Brazilian ISPs Told To Block YouTube Until Google Shuts It Down
from the proxy-servers,-anyone? dept
Following the Brazilian court order last week demanding Google shut down YouTube because of a racy video involving a well-known model having sex on the beach, a Brazilian ISP has stepped up to block all access to YouTube. The judge's order did note that ISPs should block the site until Google either takes it down or can guarantee that the video in question will no longer be available -- but so far it appears that only this one ISP has complied. This whole thing seems particularly pointless. All of the legal wrangling over the video has only made it much more popular around the world -- and there are plenty of other sites showing it, and for every site that the Brazilian government decides to shut down or that a Brazilian ISP tries to block, plenty of others will show up. Trying to ban it completely only gives it that much more attention and guarantees that many more people will see it. In the meantime, all the customers of this particular ISP (Brasil Telecom) will get pissed off that their ISP is blocking all of the perfectly legitimate videos on YouTube on the chance that someone might upload yet another copy of the sex video (which YouTube has quickly been removing every time it's been added). This ruling doesn't protect anyone, guarantees more people will see the video and annoys plenty of legitimate users. It's hard to see how that makes any sense for anyone.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the heck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/falls our of chair laughing
No, Russell, its not a fake, its been all over the place this past week or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we really want freedom?
Americans say that "information wants to be free" -- but do we really want our personal information given away to vultures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do we really want freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do we really want freedom?
Jeez dorpus, your trolling attempts used to be quite creative and even amusing at times. What happened to your 'A' game? Please, we all miss it so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one thing can be done about this;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?????
I don't watch sex vedios such as the one in question, but I don't think people feel threathened by a court order in Brazil-and it won't solve anything either.
LONG LIVE YOU TUBE!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?????
This is not absurd either, this stuff is happening to lots of people in East Asia when cyber-mobs decide to bully someone at random.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?????
Your trolling has suffered a dramatic decline in entertainmaent value lately. We're all getting worried about you.
If the fastball has dropped some velocity, it's time to develop a new pitch, or be relegated to mop-up duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all publicity
"When mobs of netters decide they don't like someone, they tear him/her to shreds -- posting pictures of them online, their telephone numbers, employers, bank account numbers, medical records, lists of acquaintances."
The "Western" approach to this which you can hear a thousand times a day on Slashdot is "If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". They aren't torn to shreds as you put it, so much as they tear themselves to shreds in some kind of guilty fit of shame.
"When posted anonymously, it becomes impossible to track down the offenders. Drive-by stalkers constantly take pictures of them, and some victims have been driven to suicide."
But you can't assert both, it's symmetrical. If A can expose B then B can expose A. If that is not the case then you are describing a power abuse, not a social phenomenon. The American mind is much more "fuck you", to it's enormous credit such actions are far more likely to result in homocide than suicide and through that MAD enshrined in 2nd amendment thinking oddly enough, symmetrical respect, that order is maintained.
Would you, given the means and opportunity, post the intimate details of a stranger on the net? I would not. And not because I fear the law of libel . Foremost I would not do it because I think it is unethical and I hold myself to high moral standards, but second on that list is the fact that I would spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder for what is rightfully and justifiably coming to me, probably 10 weeks of hospital food.
"Americans say that "information wants to be free" -- but do we really want our personal information given away to vultures?"
It's not a case of "wanting" to be free. That personification usually alludes to the wishes of the person making the statement as in "I want that information to be free". Rather it is that information tends towards freedom, in an entropic fashion the genie cannot be returned to the bottle.
However, this case involves celebrities who actively seek publicity. If it were a video of J Random Doe and his partner nobody would give a flying fuck (hmm, I'm still having trouble getting that second life video out of my brain).
Lastly, the vultures are already feeding. But they are not the hysterical masses. They are there every time you visit the supermarket and pay by credit card, they are lurking behind the guise of "security" companies. If you think that information harvested under the auspices of legality is contained you are very naive. The limiting condition is simply this; the lives of most people, even the greatest freaks, are increadibly boring and dull.
Do I care that Mrs Miggins of Arcacia Avenue, Fulchester is into S&M with her husband? Sorry, no, I have a life of my own to get on with however shallow it may be.
As for this video, it only amused me because I thought that little twunt Ronaldo was in it (still grieving from the world cup here), but I couldn't give a monkeys anus what his ex bird is up to, who is she again? Oh that's right - some nonentity that wants to get famous by having a video of her posted on the internet and having her daddy presure the government to remove it. It's just a publicity stunt like that other silly bint Paris Hilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: all publicity
What if cyber-bullies invent accusations? How do you prove your innocence?
But you can't assert both, it's symmetrical. If A can expose B then B can expose A.
How so? Any stranger can surreptitiously take pictures of you with a camera, without you realizing it. They can upload the pictures (altered to show you commiting crimes) from public terminals, where tracking down is impossible.
Do I care that Mrs Miggins of Arcacia Avenue, Fulchester is into S&M with her husband? Sorry, no, I have a life of my own to get on with however shallow it may be.
No, but what if somebody created a sensational story about Mrs. Miggins that is hard to ignore?
The American mind is much more "fuck you", to it's enormous credit such actions are far more likely to result in homocide than suicide and through that MAD enshrined in 2nd amendment thinking oddly enough, symmetrical respect, that order is maintained.
What if dozens, hundreds of people decide to destroy your reputation, so it is not possible to track them down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: all publicity
You don't. You ignore it like an adult.
Example: Dorpus is a crack addict.
Do you care? Honestly? (I sincerely hope you don't). Tomorrow this comment will be flushed off the board into the obscurity of the TechDirt database. In fact, if I were browsing and stumbled upon it I would think... hmm what kind of a prick is "misanthropic humanist" making unsubstantiated accusations about some guy he never met.
"Any stranger can surreptitiously take pictures of you with a camera, without you realizing it."
Anyone could walk up to me in the street and stick a knife in my back. Do I live in constant fear of that? Of course not. Do I think that knives and streets should be banned? Of course not.
"They can upload the pictures (altered to show you commiting crimes) from public terminals, where tracking down is impossible."
That would be defamation and possibly other crimes depending on your juristiction, hence a matter for the police who are rather better than you might think at tracking down these things.
"somebody created a sensational story about Mrs. Miggins"
Same thing here.
"What if dozens, hundreds of people decide to destroy your reputation, so it is not possible to track them down?"
They just increased 100 times the chances of tracking down any one of them to make a very nasty example of.
Having said all that, some people do deserve negative attention. Where that is based on demonstrable truth it is an absolute defence and justification. One should never live ones life in fear that others might lie and gossip about you, nor should one be afraid to point out the crimes of others, just be damn sure you got your facts straight before taking your greivance further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know what is so special about this case. Its not like this is the first time something like this has happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suggest..
There is a strong need here for counter-trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need Fair Use Copy on Techdirt
So yeah, pull down one of those "quickly deleted" copies before it gets deleted and host it on Techdirt. I mean, without being able to see it, how do we really know that Brazil doesn't have good reason to be outraged?
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
video
ahh here you go! google video link (or search for daniela cicarelli)
http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D- 7908230727441213427%26q%3DDaniela%2BCicarelli&docid=-7908230727441213427&ev=v&esrc=sr2&a mp;usg=AL29H2091RAcXLCT_P-b6VMm9SFFe10eMg
in addition, I guess brazil doesn't support freedom of speech? also too bad the actor in question doesn't realize just how bad the streisand effect is taking place, as well.
I'm thinking this is like how paris hilton's video "slipped" into the public to get her into popularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If these guys want to have sex in public (and by public I mean outside their homes in a place where it is socially acceptable for other people to be [ie not a bathroom stall]) then they run the risk of getting caught or having the acted recorded. Anytime anyone does something in public it is open to this type of thing.
Comparing this to invasions of privicy (shower photos, bathroom stall photos, etc) doesn't make sense because these people were out in the open, no walls around them, and it's not like they are going to go off and kill themselves (they are going to suck it up and get on with their lives). You have to protect your private information by not making it public, plain and simple.
Brazil is just throwing a hissy fit over this and just needs to grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh I had to open internet exploder to watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link
NSFW!
NOT SAFE FOR WORK!
http://www.medicinefilms.com/digs/187110/
NOT SAFE FOR WORK!
NSFW!
And dorpus is crazy.
He's saying that nobody should be able to take pictures of what they do in public because there are criminals who could do bad things.
We should ban everything then because anything can be used in a crime! NO MORE COMPUTERS CAUSE CRIMINALS USE THEM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link
bypass.thezerogroup.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publicity Stunt
The video looks suspiciously well filmed from the camera angles in it and the bit at the end - well in all honesty it’s that grainy it could be anyone
The bit before that is actually mainly tasteful with no nudity to the point that it’s tamer than most perfume ads
Bear in mind this is a woman who models bikinis for a living and you have to wonder why she is so 'outraged' (bearing in mind that if the editing is to believed they were screwing in the water of a public beach in plain site of other beach goers)
My guess - she felt her career was flagging and she needed to do something about it. She got a filmmaker to record a vaguely erotic film which wouldn't even get an age 15 rating in the UK, then bribed a judge to get it banned possibly promising him a share of the profits of her next clothing/perfume/celebrity product line
OK as conspiracy theories go it's not huge but it will be interesting to watch her career over the next few months...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publicity Stunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had sex with Chelsea Clinton at walmart and they took pictures of it and sold those pictures to the yakuza mobs in japan. Then these chinese hax0rs melted my blog servar with their l33tness and I was forced to know that I wasnt really that important to all of those people anyways.... sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the last thing anyone wants to see online is my fat white pasty self dropping the kids off at the pool..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every time you go to the bathroom, do you make sure there are no pinhole cameras in the walls or ceiling?
I think the last thing anyone wants to see online is my fat white pasty self dropping the kids off at the pool.
Will your neighbors, police department be nonchalant if they found a photo of you online with naked children in the pool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really I mean it, much as I hate the american shrink thing you need one. Venting here probably has its uses as a release valve, but I don't think the people on this site are qualified to give you the counseling you so obviously require
You've turned most of your posts into bathroom photos, screwing in stalls and abusing children in swimming pools
Thats not healthy
Freudian psycology would hint at you having had difficulties in the toilet training phase of your life (possibly an overbearing mother a traumatic experience or similar?). This can lead to an anally retentive or perverse personality in later life. Hitler probably had the same problem (well he had lots but this was probably one of them)
I'm not saying your going to become Hitler but wouldn't the world be better if he'd seen a shrink?
Dude - for your own good, go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chill out Dorkus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dorpus, yer an idiot
1. You're doing it out in the open, in plain view of public areas
2. They're illegally taping you in a bathroom. Don't start in about security cameras. There aren't cameras in store bathrooms -- that's illegal.
In fact, in most areas it's illegal to even have the bathroom door in view of a security camera. That's why most retailers have their bathrooms back in a hallway or around a corner. It keeps the doors out of the camera's range.
This model is doing her thing out in public. Sure, she didn't know it was being taped, but she damn well knew it COULD be. If you decide to take a big dump on the beach and it's taped, too damn bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, can we just get one thing straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey....get a clue
next, sure, people can take pictures of me, then photoshop them, or upload them to the internet. and there'd be no way to track them? i don't think so. you can get the ip addy of the uploading hoast, and track that back to a user (it may be spoofed or whatever, but it becomes a bit more challenging, but still the fact remains) maybe the offender was really good, and the cops had more important issues to deal with. it's no different than unsolved rapes/murders/thefts/robberies. you just can't catch everyone. sure it's bad and hurts you, but what else can you do but move on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we go, trying to legislate morality again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wanna bully someone with faux psychobable?
You wanna go argumentum ad hominem? Try me.
I am quite sure Dorpus can defend himself, but that's my 2c on the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you're cute when you're angry ;0)
particularly when you play dress up......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony?
Personally, I think he does less of speaking his mind and more of being a troll, but what do I know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony?
No, the ironic thing is that they WERE doing it to prove dorpus's point, just as dorpus set them up to do, but mishum failed to notice that and actually tried to defend dorpus.
Sadly yes, dorpus's goal here is to troll, and not speak his mind. To that end, he's sometimes effective, but usually just looks like a jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony?
I think you just assumed they were doing it to prove his point, and Humanist saw it for what it was and decided that trolls need love too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony?
Hate to break it to you BOF but I'm having a bad day, Dorpus's trolling on these posts was pissing me off so yeah I was going for the wind-up mileage not for the irony
So I'm not a nice person - sue me, sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony? not really
we get on his case because he trolls here. we haven't proven his point. we haven't "changed" his life. we haven't changed how others feel/think about him. he does that himself. we all just express our views, llike he expresses his.
not damaging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/falls out of chair laughing again
You were a victim of his trolling, and you didnt even notice it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example
http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/shakai/wadai/kunrin/news/20070101ddm001040002000c.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Battle Cry
キタ－－－（゜∀゜）－－－！！！！
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Battle Cry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outdoor f**king
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/lyrics/first-of-may
Birds do it, bees do it, lets do it,
Lets try to revamp our careers by having sex on the beach!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
Good job we're all such good friends here.
/group hug ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
Maybe this time it wasn't out and out trolling, consider me a pissed off villager in the above twisted metaphor
As for unsporting on that note I disagree - troll away in the public domain and expect the odd adverse response ;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ #54
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sick kid attack
however, by opening yourself to the public eye, you run the risk of getting burned. it's a choice that has to be made. display private information for the world to see, someone will misconstrue it.
the fact of the matter is that once you put information in the public domain, it is open to abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
block google for life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]