worthless.

That's pretty reasonable don't you think?

That depends on what you think qualifies as a "right." And the magical bullshit makes it unreasonable to me.

And you will note that at no point do I refer to you as a nutter. You're welcome.

I will, however, refer to you as an ignorant nutter. You don't understand atheists or faith. You're welcome.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834815)

The thing is you seem very insistent that I accept and understand your position on god, but clearly don't seem very willing to accept an alternate belief. At least that's what I am reading from your brief posts.

Let me put that a tad less politely; while I was trying honestly to engage in a discussion and was willing to attempt to understand your beliefs, you are kind of a dick.

Now go fuck off.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

BiIl_the_Engineer (3618863) | about 5 months ago | (#46834905)

The thing is you seem very insistent that I accept and understand your position on god, but clearly don't seem very willing to accept an alternate belief.

Because I believe the alternate belief is bullshit (in the sense that it's irrational to believe something you have no reason to believe in), just like you believe that 1 + 1 most definitely does not equal 3. There is nothing contradictory or startling here.

Let me put that a tad less politely; while I was trying honestly to engage in a discussion and was willing to attempt to understand your beliefs, you are kind of a dick.

It's nice that you think so.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835549)

You're arguing with anonymous coward who cares?

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834573)

How is this comment considered a troll, yet the other comments that basically make the claim that rights simply exist somehow without evidence are not considered as troll comments?

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 5 months ago | (#46834647)

Because a lot of Slashdotters are libertarians who only have the most cursory understanding of social philosophy, the Constitution, what lead to it, who created it and why, and are about as sensible as the Communists of the last century.

Rights exist because a majority of the power structure in a society agree that they do. Where that agreement comes from is rather irrelevant - church, open fora, private discussions, backroom deals between cigar-chomping fat cats, a sentimental upwelling; it all works the same way: at some point, enough people agree that some rights are useful or fit into the current moral philosophy, and decide to enforce them.

That's why equal rights for gays are being accepted now, that's why Freedom of Speech is central to how the US operates politically, and why gun rights in the US are sacrosanct.

Babbling on about natural rights is as useful about babbling on about what Nature "wants".

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834741)

"Rights exist because a majority of the power structure"

Hogwash, rights exist specifically to protect the minority from the majority. The majority do not need rights do they?

I am speaking of logic and philosophy, you are speaking about politics, they are not the same thing.

It is my belief that these righs are natural, you saying they are not is meaningless to me. And you certainly have the right to think whatever the fuck you want to, I could care less.

Now go fuck yourself.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834579)

Who gave you life?

Iluvatar

Who gave you a steak?

I'm vegetarian, you insensitive clod.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 5 months ago | (#46834663)

You have the right to life for example,

Fun fact: your right to life is inviolate only for as long as everyone around you agrees to it. Fun fact #2: no one specified anything about what life.

In other words: your right to life is a privilege granted to you by everyone around you, and can be revoked by a single person in your environment. Feel free to explain how that differs from a privilege.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46834743)

Fun fact: your right to life is inviolate only for as long as everyone around you agrees to it.

You are confusing rights with conditions. Your right to life is independent of your neighbors, otherwise "inalienable" it would not be. Whether your neighbors violate your right is a different matter.

Feel free to explain how that differs from a privilege.

Privileges can be revoked without legal repercussions.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834757)

"your right to life is inviolate only for as long as everyone around you agrees to it"

"your right to life is a privilege granted to you by everyone around you"

Go on and prove that to me, and then I will agree with you. Until then your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

aBaldrich (1692238) | about 5 months ago | (#46835629)

Fake. I can sign a paper by which I oblige myself to pay you 10 dollars a month for a year. Now you have a right that I have given to you.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46836029)

What right would that be?

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46836491)

You won't find your rights described in any physics books. There's no mathematical proof deriving them from base principles. In no biology textbook will you see your rights labeled next to your liver or spleen, or a section of the brain where rights are formed.

Rights are concepts, and as such are entirely the product of people, they are not "natural" or "god given" whatever that even means.

The reason we say they are is because everyone is better off if we treat them that way, and if you say they're arbitrary then some bastard is going to try and remove them which is bad for everyone.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46834443)

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

So, jails and prisons are out, then?

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834503)

Out of what?

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about 5 months ago | (#46834631)

This is absurd, there is no "right" to internet service any more than there is a right to free healthcare, housing, MTV or iPads.

You're wrong. In Brazil everyone has right to free healthcare.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834697)

"everyone has right to free healthcare"

Good for you. But it's still not a right.

Firstly nothing is free, this is not a matter of opinion, this is simply truth, like gravity, *things* cost *money* and healthcare is a thing.

If you have a right to healthcare, who pays for it? How much do doctors get paid? What if the doctor decides he wants more money than the state is willing to pay?

I will tell you what; if healthcare is a right that is to be enforced by the state, then the state has to force the doctor to work for the going rate. We call that slavery. If they fail to do this then you have no healthcare then do you?

Slavery is not a right, period. Nice society you have there Mr. Brazillian.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about 5 months ago | (#46834841)

No doctor is forced by law to be paid the rate the government decides, unless he is employed by it. Their salaries are force upon them by their employers like every employee's salary is. We do not slave people with a degree here, we only slave unskilled immigrants, like the US do.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834961)

Hang on, you aren't following me.

I am making the point that if the doctors do not agree to the price paid by the state they do not have a choice, if healthcare is a right of the people then the state must implement price and wage controls, and that *is* a form of slavery.

It is not a free market, where the seller and the producer agree on a price, and such a market cannot exist where the product is a right of the people.

You may well be told you have free healthcare but it is not free - you understand me do you not? Someone pays for it through taxes and fees, it is *not* free. Nothing is free!

Similiarly it is NOT a right, as much as they may say it is.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1, Troll)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46835311)

No, you aren't following him. Doctors there are free to seek whatever pay they want, just like everyone else. Employers are free not to agree to that price, just like everywhere else.

BTW, your oxygen payment is past due. We'll send people around in a moment to clamp your nose and mouth shut.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835409)

No it is you who are failing to follow along here. Listen to me.

Assuming healthcare is a right of man, that means that the state must see to it that all men get care - it is your right is it not?

Unless the state can contract or hire enough doctors to provide this care at a reasonable cost the state will have to implement price controls. Physicians are highly skilled, as you may know, and expect to be paid well. It is certain that the state will want to pay them less than they want to work for.

Thus you will eventually end up with the state forcing doctors to work for a set rate. This is slavery.

And you will see rationed care, just like you do in all socialized states where healthcare is a function of the state.

It's not theory, it's OBSERVATION OF FACT.

Oh and go fuck yourself with your little insults and childish titterring, adults are trying to have a serious discussion of serious things here.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835589)

Unless the state can contract or hire enough doctors to provide this care at a reasonable cost

It can. The rest of your post is therefore null and void.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1, Troll)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46835815)

The entire rest of the free world manages to hire enough doctors to provide the needed healthcare. Sometimes they get creative like taking care of their med-school tuition in exchange for professional services at a discount later (a perfectly fair bargain freely entered) or relieving them of the burden of malpractice insurance payments. None of those places conscript doctors. Interestingly, here in the U.S. we do have a shortage of doctors and nurses in some regions.

Every system has rationing, Some do it based on actual medical need, one does it based on ability to pay without regard to need.

So, no slavery.

You are the one who said NOTHING is free, so how much is your monthly oxygen bill? What's the going rate for sunlight? Adults know that dropping the f bomb in a discussion or debate is generally anti-productive at best.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 5 months ago | (#46835417)

You are misinformed. The government here is offering very good salaries for doctors, the "gotcha" is that these doctors are needed in remote places of the country. Our doctors want to be paid very well and only serve wealthy patients in capital cities, which is why it is not working.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835175)

When doctors decide they want more money than the state is willing to pay, the state simply imports more doctors from Cuba.

There is nothing nice about our society, it will only get worst as long as the current party of thiefs stays in power.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 5 months ago | (#46835249)

Universal healthcare here (Brazil) is paid with tax money. It is fairer than the private healthcare system because it allows everyone to get treatment and all divide the bill through tax money. Be better informed before writing nonsense.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46836013)

Universal healthcare here (Brazil) is paid with tax money. It is fairer than the private healthcare system because ...

you define "fair" to include the concept of taking things from someone who works to get them to give them to someone who doesn't. This is "fair" to the people who get things; patently unfair to those who get things taken away. Since there are generally more people who want their stuff to be paid for by other people than those who want to buy other people stuff, this make this, on average, "fair".

What isn't discussed in this idea of "fair" is what happens when the population of people this is "fair" for grows past the ability of the rest to pay for it. And certainly, this balance is shifting the wrong way, pushed more and more by those who want to create class envy so the demarcation moves even faster. "Those awful rich people" owe everyone else, so taking it all away from them to give it to us is "fair".

Re:Rights are not things that are given (0)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 5 months ago | (#46836099)

It is because of this north-american mentality that humanity will be extinct soon, friend. Well ... Where do you read what I wrote that would be "just for some"? Is for ALL, dude, a concept the U.S. are unable to accept. ALL pay a portion via taxes and ALL receive the benefits. It is not perfect and never will be, but it is light years ahead of joke U.S. private healthcare system where those who can afford will live, and who can not pay ... dies. Keep your sick culture to yourself, please.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46836395)

It is because of this north-american mentality that humanity will be extinct soon, friend.

I am not your friend and your use of the term is insulting. There is also no such "north-american mentality" that you think exists. The idea that you don't get is one of personal responsibility, where the primary responsibility for one's well being is not "all those rich people", but oneself.

Where do you read what I wrote that would be "just for some"?

It is "just for some" because there are, indeed, people who make very little, if any, use of the health care system. The rich people who can afford private care to avoid the waiting time will pay to do so, meaning they get nothing at all out of the public health care system. The healthy young people who choose to opt-out of the health care system also get nothing. Yet both groups pay heavily in taxes. And ACA is forcing them to pay for health insurance when they would otherwise not.

Is for ALL, dude,

Nor am I "dude".

a concept the U.S. are unable to accept. ALL pay a portion via taxes and ALL receive the benefits.

Except not all do. I don't accept that all do because I know that not all do. You may want to believe that your cousin Bob being able to get a hangnail treated in the ER is a benefit to me, but in reality it isn't. And if you keep track of the debate, a large part of the success of the ACA (aka Obamacare) depends on healthy young people (who are not participating in the health care system today because they don't need to) joining the risk pool to pay for the existing condition participants costs. These young people are the ones who do not benefit from a taxpayer funded healthcare system because they pay taxes for something they don't use.

It is not perfect and never will be, but it is light years ahead of joke U.S. private healthcare system where those who can afford will live, and who can not pay ... dies.

Please don't speak about the US system if you don't understand it.

Keep your sick culture to yourself, please.

It is not my culture where everyone needs healthcare to keep from dieing. I'm also not forcing any "culture" onto you, I'm merely pointing out the flaw in the logic that it is "fair" to redistribute wealth to meet the desires of the poor. You do what you want to, and I'll invite YOU out of the ACA discussions since you're not willing to let others comment on your system.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 5 months ago | (#46837693)

Oh, you have some friends with mod points to force your peculiar and destructive view of word on the others :-)

Sorry dude, but I will not bite. I will not spend my time trying to reason with you, is a waste of time. After all you live in a american fantasy world and I will not be able to convince you otherwise, there is no way to reverse years of your mind conditioning in a few minutes.

(P.S: It's because of things like this the world does not die of love for you north-americans...)

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

rea1l1 (903073) | about 5 months ago | (#46837701)

We are approaching a point in history where "the establishment" is playing a serious, dishonest game of "king of the hill", using legal gymnastics and politics to create a social climate that favors maintaining their current power structure and removing anything that threatens them and their outdated technologies that they push like a drug.

Fact of the matter is communism and capitalism work hand in hand really, really well.

Communism is for the services to maintain humanity - medical, legal, housing, food, clothing, education. These things are all the same: staples of life. I for one feel that every man woman and child, that all of the people I encounter daily, should have these. They are the support beams of our society! I do not want me neighbor to have to choose between feeding himself, getting dental work, and wearing clothes without holes.

On the other hand, capitalism is perfect for adventuring into new fields, pushing boundaries. This is for supporting luxurious products. I don't care if my neighbor has a hot tub or not. If he wants that, he should purchase that for himself.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about 5 months ago | (#46834847)

There is no such thing as free healthcare. Doctors and hospitals cost money.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 5 months ago | (#46835265)

Correct, but here in Brazil the health care system is paid with tax money. You pay, but indirectly.

rights are what rights do (1)

mod prime (3597787) | about 5 months ago | (#46834927)

You are basically wrong about rights. There is no objectively correct formulation for what a right is. The idea of rights precedes philosophical discussions about them. There are rights discussed in some of the most ancient writings we know of.

You can be given the right to enslave by a government. You might say 'in philosophy x you have no right to enslave' and you can also so 'philosophy x is the best way of thinking about this because' but you cannot say 'It is a rule of nature that you cannot enslave humans and therefore can have no absolute right to enslave', without supplying at least a whole books worth of justification, and even then you will probably not be persuasive.

Brazilians do not have the right to force other men to turn the internet back on. Instead they have a right to privacy, equal access to the network and so on.

Re:rights are what rights do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835067)

"Brazilians do not have the right to force other men to turn the internet back on."

Ok.

"equal access to the network and so on."

So if the internet goes down in one area of town how do we preserve equality of access without forcing other men, at gunpoint, to turn it back on?

And what of the power is out, more men with guns forcing other men to start up the generators?

And if the generators are out of petrol, more men with guns forcing other men to work the pumps?

Lot's of men with guns there to enforce your "equality of access" it seems to me. Nice rights.

Re:rights are what rights do (1)

mod prime (3597787) | about 5 months ago | (#46835943)

Net neutrality does not involve guaranteeing all citizens will have internet connection.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46835225)

You are confusing natural rights and civil rights.

If a society offers no rights beyond natural rights to it's citizens, it may not ethically expect any obedience to it's laws nor payment of taxes.

As for your other claims, nobody said people aren't being paid.

Re:Rights are not things that are given (2)

HiThere (15173) | about 5 months ago | (#46835969)

Rights are a term used in rhetoric, originally invented to convince theistic believers that their god made them inherent.

You don't even have the right to breathe. You, instead, have the need to breathe. However, as has been proven throughout history, this need can be overridden by someone with more power. And then you die.

This same thing is true of all other "rights". The term was invented to arouse emotional support, and it works for that purpose. It has no other meaning or function in nature. It does have other meanings in law, but even there it is subject to being overridden by those more powerful.

For that matter your assertion that "Any alleged âoerightâ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." is merely an assertion. If there is a "right" to self-defense, then there will come occasions where two different indivicuals will have conflicting rights. Which, logically, would mean that there could be no unlimited right of self defense, but rather it would need to be fenced in with conditions such that two people's right could never come into conflict. Just try to create such a statement. If you give the courts the power to decide when you have the right to speak, then the courts are the (an?) ultimate judge over how much right you have to speak. If you don't give anyone such a right, then there is no limit to fraud. Etc.

Rights, to the extent that they exist, are a social fiction by with one group exerts power over another. (Look into the history of slave holder's rights.)

Re:Rights are not things that are given (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 5 months ago | (#46836209)

You assume that is impossible for a set of rights to exist which can ever be in opposition to one another.

But, that's clearly false. For instance, you have a right to freedom of speech. But I also have a right not to enter into a contract under false circumstances.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46837603)

> This is absurd, there is no "right" to internet service any more than there is a right to free healthcare, housing, MTV or iPads.

I fail to comprehend the phrase. I will assume you wanted to say that:

"This is absurd, there is no "right" to internet service any more than there is NO right to free healthcare, housing, MTV or iPads."

Did you know we do have right to free healthcare in Brazil? (It doesn't work well, but then a lot of things don't work in Brazil...)

We don't have a right to free housing, but it's an interesting idea and some countries (Kuwait IIRC) do provide free housing to those wanting to form a family (or so I've seen a while ago on TV).

You don't have free healthcare in the USA, because your country -- to sum it up -- sucks. Obama, the most Republican of the Democrats (hah!) set to correct that, but will the rich pay for basic health for the employees? No fscking way! (I wonder why Mr. Burns was created as a character, since reality makes him look softhearted).

Also, so that you know, Policemen are men (maybe even in L.A.P.D.) and they are literally forced to do what the law mandates. It sucks, but... Dura Lex, sed Lex (the Law is harsh, but it's the Law).

And the government... (3, Informative)

fredprado (2569351) | about 5 months ago | (#46834065)

has just given itself the right to apply censure in whatever it pleases, by using this law as a Trojan Horse and inserting in it a vague statement regarding what is unacceptable and not protected by freedom of speech.

Re:And the government... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834139)

Hmm, no. That already existed. There is very little freedom of speech protection in Brazil (mostly because it is ridiculously easy to claim "slander" here), and that hasn't changed at all.

Re:And the government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834275)

"apply censure in whatever it pleases", can you elaborate how is that possible using the approved text? If you mean by using legal requests approved by a judge, that is already the case.

Re:And the government... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 5 months ago | (#46835851)

Art 19 4

"... e considerado o interesse da coletividade na disponibilização do conteúdo na Internet..."

"... and considering the collective interest in the availability of the Internet content..."

Basically it opens a can of worms. The judge can remove any content he pleases based on the vague concept of the "collective interests".

Re:And the government... (1)

hagnat (752654) | about 5 months ago | (#46836111)

actually, this article says that it *IS* the collective interest that all internet content to be available to be seen

Re:And the government... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 5 months ago | (#46836463)

Not quite. It does not say that it is in the collective interest that all content must be available (and it couldn't say such a thing as it would encompass child porn, copyrighted content and many other things that are illegal here). It says that a judge has the discretion to issue a taking down order for this content on of something called "collective interest" (whatever it means).

Re:And the government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46837633)

Yes. But a *judge* has to do it. No DMCA crap.

Re:And the government... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 5 months ago | (#46837663)

The problem is that DCMA crap can be turned back by judicial decisions when abusive.

I am certainly not a fan of DCMA take over notices, but here in Brasil we have a lot of "activist" judges who rule in opposition to the law. Until now their decisions were usually but not always turned on Superior courts. Now this law gives them a degree of legitimacy in their arbitrary decisions that will make it much harder to turn them.

Same as the FCC, mega church ascendancy (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 5 months ago | (#46834575)

The FCC just substituted its oversight of subjective free speech protection for true net neutrality. What's funny about this is that while Comcast is chucking an evil chortle thinks they just actually crowned the mega church business incorporations as the new netflix. Mega churches are slowly taking over businesses due to their tax privledges, immunity from antitrust, large capitalization that let them operate a loss to kill competition and apple-scale brand loyalty. The mega churches just got another freebie,: not paying content access fees to the ISP since the FCC will feel that against free speech for certain.

Re:And the government... (1)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46835347)

Same deal in the U.S. but we didn't get network neutrality in the bargain.

Rights for whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834073)

Looks like this bill of rights is granting more rights to the intelligence community and ISPs than ordinary citizens.

"Net neutrality" can be good for consumers, but not when ISPs react to being forced to respect it by throwing temper tantrums and raising prices and refusing to upgrade ancient ADSL switches. We know that all too well in the US.

The remainder of the bill seems to be dedicated to benefiting the people in power. But why would we expect anything else? To get a Senate to "rush" anything through would imply there's an enormous financial incentive for them to do so, and that's almost never good for the common man.

Net Neutrality (2)

TheSync (5291) | about 5 months ago | (#46834117)

"hat goes some length towards protecting net neutrality"

Where exactly is this stated in the actual document [netmundial.br] ?

Re:Net Neutrality (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about 5 months ago | (#46834221)

It is pretty clear in "Freedom of expression: everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek, receive, and impart information on the Internet without arbitrary interference." as in 'without arbitrary interference'. Also there is "avoiding arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" as in you can not analyse people's data packets in order to treat 'arbitrarily interfere' with different kinds of data being transmitted. Not to forget " Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet." as in 'distribute information'.

So net neutrality is pretty well covered without mention the specific words net neutrality which have already by opposed by PR douche bags and right wing politicians.

Re:Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834353)

So let me get this straight, you have the RIGHT to access information?

What if you do not have a computer? Does the state then provide one for you?

Here in the US a woman is said to have a right to birth control and is thus provided with state medication and condoms, is this not the same thing?

What if you have no electricity? What then of your right to access information?

What of my right to self defense, does this not mean that the state needs to provide me with an AR-10 - and ammo?

Re:Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834601)

Slashdotters usually don't understand the difference between rights and freedoms and use one term when they should use the other. The GP probably meant freedom.

Re:Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834881)

Well I don't know the ins and outs of the Brazilian legal system but this appears to be directly from the bill here (translated I suppose)

http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/

"access to information: Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet."

And that clearly says right.

Yes. the term "right" is misused far more often than not, but that's exactly the point I was trying to drive at. We should try and understand these things because actual rights are an important part of our society, and "internet" service is just plain not one of them.

Fact is I am stuck here on a flaky cable 1Mb connection, I really think it's uncivilised and I have a right to at least 10Mb. Help I'm being opressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

Feh.

Re:Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46837691)

Well, for what it is worth:

In Brazil:

Yes, you have the right to public information. If it is not published, you can request it (in Brazil). REALLY.

Yes, you have the right to internet access. If you cannot afford it, there are public internet access terminals in most larger cities, and the government is really trying to get a national IP backbone deployed so that it is actually easier for the small ISPs to offer services in small cities in the less developed areas. With a tax-less monthly price of R$ 30 (about US$ 12) for the 1Mbit/s plan that must exist if you use the the national IP backbone (and which most large providers also have, to not lose clients). Which is enough for very basic access, this is email/facebook/web *pages* we're talking about, not streaming.

It may be crap, but it exists. Same as the free medical system in Brazil. You may well die because it is quite often very awful due to long queues. But you do have a large chance of surviving, much larger than "no $, no medic". And it pays for ultra-expensive crap like Hepatitis-C treatment.

Re:Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834367)

'without arbitrary interference'

arbitrary ärbitrer/ adjective
        1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Slowing down Netflix is part of the management system not a random choice.

Re: Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835939)

So when Netflix wants to push 1 Tbps through a 100Gbps interconnect, do they have the right to magically make their bits fit?

Re:Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46836761)

There is the national law and the netmundial event.
Net neutrality is now granted by law in Brazil. The netmundial event/congress/whatever is another thing.

This makes it easier for the NSA (2)

wiredog (43288) | about 5 months ago | (#46834181)

internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months
Nothing like making it easy to build the list of links for an ISP by putting all the data in one place. Bet it's online accessible, too.

Re:This makes it easier for the NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46836807)

They have to keep ip and connection time records, but are now forbidden of any packet, content or protocol analysis or record. And they are legally responsible to keep those records safe.

The NSA already has a five year history on everybody (check To protect and infect by Jacob Applebaum on CCC [youtube.com] ) I think this changes nothing for the NSA and their disrespect for Brazilians laws, citizens, and international Human Rights treaties signed by both Brazil and the US (the Human Rights Declaration is not just a piece of paper).

As a Brazilian (2)

CmdrEdem (2229572) | about 5 months ago | (#46834411)

Keeping net neutrality is a huge win. Other articles in the bill are very positive too.

The shitty part is the record keeping. As far as my legalspeak goes, and that is almost nothing, what I understood is that if I have a website I have to maintain a 6 month record of all my visitors. I'm guessing that they refer to general access logs, just like Apache access log files or some equivalent. What I did understand is that ISPs cannot keep those records. But I might be very wrong. Either interpretation is bad anyway, so it does not matter much how bad it is.

What bothers me more is that our equivalent to the FCC (Anatel) is building a database and backdoor access to all ISPs client data. If what I heard is right (two sources working in a third party developer for a local ISP) they will have access to every byte sent through every Internet connection in the country. The buffer size I do not know. THAT bothers me a lot.

Re:As a Brazilian (1)

LavouraArcaica (2012798) | about 5 months ago | (#46835113)

It's that true? (about the anatel backdoor)?
If it's true, it's time to show this in the light. It's outrageous, absurd and ridiculous (specially from a government that said that is wrong when talking about NSA).
Besides the 2 sources, there is anything wrote about it? :/

Re:As a Brazilian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835131)

N-... No.

It said "and internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months and can't pass this responsibility to other companies."

An internet provider is an ISP because ISP stands for Internet Service Provider.

So the ISP's must keep a record of all logs for 6 months, and they cannot push that off onto other companies such as Netflix, Amazon, or you and your website.

Re:As a Brazilian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835993)

Keeping net neutrality is a huge win. Other articles in the bill are very positive too.

The shitty part is the record keeping. As far as my legalspeak goes, and that is almost nothing, what I understood is that if I have a website I have to maintain a 6 month record of all my visitors. I'm guessing that they refer to general access logs, just like Apache access log files or some equivalent. What I did understand is that ISPs cannot keep those records. But I might be very wrong. Either interpretation is bad anyway, so it does not matter much how bad it is.

What bothers me more is that our equivalent to the FCC (Anatel) is building a database and backdoor access to all ISPs client data. If what I heard is right (two sources working in a third party developer for a local ISP) they will have access to every byte sent through every Internet connection in the country. The buffer size I do not know. THAT bothers me a lot.

Please read the post:

"providers will not be legally responsible for content published by users"

Until this law came into life, there were some judge decisions saying that they are responsible, so just every ISP today stores those logs for a lot longer. Content providers and ISPs were really concerned about that, so life will be much easier for them.

For the government nothing changes.

Telephone records have the same kind of treatment for decades fairly everywhere around the world.

What I could confirm otherwise is somewhat old news. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/f... [uol.com.br]

That's the only "serious newspaper" reference to something that never happened. This kind of privacy concerns, even though breached sometimes mostly by individuals, are really important in Brazil.

Some slashdotters need to understand most people live in countries without the freak-anti-terrorism-blamable-eavesdropping-mood as the USA does or the China/Iran-highly-censored-internet-ditatorial style.

I may say that we brazilians don't respect the governemnt just we don't fear it.

The Republicans here... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834509)

would never allow that to happen in 'Merica. They fear and hate the Internet because it is against their religion. Also they do is plot against access. Even here in Seattle the conservatives have successfully destroyed Internet access. The fastest connection I can get is dial-up with copper.net. They provide great dial-up, but after over a decade with them, I fucking want faster access, but the city will not allow CenturyLink or Comcast to upgrade their equipment. I had DSL, but it was just too unreliable to use. The Republicans have turned Seattle into a tech shithole.

Re:The Republicans here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835015)

Same stupid troll post every time. What a moron.

Re:The Republicans here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835101)

Agreed. It's the conservative's creation of the "Director's Rules" that has set back Internet access in Seattle by 15 years. This is why my company fled Seattle and moved to Issaquah where we can actually get > 1 Mbps access without spending nearly $1k/month for a T1. The rules that they are forcing down our throats that prevents us from getting fast Internet access:

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/dr/Rule1-2014CommunicationsCabinets.pdf

Re:The Republicans here... (1)

rduke15 (721841) | about 5 months ago | (#46835837)

I have actually read that "Director's Rules" pdf, and dont' see how it would prevent equipment upgrades to allow faster Internet.

What I see in the pdf, is that working on or installing equipment on public property requires a permit, and it lists what documents must be provided to get the permit (like a plan with street names, etc).

I sure hope every city in the world has similar rules. What is the problem? What did I miss? And what do republicans have to do with that? Aren't they against any rules other than those of The Market?

Re:The Republicans here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46836533)

Was that post sarcastic? Or a joke? I hope so.

Re:The Republicans here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46837243)

It allows the anti-Internet people here to fuck over the few of us that want Internet access. Other than a small pocket of amazon.com employees in the South Lake Union area, this is a very anti-tech city. The vast majority of people here are very backwards when it comes to technology. How else do you explain the horror that is Microsoft? The rules will not allow us to have fast Internet access. You must be one of those Republicans if you can't understand that.

Here is a great article that explains just how you people have fucked us over:

http://www.uptun.org/2012/05/07/rolling-out-high-speed-internet-in-renton-vs-seattle/

It is nearly impossible here to provide faster than dial-up. I know your kind hates us and the Internet, but this is ridiculous how you are persecuting us. Seriously, go fuck yourself for that you have done.

Brazil approves Internet bill of rights (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46834633)

In the meantime, Harper is trying to pass laws [stopthesecrecy.net] against Canadians.

Message to Harper: you're supposed to be an elected official to represent the people, not a corporate puppet out to sell out our rights and natural resources to the highest bidder. Canada isn't your private land and property, it's the country you're supposed to be governing.

Re:Brazil approves Internet bill of rights (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46835973)

Will Canada become a worker's paradise once all resources and production are in state hands?

Do citizens have the right to access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46834661)

Without access in the first place, none of the other rights mean a damn. We have great Internet rights here in the US except for that one sticking point. Where I live, we do not have cable TV or Internet, and DSL is flaky due to the fifty year-old phone wiring. The city will not allow Comcast to put in pedestals to provide access, and Comcast is too wimpy to try to fight the city over it. CenturyLink is in the same position. They tried to offer fiber to the node, and the city denied it. The people that rule here in Seattle hate the Internet and simply will not allow us fast access. You can talk about rights all day long, but when I am forced to use dial-up in 2014 and waiting days to finish downloading a single movie, those rights don't mean a damn. How about allowing us fast access?

Brazil is not the U.S. (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 5 months ago | (#46835257)

Dear everyone here,

Brazil is not the U.S. It has a different culture. Your cultural norms cannot be blindly fit onto Brazil. Please stop trying.

P.S. The rest of the world would like to express the same thing. They started a queue.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>