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.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Brazilian ISPs Told To Block YouTube Until Google Shuts It Down”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
66 Comments
dorpus says:

Do we really want freedom?

Americans say they want “freedom” when it benefits them. In East Asia, a serious social problem is emerging in the form of cyber-hooliganism. 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. 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.

Americans say that “information wants to be free” — but do we really want our personal information given away to vultures?

dorpus says:

Re: Re: Re: Huh?????

What if you can’t figure out who took this video, and your personal information started showing up online? What if your employer gets flooded by phone calls from perverts with a bathroom fetish, people found copies of your medical records, personal history, your social security number? Every time you step outside, strangers take pictures of you, your workplace receives bomb threats, police receive false accusations against you and obtain a search warrant to come in and take your belongings away?

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.

Wacko says:

Re: Re: Huh?????

Dorpus, I’d suggest chillin on the subject. Every actor or actress here in the states has gone through something like this in other countries, being photographed by people from those countries and put on the web, so why is it that just because the person isn’t from the US they have more of a right to privacy? I’m not advocating what is being done, I’m just saying that if you’re gonna be willing to take your cloths off or what ever it was that she did in public, someone is gonna be bound to see, and if you’re unlucky enough to get caught, just suck it up cause it was your fault in the first place for doing it in a public place. Also you’re comment about taking a video of you going to the bathroom, well if the person is doing it in public they’re a dumb ass anyway, but if they’re doing it at home that’s another story since no one should be able to see them there, but on the beach thats another storry…

dorpus says:

Re: Re: Re: Huh?????

What if someone takes a video of you going to a public bathroom at some store with security cameras? They can track down who you are from taking pictures of you entering your car. They could upload a doctored video online showing you doing bad things in the bathroom. Outraged “activists” then proceed to ruin your reputation online, setting up fake “blogs” written by you.

YouKnowNothing says:

Re: Re: Huh?????

It’s called “reasonable expectation of privacy.” You have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you’re taking a whizz at home. You don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you’re having sex on a public beach.

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.

misanthropic humanist says:

all publicity

Good one Dorpus, a well made point.

“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.

dorpus says:

Re: all publicity

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.

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?

misanthropic humanist says:

Re: Re: all publicity

“What if cyber-bullies invent accusations? How do you prove your innocence?”

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.

lillyliver says:

I think a person forfeits his right to privacy when he acts in public. If you do it in public, don’t be mad when someone sees you. If you don’t want someone to see you, do it in private. Apparently they wanted the “risk of getting caught” to add a little spice. I guess they got what they wanted.
I don’t know what is so special about this case. Its not like this is the first time something like this has happened.

The Missing Link says:

Need Fair Use Copy on Techdirt

C’mon, we don’t need excuses about how YouTube quickly pulls the video. When I see links to the STORY about the video, I expect to see links to the VIDEO too. I mean as readers, how can we expect to intelligently comment on it unless we’ve seen it?

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?

🙂

matt (profile) says:

video

its clear she has sex in the water in the vid, let me find the link for you guys….

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&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.

Anonymous Coward says:

You can find links to the video on YouTube still, just not the real video, and you could probably find it just by googling some key words. You can hardly tell they are doing anything anyway because it’s happening out in the ocean, both of their lower halfs are covered by water, and the only indication you have is her wrapped around him moving up and down and a flash of the guys member after their done. It’s not like any of the American sex tapes that have been publicised to death.

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.

EdB (user link) says:

http://www.porkolt.com/other/daniela+cicarelli/voyeur/beach/spain/brasileira/ronaldo/daniela-cicarellis-beach-sex-6166.html might be it, but I hope not. It is EXTREMELY tame. It is remotely possible that the people in the water at the end of the video are having sex, but you have to really decide that they are.

Oh I had to open internet exploder to watch it.

40 says:

Link

Here’s a link to the video:

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!

Enrico Suarve says:

Publicity Stunt

Possibly the best publicity stunt this tart has ever made – be honest – who had heard of Daniele whateverhernameis before this?

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…

DorpusCorpus says:

I am dorpus and i have sex with the undead! on TV! I eat macaroni without regard for the legal ramifications of macaroni!
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.

dorpus says:

Re: Re:

hey dorpus, why would you let somebody who doesn’t like you tape you going to the bathroom?

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?

Concerned says:

Re: Re: Re:

Dorpus, dude, you need help

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

Rampage says:

Chill out Dorkus

Hey dorphus you need to chill out. If people wanna make video of them doing it in public then go oops its up on you tube thats fine by me. Thats the beauty of living in this world. Anything goes. Now if some one took pictures of me going to the bathroom well thats just grose and i would make it my no.1 prioity to humiliate them like send hookers to his house when his wife and him are together :D. Thats just how i am

kraco says:

dorpus, yer an idiot

There are only 2 ways anyone is getting video of you using the bathroom:

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.

not dorpus says:

hey....get a clue

dorpus….you say how would i feel if i was taped in the bathroom, or having sex in my own home. well of coure i’d be mad. why? because that’s my personal space. if i was taped at a club doing a funny dance, or prancing around on a beach half clothed and taped, i’d still be upset, but would have no legal action to do anything (unless there were strict no camera or a gauranted privacy area enacted). you want to compare apples to carburators with regards to how well they can walk. It just doesn’t work. 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?

Bumbling old fool (profile) says:

Re: Irony?

The ironic thing is that if enough people jump in and pick on dorpus, they’d be proving his inital point, wouldn’t they?

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.

dorpus attacker says:

Irony? not really

see, we don’t know dorpus. we don’t post his personal info. we don’t post photos/videos of him doing “priavte” things. we don’t alter photos/videos for humiliation.

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.

dorpus says:

For example

A 4-year-old girl with a rare heart condition needed surgery, so her parents solicited donations through the media. Cyber-hooligans pounced on the opportunity to accuse her parents of faking the illness, posting their phone numbers and insurance records online, medical records, photos of their house, license plates, names of relatives and family friends. Thousands of posters did this anonymously, using foreign hosting services, bypassing legality issues. The family’s life became a living hell, and in this case the girl did manage to get surgery, but others before her have died from similar attacks.

http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/shakai/wadai/kunrin/news/20070101ddm001040002000c.html

not dorpus says:

sick kid attack

well, it’s sad that people will do that to people. and it’s sad that people will use illness to extort money out of bleeding hearts.

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »