MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, April 14th 2024 - 01:15 UTC



Brazil: internet providers will have to store domestic communications in the country

Monday, July 15th 2013 - 14:53 UTC
Full article 9 comments

Brazil may soon require global Internet service providers (ISPs) to store domestic communications data in the country in response to reports that the US widely spies on telephone and Internet traffic across Latin America. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Math

    Time to leave Brazil.

    Jul 15th, 2013 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Heisenbergcontext

    What's the Portuguese for “PRISM”?

    Jul 15th, 2013 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Mind you,
    You have to watch for cows,

    Apparently a men asleep in bed in brazil, was killed when a cow fell on him..

    Yes I know.

    Still, interesting reading.

    Wonderful thing the internet lol.

    Jul 15th, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    “Silva said that the global Internet companies now say that they cannot provide the justice system with the information because their archives are stored abroad.”

    It looks like Dilma has stuffed her government full with idiots: Silva is another in a long line of them.

    Just what is it about these people who seem, without any apparent knowledge of what they are on about, to recommend changes that affect the whole world?

    The UN FFS! Another UN committee who will be able to pontificate over the rest of us.

    AND, does he really believe that a hacker in China cannot access the servers in Brazil. These people are really, really stupid.

    Jul 15th, 2013 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Can I recommend a 'reasons for' article on PRISM.
    It was compiled by Freidman writing for STRATFOR,
    and it is a well balanced piece explaining exactly why the NSA over-rides the US Constitution, and why the US citizen is culpable for not subjecting the NSA to the 'Constitution-test'.

    Jul 16th, 2013 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Heisenbergcontext

    @5 GeoffWard2:

    The article presents a persuasive case, it would seem that this kind of surveillance is to be the status quo for the foreseeable future. Persuading the American public though, will be much more difficult I believe.

    Jul 16th, 2013 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Glad you bothered to read it, Heisen.. #6

    I was stimulated to find it by the many US/UK posters that patently incompletely understood the issues with Snowden and PRISM, etc.

    It would be great if all the US posters, especially, gave it a read also.
    It was written by a US intelligence guru.

    Jul 16th, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    A very insightful and up to date article, which to my mind shows the US in a very poor light indeed because the government comes over as scared witless, literally witless and not knowing what to do about it other than trample on their own Constitution.

    It should, at the very minimum stop the American posters commenting on any other country, including The Dark Country, who also trample on their Constitution otherwise the argies can lay claims to them being hypocritical.

    Some one-liners which I think are very important taken from the article:

    “These intrusions, unlike all prior ones, have set a condition for success that is unattainable, and therefore the suspension of civil rights is permanent.

    Without a constitutional amendment, formal declaration of war or declaration of a state of emergency, the executive branch has overridden fundamental limits on its powers and protections for citizens.

    Some terrorist threats are dangerous, but you simply cannot stop every nut who wants to pop off a pipe bomb for a political cause.

    That was the point where they undermined the Constitution, and the American public is responsible for allowing them to do so.

    Obviously it was not as effective as hoped, or the Boston Marathon attack wouldn't have happened. If the program was meant to suppress dissent it has certainly failed, as the polls and the media of the past weeks show.

    The threat posed by PRISM and other programs is not what has been done with them but rather what could happen if they are permitted to survive.

    But a reasonable start is for the country that claims to be most dedicated to its Constitution to adhere to it meticulously above and beyond the narrowest interpretation.”

    The Americans of course deserved all the condolences that were made about 9/11 but must remember the role that Americans paid in the financing of the IRA in Northern Ireland. Many thousands of British lives that were lost and the future for their families wantonly destroyed yet the Americans

    Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Naturally, there are no judicially-fashioned 4th Amendment privacy rights in Russia. But there are the far more specific Articles 23 and 24 of the Russian Constitution, guaranteeing privacy in one's communications and personal affairs.

    The point is, while citizens in the US and Russia have those paper protections, in neither country do those protections have much to do with reality on the ground.

    And while we're about it, is there a similar 'constitutional' protection of the rights to privacy in the UK?
    If so, does it have any worth for the British? Freidman thinks that whatever rights the British had in this respect no longer exist and can never - ever - exist again.

    Jul 16th, 2013 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!