4 ms·

Brazil has passed that a few years ago as part of Marco Civil - 1 year period too, which can be extended per request from the authorities: >Art. 13. Na provis

Brazil has passed that a few years ago as part of Marco Civil - 1 year period too, which can be extended per request from the authorities: >Art. 13. Na provisão de conexão à internet, cabe ao administrador de sistema autônomo respectivo o dever de manter os registros de conexão, sob sigilo, em ambiente controlado e de segurança, pelo prazo de 1 (um) ano, nos termos do regulamento. It demands the storage for 1 year of "connection access registers", defined as: >VIII - registros de acesso a aplicações de internet: o conjunto de informações referentes à data e hora de uso de uma determinada aplicação de internet a partir de um determinado endereço IP. I.e. user IP, access data, and info on the accessed website/application.

marcosdumay 10y ago
It's similar, but a little less bad than this UK one. - It requires ISPs to identify their clients, and site administrators to keep log of access. Thus, no party must keep a complete identifiable log. The police must join the pieces every time they use the data. - It has no provision for the government forcing companies into disclosing user's data. Brazilian law has no "decrypt data on demand" requirement. It's only about access logs. - There's no provision for the government hacking into people's computers (although that may exist on some other law I don't know about). Anyway, it's a bad law. If it was evenly enforced, it would forbid a lot of services people use in Brazil.
oscargrouch 10y ago
Its not the same thing, as in Brazil the investigation forces will need to get a warrant from a judge to have access to that data. Exactly the same way it happens for phone records or private bank accounts. This data is protected by law, and is considered private.. so only a judge, in a ongoing investigation, when asked by police forces, when investiganting crimes for instance, can grant access to this data. As i understand from what i read in the article, the UK government has direct access to that data, so the privacy of its citizens is not respected or granted by the rule of law.
- necessity 10y ago
  They do not need a warrant, read Article 11.
  - oscargrouch 10y ago
    It says exactly the opposite of what you are trying to imply. >Article 11. In any operation of collection, storage, custody and treatment of records, personal data or communications by connection providers and internet applications in which at least one of these acts occurs in the national territory, shall be obligatorily respected the legislation and the rights to privacy, the protection of personal data and the confidentiality of private communications and records. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l12965.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/...

marcosdumay 10y ago

It's similar, but a little less bad than this UK one. - It requires ISPs to identify their clients, and site administrators to keep log of access. Thus, no party must keep a complete identifiable log. The police must join the pieces every time they use the data. - It has no provision for the government forcing companies into disclosing user's data. Brazilian law has no "decrypt data on demand" requirement. It's only about access logs. - There's no provision for the government hacking into people's computers (although that may exist on some other law I don't know about). Anyway, it's a bad law. If it was evenly enforced, it would forbid a lot of services people use in Brazil.

oscargrouch 10y ago

Its not the same thing, as in Brazil the investigation forces will need to get a warrant from a judge to have access to that data. Exactly the same way it happens for phone records or private bank accounts. This data is protected by law, and is considered private.. so only a judge, in a ongoing investigation, when asked by police forces, when investiganting crimes for instance, can grant access to this data. As i understand from what i read in the article, the UK government has direct access to that data, so the privacy of its citizens is not respected or granted by the rule of law.

necessity 10y ago
They do not need a warrant, read Article 11.
- oscargrouch 10y ago
  It says exactly the opposite of what you are trying to imply. >Article 11. In any operation of collection, storage, custody and treatment of records, personal data or communications by connection providers and internet applications in which at least one of these acts occurs in the national territory, shall be obligatorily respected the legislation and the rights to privacy, the protection of personal data and the confidentiality of private communications and records. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l12965.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/...