A pressa de Azeredo é para evitar a análise das consequências do seu projeto. Sem dúvida, os artigos 285-A, 285-B e 22 atendem aos ineteresses da MPAA, da RIAA e das companhias de TV fechada. Atacam milhões de internautas e querem barrar as práticas de compartilhamento de arquivos, principalmente pelas redes P2P.

Senator Azeredo’s rushing is in order to avoid analysis of the consequences of his bill. Certainly, articles 285-A, 285-B and 22 meet the interests of MPAA, the RIAA and TV coorporations. They are an attack on millions of Internet users and are meant to bar the practice of file sharing, mainly through P2P networks.

Some bloggers became more optimistic after the bill was amended. Têmis, from Doutora Responde [pt], a blog that intends to answer reader’s questions about law in a simple way, tries to demystify the 13 new cyber crimes. She concludes that after the amendments, the bill is passable, unless the House of Representatives decides not to approve the changes proposed:

O usuário da internet que não rouba senhas, que não invade redes, que não quebra redes para acessar conteúdo protegido e fazer cópias não autorizadas, que não acessa e divulga conteúdo de pedofilia, enfim, a grande maioria, pode ficar tranquila quanto a aprovação do projeto de lei DE CONFORMIDADE COM O ATUAL SUBSTITUTIVO.

The Internet user who doesn’t steal passwords, doesn’t break into networks, doesn’t destroy networks to access protected content and doesn’t make unauthorized copies, those who don’t access and disclose paedophile content, finally, the vast majority, can keep calm with regards to the approval of the bill conforming to its latest, substitute version.

However, according to others, the situation deserves, indeed, much concern. Alexandre Oliva, Board member of the Free Software Foundation Latin America, claims we are dealing with a “horrible authoriterrorism and on-line surveillance bill” approved by the Senate under the pretense of fighting pedophilia. In an announcement called Authoriterrorism and surveillance, the Brazilian way, the foundation further explains its views:

It further establishes jail time for such broad activities as unauthorized access to computer systems, networks, and data stored in them. In spite of being justified and promoted by banks on the grounds of stopping criminals from obtaining, selling or destroying information through fraud or exploitation of vulnerabilities, it is worded so ambiguously that it can be easily abused by suppliers of electronic equipment (computers such as servers, desktops, laptops, video games, cell phones, digital cameras, media players and recorders, etc) and of digitally-encoded information (text, audio, video, software, etc). Abuses may range from legal threats to actual jail time for people who unlock video games or cell phones to install software not approved by the supplier; who work around deliberate defects in media players or recorders to gain access to their own songs or movies stored in them; who use copyrighted works in ways that do not infringe on copyrights, but that authoriterrorists would like to outlaw.

André Lemos [pt], Federal University of Bahia’s Cyberculture Center Coordinator and visiting Professor at Canadian University of Alberta and McGill University, adds that the bill changes very little for criminals, but a lot for regular Internet users, who will not know if what they are doing is legal or not and will feel as if under 24/7 surveillance:

Por exemplo, se eu disseminar um vírus sem saber, poderei ser preso? posso trocar arquivos entre meus pares mesmo em redes P2P (minhas fotos, minhas músicas, meus arquivos de textos) sem pedir autorização prévia? Como os provedores vão interpretar essas trocas? Posso copiar uma parte do texto de um blog e colar no meu? Ou seja, ela cria um sentimento de insegurança e de medo generalizado. Isso bloqueia a imaginação e a criatividade.

For example, if I disseminate a virus without my knowledge, would I be arrested? Can I exchange my files with my mates in P2P networks (my pictures, music, files) without asking for prior permission? How will the ISP providers understand these exchanges? Can I copy an excerpt of a text from a blog and paste it into mine? In other words, it [the bill] creates a feeling of insecurity and general fear. It blocks imagination and creativity.

Lawyer and Sociologist Ariel Foina [pt], who specializes in Criminal Electronic Law and is a researcher on Internet social phenomena and Cyberspace Sociology, has analyzed every point of the bill in a comprehensive post, and comments on the clumsily-worded articles and how they can be dangerously misinterpreted:

na verdade os relatores do PL no Senado afirmam que a idéia aqui não era criminalizar a transmissão de Mp3 ou outros arquivos protegidos por direitos autorais por meio da Internet sem a devida autorização… sinceramente, só me lembro dos marcianos em Marte Ataca dizendo “Nos viemos em paz!” com a rizadinha característica no fundo. [...] Além do mais, o texto do artigo é excessivamente genérico o que é “dado”, meu endereço de e-mail é um dado? meu número de cpf seria um dado? um trecho de uma reportagem não deixa de ser um dado… um resultado de uma pesquisa, um percentual de um infográfico qualquer é um dado… divulgar isso, “transferindo-o” seria crime! Um eventual estado autoritário (não que o nosso seja) poderia usar isso como forma de perseguir jornalistas que conseguissem informações não públicas e as publicassem… pessoalmente acho o conceito de “dado” algo abstrato de mais para estar escrito numa Lei… Leis são feitas para serem interpretadas, para dar “segurança jurídica” à toda a sociedade… que segurança se tem quando a letra da lei permite leituras amplamente distintas?

in fact the Bill’s authors at Senate say that the idea here was not to criminalize the transmission of MP3 files or other copyright protected files through the Internet without proper authorization … honestly, it only reminds me of the Martians in Mars Attacks saying “We come in peace!” with a little a smirk in the background. [...] Moreover, the wording of the article is too generic, what is “data”, is my e-mail address data? would my individual identification number number be one? an excerpt of a news story is still a piece of data … a piece of any info-graphic is data … to disclose it, by “transferring it”, would be a crime! Any authoritarian state (hopefully not ours) could use it as a way to prosecute journalists who obtained non-public information and published it… Personally, I think the concept of “data” is something too abstract to be written in a law .. Laws are made to be interpreted, to give “legal certainty” to the whole society … what security is there when the wording of the law allows widely distinct interpretations?

Bloggers and Internet users demand at very least a long overdue debate, if not the scrapping of the bill all together. The online petition [pt] in defense of freedom and progress of knowledge on the Brazilian Internet has been signed by over 70,500 people - an extra 20,500 signatures since our last report three days ago. The hope is that at least 100,000 will be enough to sensitize the House of Representatives to the need of treading carefully. However, a lot more can be done on an individual basis, as suggests Lucia Freitas [pt]:

Se você é preguiçoso, acha que não vai fazer a diferença, te conto: faz. Que tal a gente conseguir mais de 100 mil assinaturas na petição? Que tal a gente se comunicar com cada um dos deputados de nosso Estado e deixar clara a nossa posição? Que tal a gente propor a discussão de um código que permita prender ladrões (virtuais e reais), pedófilos e outros vermes e ainda por cima continuarmos em rede, sem drama?

If you are lazy, thinking that it will not make a difference, I tell you: it does. Why don’t we get more than 100 thousand signatures to the petition? Why don’t we talk to each of the council members of our states and make our position clear? Why don’t we propose the discussion of a code that allows thieves (virtual and real), paedophiles and other vermin to be arrested and still continue online, without drama?

If approved in the House of Representatives, the final decision is in the hands of the Brazilian president, who could still veto the bill.

Resources in English

The Portuguese text of the proposal is available here, and an English translation by Pablo Lorenzoni reviewed by Alexandre Oliva, member of the Free Software Foundation Latin America, is now also available. See also previous Global Voices Coverage on the issue in May 2007 and November 2007).

Thanks to the pressure from many fronts, the initial draft proposed by Senator Eduardo Azeredo, which gathered unanimous rejection by the blogosphere, has been re-written for the better. The demand for user identification before they can take any action on the Internet, such as blogging, e-mailing or chatting, has been dropped, and some advances have even been made with the inclusion of an article to criminalize online racism.

On the other hand, many acts that would be considered trivial conduct when surfing the Internet are still typified as a crime, as explains blogger and lawyer Lu Monte [pt], while the online pedophilia issue, which was supposed to be the main motivation behind the new law, has been touched only superficially in just one of the proposed articles.

The Senate Press Relations Office issued a press-release [pt] to clarify some of the points and some blogs published a shorter version sent by e-mail to journalists:

“São 13 os novos crimes tipificados pela proposta: 1) acesso não autorizado a dispositivo de informação ou sistema informatizado; 2) obtenção, transferência ou fornecimento não-autorizado de dado ou informação; 3) divulgação ou utilização indevida de informações e dados pessoais; 4) destruir, inutilizar ou deteriorar coisa alheia ou dado eletrônico alheiro; 5) inserção ou difusão de vírus; 6) agravamento de pena para inserção ou difusão de vírus seguido de dano; 7) estelionato eletrônico (fishing); 8) atentado contra segurança de serviço ou utilidade pública; 9) interrupção ou perturbação de serviço telegráfico, telefônico, informático, telemático, dispositivo de comunicação, rede de computadores ou sistema informatizado; 10) falsificação de dados eletrônicos públicos e 11) falsificação de dados eletrônicos particulares (clonagem de cartões e celulares, por exemplo); 12) discriminação de raça ou de cor disseminada por meio de rede de computadores (alteração na Lei Afonso Arinos); 13) receptar ou armazenar imagens com conteúdo pedófilo (alteração no Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente).”

“A lei não se aplica a quem, por lazer ou trabalho, usa corretamente o computador, seja desenhando, seja baixando músicas, seja batendo-papo, seja dando opiniões em blogs, fazendo pesquisas ou quaisquer atividades semelhantes. O BOM USUÁRIO DEVE FICAR TRANQUILO, POIS NADA ACONTECERÁ A ELE, A NÃO SER O AUMENTO DE SUA SEGURANÇA, PELALEI, NO USO DAS TECNOLOGIAS.”

“There are 13 new crimes epitomized in the proposal: 1) non-authorized access to an information device or automated system, 2) obtaining, transferring or providing of non-authorized data or information, 3) disclosure or misuse of personal information and data; 4) destroying, making unusable or degrading other people’s objects or electronic data, 5) introducing and distributing viruses, 6) severer sentencing for introducing or distributing of viruses followed by damage; 7) electronic deception (phishing), 8) attack on security service or public utility; 9) interruption or disruption of telephone, telegraph computer, or electronic services, communication device, computer networks or computer system, 10) falsification of electronic public data and 11) falsification of private electronic data (credit card and mobile phone cloning, for example), 12) discriminating against people regarding race or color disseminated through computer networks (amendment to the Afonso Arinos Law), 13) receiving or storing pictures with pedophile content (amendment to the Child and Adolescent Statute).”
“The law does not apply to those who, for leisure or work, use the computer in a correct manner, whether drawing, downloading music, chatting online, writing opinions on blogs, searching content or any similar activities. The good user can rest in peace because nothing will happen to them, apart from the increase in security, according to the law, when it comes to technology usage.

The text may have been amended but new questions keep pouring in. Sérgio Amadeu [pt] is looking forward to clarifications of the above points:

1) quem define o que é o “uso correto do computador”? O Senador Azeredo?
2) o que é exatamente “um acesso não autorizado a dispositivo de informação (faltou ele incluir comunicação) ou sistema informatizado”?
3) O que é infomação? Bom, um site possui informações, um game, um CD, um DVD também. Se um jovem pegar um vídeo no youtube ou em um DVD ele estará ou não violando um dispositivo de informação?
4) Se eu destruir o DRM de um aparelho qualquer para copiar uma imagem ou uma cena de vídeo estarei comentendo um crime perante a lei do Azeredo? Se burlar um DRM de um dispositivo de música para copiar a música em outro aparelho serei um criminoso? Se eu rippar um CD e passar as músicas para o meu computador estarei violando a Lei do Azeredo?
5) Quando acesso uma rede de TV a cabo e pego um personagem de um filme ou de uma série da TV para usar no meu blog ou para recriar uma nova história estarei “obtendo um acesso não-autorizado de dado ou informação”?
6) Quando distribuir numa rede P2P ou apenas publicar no meu blog um vídeo que baixei do youtube, uma música que remixei, uma ficção que reescrevi com os personagens do filme “Guerra nas Estrelas”, ESTAREI comentendo um CRIME de “obtenção, transferência ou fornecimento não-autorizado de dado ou informação”?
7) Se o Senador diz que a Lei dele não tem nada a ver com a ampliação exagerada do copyright, então prá que necessitamos dos dois primeiros tipos criminais que a assessoria do Senador destacou entre os 13 novos crimes criados?
8) Se é para evitar “roubo ou furto” de dados e senhas JÁ não seria suficiente o tipo criminal “3 divulgação ou utilização indevida de informações e dados pessoais”?

1) Who defines what “correct use of the computer” is? Senator Azeredo?
2) What exactly is “non-authorized access to an information (communication should be included here) device or automated system”?
3) What is information? Well, a website contains information, a game, a CD, a DVD too. If a youngster gets a video on youtube or on a DVD, will they be violating the information device or not?
4) If I destroy any apparatus’ DRM to copy a picture or a video will I be committing a crime before the Azeredo Law? If I circumvent a music device’s DRM, to copy the music to another device will I be a criminal? If I rip a CD and transfer the music to my computer, will I violate the Azeredo Law?
5) When I access a cable TV channel and pick up a character from a movie or a TV series to use it on my blog or to recreate a new story will I be “obtaining non-authorized data or information”?
6) When I distribute a video that I downloaded from youtube, a song that I remixed, a piece of fiction that I re-wrote with the characters from “Star Wars” to a P2P network or just post it on my blog WILL I be committing a CRIME of “obtaining, transferring or provision of non-authorized data or information”?
7) If the Senator says that the law has nothing to do with the excessive extension of copyright, then why do we need the first two types of criminal offenses that the Senator’s PR team highlighted among the 13 new crimes created?
8) If it is to prevent “theft or stealing” of data and passwords would number “3) disclosure or misuse of personal information and data” not ALREADY be enough?

Ronaldo Lemos [pt], director of the Center for Technology & Society (CTS) at the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School and Project Lead for the Creative Commons in Brazil, provides his conclusions and some advice:

Em síntese, a imprecisão do texto e suas conseqüências imprevisíveis (algumas das quais listadas acima) demandam que sejam vetados no mínimo os artigos 285-A, 285-B, 163-A, parágrafo primeiro, Art. 6º, inciso VII, Artigo 22, III. Caso os artigos persistam, condutas triviais na rede serão passíveis de punição com penas de até 4 anos de reclusão.

In summary, the text’s vagueness and its unpredictable consequences (some of which are listed above [on the post]) require that at least Articles 285-A, 285-B, 163-A, first paragraph, Art 6, item VII, Article 22, item III be vetoed. If these articles persist, [users] shall be liable for trivial conduct on the network and punished with sentences of up to 4 years’ imprisonment.

(Say no to the Senador Azeredo project, iconography by Nick Ellis)

Bloggers and Internet users in general demand more transparency and are mobilizing to fight for it. However, there is still a lot of confusion around the issues and many people are still referring to the earlier pre-amendment text to question the law. This doesn’t come as a surprise considering that the public has not been invited into the debate and that only agreeable people were allowed to attend the open sessions discussing the law at the Senate.

It is a general consensus that the matter was not debated enough, and to help with it a blog carnival against censorship [pt] has been called for next Saturday, July 19. The original text of the proposal, available here [pt], is being translated into English by a group of volunteers, in order to raise international awareness. Meanwhile, an online petition [pt] in defense of freedom and progress of knowledge on the Brazilian Internet created by some very respected Brazilian cyberculture academics and ativists [pt] has been signed by over 58,000 citizens in just one week.

O motivo é uma decisão judicial expedida em março, que determina a proibição de acesso a um determinado blog, hospedado no Wordpress. O nome do blog e o motivo do bloqueio não foram revelados. O problema é que, segundo a Abranet, para que a decisão seja cumprida, seria preciso bloquear todo o domínio wordpress.com (não é possível impedir acesso a um único blog, visto que o domínio inteiro divide o mesmo IP). Blogs baseados em Wordpress, mas hospedados em outros endereços, não seriam afetados pelo bloqueio.

The reason is a court order issued in March which stipulates the prohibition of access to a particular blog, hosted on Wordpress. The blog’s name and the reason for the ban have not been disclosed. The problem is that, according to Abranet [Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers], in order for this decision to be carried out, they would need to block the entire wordpress.com domain (it is not possible to prevent access to a single blog, since the entire domain shares the same IP). Blogs based on Wordpress, but hosted under different addresses, would not be affected by the ban.

Judge Jorge Alberto Araujo [pt] gives a little of the supposed story’s background, which he has called YouTubeGate:

O caso é o seguinte: uma menina muito burra se deixa filmar/fotografar pelo namorado fazendo sexo despudoradamente, briga com o namorado (que está na posse da gravação), não raro traindo-o com outro. e este, indignado publica no YouTube as cenas picantes e íntimas.

The case is as follows: a very silly girl lets her boyfriend film/photograph her shamelessly having sex, she fights with the said boyfriend (who has kept the records), betraying him with another guy. And he, disgusted, publishes the spicy and intimate scenes on YouTube.

As the criminal content in this case is still not clear, and considering that the offensive blog, according to what some bloggers and twitters have heard, has had all previous posts deleted [we decided not to publicize the URL as it shows the name of the offended person], it is very possible that the blanket ban will not ultimately happen. However, as many bloggers have pointed out, this all sounds scarily familiar to some bloggers, who have already seen an astoundingly similar decision enforced in the very same way in Brazil.

Deja vu

Back in January 2006, a Brazilian court ordered YouTube to close down its service in the country until it removed all video clips of a celebrity sex video featuring model and ex-wife of soccer player Ronaldo, Daniela Cicarelli, apparently having sexual intercourse on a beach posted on the popular video-sharing site. While YouTube was banned in the country for a few days, allegedly the second largest national user of the site, thousands of YouTube users and bloggers launched an e-mail protest against Cicarelli and suggested a boycott of her television program on Brazilian MTV. Loosing money and prestige, the model denied participation in the lawsuit and the law was reverted.

Considering the previous legal decision to ban blogs from the pre-election campaign debate, some bloggers did seriously contemplate the possibility of yet another blanket ban. Knowing too well that it is better to be safe than sorry, they decided to take preemptive action. Wordpresser Celso Bessa reminds readers of the above mentioned event in an open letter to Matt Mullenweg and Wordpress/Automattic staff, also detailing other mishaps that the Brazilian blogosphere has gone through in the last years. He cries for help:

For this reason, I ask you guys to help defend our rights in cases like this, if the court really tries to reach you:
1. By providing the Brazilian Court with a technical report and knowledge support about the best way to handle the blocking order of this specific blog, without compromising the access to wordpress.com
2. By providing the blog owner with enought time and ways to keep his/her right to defense, to keep his data, and use the tools to migrate his blog and show the world his/her opinion.
3. By providing the blogsphere, with the information about the blog address and content. In order to allow us to judge the case by ourselves and the opportunity to a) take a side and b) show the world that we are fighting for our right to balance the power
You’ve shown, several times, that you guys respect democracy, common sense and internet collective good.

Rodrigo Ghedin [pt] also sent an e-mail to Wordpress and received an answer in a matter of hours. The blogger asks why those involved in this current controversy did not do the same in the first place and hopes for a sensible outcome:

É tão difícil enviar um e-mail para lá, e simplesmente solicitar a exclusão do blog? Casos extrajudiciais muito mais simples do que o que está gerando todo esse rebuliço são tratados com seriedade e profissionalismo. Tem algum blog hospedado no WordPress.com plagiando seu conteúdo? Basta mandar um e-mail embasado (com links servindo de prova), e pedir a exclusão. Dia desses algum orelhudo copiou o layout e as notícias do WinAjuda. Notifiquei o problema ao Mark, e hoje aquele exemplo de mau uso da ferramenta não existe mais. Espero que o bom senso vença no final das contas, e que o WordPress.com não fique fora do ar no Brasil em virtude de uma decisão judicial por um segundo sequer.

Is it so difficult to send an email to them, and simply request the blog to be deleted? Much more simple out of court settlements than the one causing all this fuss are treated with seriousness and professionalism. Is there any WordPress.com blog plagiarizing your content? You only need to send a sound email (with links as proof), and ask for its exclusion. Recently someone copied the layout and news pieces from WinAjuda. I informed Mark about the problem, and now that example of misuse of the tool no longer exists. I hope that common sense wins at the end of the day, and that WordPress.com does not get blocked for even a second in Brazil as a result of a court order.

Once bitten, twice shy

Considering that 90% of the Brazilian internet providers are affiliated to the Abranet, if the blanket ban comes true, nearly everyone in the country will loose access to the one million plus blogs hosted on the Wordpress platform. Twice bitten Brazilian bloggers won’t let this happen easily. As soon as the news broke, a ‘No to the Ban’ blog was set up, making available badges like the ones that illustrate this article. An Orkut community has been growing at fast pace.

Gustavo de Moraes from TampaBlog! [pt] points out that Wordpress pages are the 27th most accessed from Brazil and says that it will not be easy to block them, as the Brazilian blogosphere has by now learned how to fight:

Não entendo de leis, porém, de blogs eu entendo e tenho certeza de que tal ação não será tão fácil quanto imaginam os homens da lei. Eu, pelo menos, já estou fazendo minha parte para informar à todos blogueiros sobre a ordem judicial e tentar abrir os olhos da justiça, o tamanho do estrago que causarão cumprindo esta lei. Se quiserem, passem a URL e motivo para o blog ser bloqueado que nós, blogueiros, iremos cuidar do indivíduo direitinho. Boicote nós sabemos fazer muito bem. Mas mesmo assim, não estranhe se um dia desses tentarem entrar no TampaBlog! e em outros Milhares de blogs e estes, estiverem fora do ar. Esta é a justiça brasileira… liberdade para corruptos, cadeiras de couros para presos ricos e boicote a blogueiros.

I don’t understand much about law, however, I do understand blogging and I’m sure that such a lawsuit won’t be as easy as the law people think. I am, at least, doing my bit to inform all the bloggers of the court order and try to open the eyes of justice, about the size of the damage that fulfilling this law would cause. If they like, they can share the blog URL and the reason for the ban, and we bloggers will take care of said person. We do know how to boycott very well. But even then, don’t be surprised if one day you try to access the TampaBlog! and thousands of other blogs and find them inaccessible. This is Brazilian justice… Freedom to the corrupt, leather chairs for rich inmates and boycotts to bloggers.

Other bloggers mentioned recent decisions, such as the ban on games (Counter-Strike, everquest and more recently Bully), not to mention a threat to close Orkut, the much loved (by Brazilians) social networking site. Yuri Torres [pt] is not happy at all:

Explico: Desde que foi implementado a privacidade nas fotos dos álbuns, existem denúncias sobre pornografia infantil. O Ministério público afirma que se não tiver acesso a todos os álbuns, para verificar as denúncias, tirará o Orkut do ar. E tem mais: Além do Orkut, ainda vão bloquear o Wordpress! Sim, o meu blog, e os outros 1 milhão de blogs brasileiros serão bloqueados, tudo por causa de um blog. Em vez de simplesmente solicitar o bloqueio ao Wordpress desse determinado blog, que nem foi divulgado qual é, vão bloquear todos! ODIO DA JUSTIÇA BRASILEIRA! Esses dinossauso que fazem as leis, que não tem nenhuma noção de tecnologia, e que fazem essas leis ridículas (vide proibir Counter Strike).

I explain: since photo albums privacy was implemented, there have been complaints about child pornography. The Public Ministry says that if they don’t get access to all albums, in order to verify the complaints, they will close Orkut down. There’s more: in addition to this, besides Orkut they will also block Wordpress! Yes, my blog and the some 1 million Brazilian’s blogs will be blocked, all because of one blog. Instead of simply asking Wordpress to block this particular blog, which has not been disclosed, they will block it all! I HATE BRAZILIAN JUSTICE! These dinosaurs who make the laws, who have no concept of technology, and who pass these ridiculous laws (such as the prohibition of Counter Strike).

Cyber censorship or cyber ignorance?

In his first blog post ever, Daniel de Magalhães [pt] was unfortunate enough to carry this bad news. He asks:

Estamos entrando na era da censura cibernética? Até quando ficaremos sem leis claras sobre a internet?

Are we entering the era of cyber censorship? Up to when will we have no clear laws on the Internet?

This bottom line is also stressed by Raquel Recuero [pt], who says that, again, such a decision shows how unprepared Brazilian judges are to deal with the issue of law on the Internet.

O Brasil não tem legislação específica para isso, portanto, trabalha com analogia de outras leis. O problema é que a maioria dos juízes, nascidos em uma época pré-Internet, acabam não tendo o preparo e o conhecimento técnico para lidar com uma nova sociedade em rede. Assim, as decisões com relação a esses elementos, que acabam gerando efeitos fabulosos e desmedidos na sociedade brasileira.

Brazil has no specific legislation for this, therefore, they work using other laws as analogy. The problem is that most judges, who were born in the pre-Internet era, are not prepared and in possession of technical knowledge to deal with a new wired society. Thus, their decisions related to these issues, which ultimately end up generating fabulous and far-fetched effects on Brazilian society.

In fact, in November 2006 a rather clumsy ‘Cybercrime Bill’ was solemnly announced. Authored by Senator Eduardo Azeredo, the original text had been proceeding through the Brazilian Congress for about 7 years with no public debate, and the suggested bill was unanimously rejected by the blogosphere for, among other reasons, requiring compulsory registration for Internet users that would allow tracking either by the provider or by a governmental body, and offending people’s right to privacy. Nearly two years on, the project still has a long way to go before being approved or, hopefully, be amended accordingly [pt].

Meanwhile, as disclosed this week, Brazil is not one of the four Latin American and Caribbean economies in the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2007-2008 Global Information Technology Report top 50. Latin America has fallen to the bottom of the worldwide technological development ranking, while Brazil fell six positions to number 59, compared to the previous year’s number 53.

Not the only one

Brazil is not the first country to face such a problem. In August last year, Turkey faced a similar situation and Wordpress has in fact been blocked and remains inaccessible in that country.