George Knight

Debat tussen links en rechts

Braziliaanse president zegt bezoek VS af wegens NSA-spionage

with 9 comments

cumprimenta-obama-dilma-reuters-20110319-700v450

De Braziliaanse president Dilma Rousseff heeft vandaag haar staatsbezoek van 23 oktober aan de VS definitief afgezegd. Het zat er al aan te komen. Dit werd gemeld door O Globo en later bevestigd in een verklaring van de Braziliaanse regering. Reden is dat de Amerikaanse president Obama volgens Rousseff geen bevredigende uitleg kan geven voor de spionage door de VS van de Mexicaanse en Braziliaanse president. Dankzij Edward Snowden kwam dit naar buiten. Volgens Common Dreams noemt de verklaring de ‘illegale praktijken’ van de NSA een ‘aanslag op de Braziliaanse soevereiniteit en individuele rechten’. Als Brazilië alsnog van de VS een bevredigende uitleg krijgt, dan kan het bezoek later doorgaan, zo zijn Obama en Rousseff overeengekomen.

Foto: Dilma Rousseff en Barack Obama, 2011.

9 Reacties

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Wat ik heb begrepen is dat het staatsbezoek in overleg is uitgesteld. In dat opzichte vind ik het niet echt een krachtig signaal. Het komt Dilma politiek gezien waarschijnlijk niet goed uit. Daarnaast kun je de vraag stellen in hoeverre ze niets wisten van de afluisterpraktijken van de VS. Kan het mij namelijk niet voorstellen. Ik lees momenteel het boek “spycatcher” van een ex-MI5’er Peter Wright. Het boek is al meer dan 20 jaar geleden geschreven maar de publicatie ervan was jarenlang verboden. Het boek behelst de eind jaren 50 tot begin jaren 70. Wie en hoe ze toen allemaal al niet afluisterden. Edward Snowden is enkel een herhaling van de geschiedenis met dien verschil, de techniek en de schaal waarop het nu gebeurd.

    ReggieRoning

    17 september 2013 at 23:40

  2. @Reggie
    Formeel is het tussen landen gebruik om te verklaren dat het in overleg is uitgesteld. Zo werkt diplomatie. Maar feitelijk heeft Brazilië eenzijdig het staatsbezoek opgeschort. Da’s wel degelijk een krachtig en ongebruikelijk gebaar.

    Spionage tussen landen is inderdaad iets van alle tijden. Maar ook dat kent grenzen. De VS is via de NSA of andere inlichtingendiensten in Braziliaanse informatiesystemen doorgedrongen zodat president Rousseff nauw kon worden gevolgd. Let wel tussen landen die niet zoals tijdens de koude oorlog vijanden zijn. Brazilië en de VS staan toch niet op voet van oorlog met elkaar? Ga je zo met bevriende landen om?

    Verder heeft de NSA onder het mom van terrorisme-bestrijding het Braziliaanse oliebedrijf Petrobras om handelsredenen bespioneerd. Da’s niet alleen geen eerlijke concurrentie en dus vals spel van de VS, maar ook handelen onder valse voorwendsels.

    Gevoegd bij het schofferen van de Boliviaanse president Evo Morales en het onder druk zetten van Ecuador en Cuba om Edward Snowden niet te ontvangen is het Amerikaanse optreden de Braziliaanse regering in het verkeerde keelgat geschoten. Ze zijn de Amerikaanse betuttelling en het blijven volharden in de Monroedoctrine door de VS goed beu.

    En inderdaad maakt de techniek -plus de gigantische budgetten voor spionage van de VS- veel meer mogelijk dan ooit mogelijk was. Da’s meer dan een gradueel verschil. Da’s een nieuwe wereld die om nieuw gedrag vraagt. En een protest om dat te bewerkstelligen.

    George Knight

    18 september 2013 at 00:03

  3. Een tijdje geleden las ik ergens dat naast alle vaak genoemde voordelen die dit spioneren biedt voor de VS nog een andere mogelijkheid onderbelicht blijft. En dat is dat men door de vrije toegang tot email en telefoonverkeer mensen corrumpeerbaar kan maken. Te denken valt dan aan een of meerdere mailtjes of telefoontjes van een diplomaat of politicus naar een maitresse of andere inhoud uit zijn priveleven die de betreffende functionaris liever buiten de publiciteit houdt. Een machtig wapen dat de bezitter van deze technologie ikan inzetten om mogelijke opponenten te dwarsbomen of medestanders te krijgen.

    Ik ben benieuwd hoe en met welke middelen Obama het congress achter zich krijgt …:)

    jan

    18 september 2013 at 01:07

  4. De wens kan de vader van de gedacht zijn, maar ik zie de VS macht afbrokkelen.
    Putin ligt dwars met Snowden en Syrië, Assange zit al heel lang in de ambassade van Equador.
    Diverse Z Amerikaanse landen erkenden Palestina diplomatiek.
    België ontdekte net de VS bedrijfsspionage bij Belgacom, mijn verdenking is dat ze dat al lang wisten, maar pas nu naar buiten durven te brengen.

    Syrië is eigenlijk het belangrijkste, Kerry bedreigde ook Iran, de VS dreiging lijkt als een nachtkaars te zijn uitgegaan.

    Wat mij zeer stoort in de westerse berichtgeving is hoe VS doden veel belangrijker zijn dan doden in het Midden Oosten.
    Een paar doden in Colarado door overstromingen zijn groot nieuws, de dagelijkse doden in Irak, veel hoger in aantal, zijn op z’n best een teletekst vermelding waard.
    Hetzelfde geldt voor de VS drone moorden in b.v. Pakistan.

    Het is jammer dat ik te oud ben om over een jaar of veertig de geschiedenisboeken te lezen.
    Benieuwd of daarin zal staan dat Assange en Snowden de twee zijn die de ondergang van de VS hebben versneld.

    observator

    18 september 2013 at 08:42

  5. @Jan
    Ja, de voordelen van spionage zijn groot. Zeker bij onvoldoende toezicht zoals bij de NSA. Het maakt ook de manipulatie van beurskoersen mogelijk. En inderdaad chantage of op z’n minst beïnvloeding van personen.

    @observator
    Ik denk dat vele landen al lang vermoeden dat ze bespioneerd worden. Maar het aantonen ervan is nog wat anders. De onthullingen van Edward Snowden hebben niet alleen iedereen alert gemaakt, maar ook harde feiten naar buiten gebracht die zo concreet zijn dat ze de basis geven voor het opstarten van specifieke onderzoeken. Zoals met Belgacom in België.

    Het is nu eenmaal zo dat nieuws uitpakt zoals u dat constateert. Da’s niet typisch Amerikaans, maar een wet die overal zo werkt. Een dode in de eigen buurt krijgt meer aandacht dan 10 doden in een naburige stad, 100 doden in een naburig land of 1000 doden aan de andere kant van de wereld.

    Prikkelende vraag of Assange en Snowden de ondergang van de VS hebben versneld. Ik vermoed het omgekeerde vanwege hun pleidooi voor een betere scheiding van machten en betere checks and balances binnen de VS. Op de lange duur een duurzamer model. Maar voor nu zitten ze het machtsspel van de Amerikaanse overheid dwars. Hoewel vele critici stellen dat hun invloed bescheiden is, ze in elk geval de nationale veiligheid van de VS niet in gevaar hebben gebracht en de heksenjacht van Obama en de overspannen reactie vanuit de partijpolitiek hun rol alleen maar groter maakt dan die werkelijk is.

    George Knight

    18 september 2013 at 11:11

  6. George Knight

    18 september 2013 at 16:57

  7. @George,
    Dit is pas een uitstekende boodschap van de Braziliaanse overheid.
    Ik heb het artikel door de google translator gehaald. Hoop dat je het niet erg vind dat ik het in zijn geheel hier post en anders verwijder je het maar.

    Originele link:
    http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/poderepolitica/2013/09/1343807-entrevista-com-alessandro-molon.shtml

    Vertaling:

    Rapporteur of the Marco Civil Internet defends financial pressure against espionage

    Congressman Alessandro Molon (PT-RJ) said yesterday (18) that the government plans to force large international internet to have their data stored in Brazil because that is the only language that the United States understands.

    Asked if Google and Facebook were in the group of companies that would be required to build data centers in Brazil, said: “These are two examples. But there are others.” What?”Maybe we could count on two hands the companies that enter it.” Only large companies will be placed in this rule.

    “Unfortunately, often the only language it understands is the language of economic and financial. But the answer is politics, a political problem,” he said in an interview with Molon program Power and Politics , the Folha and UOL. He is the rapporteur of the bill known as Marco Civil Internet.

    The policy response is to the U.S. government regarding the espionage communications of President Dilma Rousseff held by intelligence agencies in the U.S..

    Mr PT was last week with Rousseff to address changes in the project, which is now being processed in an emergency as determined by the Presidential Palace. In conversation with the president, Molon felt that the Civil Marco is the main objective response to the United States because of espionage.

    “Every time there is an act in violation of our sovereignty that deserves a strong response, hard, representing inclusive cost for companies that country violated our sovereignty will certainly think twice about violating our sovereignty. Whether it means loss of resources for companies in these countries, “says Molon.

    But the spies of other countries will consider this result to companies before the Brazilian government snooping? “The reaction from the U.S. authorities, of concern only arose when it became clear that this would represent loss of resources for American companies,” says the deputy.

    Molon said that building data centers in Brazil represent about one week’s earnings of a company like Google.

    Revenge this proposal, the law will have a generic essay. The regulation will distinguish as to which international companies will have an obligation to physically store the data your customers in Brazil. The idea, said Molon, it does not reach small businesses, bloggers or small users. The focus is great, like Google and Facebook.

    When talking about net neutrality – a concept that aims to prevent providers from interfering in the quality of service according to the content accessed – Molon said the president put the Marco Civil rejects the possibility of the telcos offer packages known as “excess data”.

    This franchise mode data today allows businesses access providers sell a service in which it is determined to speed navigation and a limit for uploading and downloading of data every month. Every time that the user watches a video, for example, the amount of bytes that is “downloaded” the computer is being recorded. After a certain amount in the month, the rate for that user is degraded. Dilma Rousseff was against putting this type of service option in Marco Civil.

    About other ways to equip Brazil to beware of espionage, Molon said he considered “a mistake” hypothesis discussed by the government to restrict data traffic among Brazilian users only to the physical network in Brazil. Congressman considers this unnecessary measure for data protection.

    Following are excerpts from the interview:

    Sheet / UOL – Mr. rapporteur of the project is known as Marco Civil Internet.Had a recent meeting with the president, Dilma Rousseff. What was discussed and what the president asked for Mr.. about Marco Civil?
    Alessandro Molon – was an excellent meeting. The president asked for a meeting to work out the details of the Marco Civil. The bill is authored it. Was sent to the House of Representatives in 2011. There the House of Representatives created a special commission to send the bylaws. Her I was appointed rapporteur and we were dealing with aspects of the Marco Civil that would impact on the privacy protection of Brazilians, especially after the scandal of espionage, which the president did not bother much just by spying on his contacts, but also by millions of espionage Brazilians who had their privacy breached without anyone’s permission. That is unacceptable. She, reacting to it, I wanted to understand how the Marco Civil longer protect the people of this practice and what could be improved in the project in order to protect future practices like these.

    The design of the Marco Civil is about two years in the House. There was this episode of American espionage in Brazil, this jerk would not have happened now?
    After a year waiting for the vote on the bill, I am sorry to have to agree that maybe the vote Marco Civil was further delayed if not this scandal . The project is now ready to be voted a year ago. There are more than 100 million Internet users in Brazil that are unprotected because we have a law that protects them. The Marco Civil is this law, however, we made ​​six attempts to vote, they all dashed. Two in four special commission in the plenary.

    Fortunately, the House will now have to vote on the project unfortunately after a scandal like this. But now, with the constitutional urgency, if the House does not vote, the agenda is locked. Of course, asking the constitutional urgency to a project always generates a tension between the Executive and the Legislature, because it means the executive branch, in the limit, lock the agenda of the House. But, unfortunately, it was necessary.

    President Dilma Rousseff wants Internet companies that offer services to its Brazilian customers to store copies of data in Brazil, physically. It is true that request?
    ’s real this request. This is a concern of the president, it is a proposal after this spy scandal. She actually asked for it. The technicians who work with us and also the ministries are studying the best way to include this in the Marco Civil and wondering what are the pros and cons of this decision.

    What is your opinion?
    ’s possible to do this? Yes, this is doable. However, the government does not want this to be a rule that is, say, mandatory for a blogger Brazilian necessarily. We are studying a language that eventually requires that only large international companies that use that exploit services in Brazil, keep a copy of that data to make the Brazilian legislation, which ensures privacy while Brazilian Internet, also apply to these data. Because one of the problems with regard to this issue is the problem of jurisdiction. To solve this problem among others, the idea would require storage in Brazil.

    This can be a measure. I do not know if this is the proper place for the Marco Civil or possibly the Law of Protection of Personal Data will come next. But this is a debate that we’re still doing.

    The sr. think you may be more appropriate that determination to be the law on data protection?
    Yeah, maybe that was the best place. Especially since we have a little more tranquility to this debate. Now, you can include the Marco Civil? It is. We are studying and if we get a good result and these estuados these discussions with the technicians, so we can include the Marco Civil.

    This measure physically store the data in Brazil does not go against the spirit of universal, global internet? Global companies have to have Internet data centers in all countries. There seems a bit far from reality this type of requirement?
    Look, depends on who is made ​​and depends on the scale that will take, especially in the regulation. The idea would be to make all companies do this, Brazilian companies do it medium or small. If necessary, including as a policy response, the eventual collaboration of transnational companies that have collaborated with Brazilian data espionage, this response will be placed in the Marco Civil.

    Which companies could be targeted that? And how would this distinction between large and medium-sized companies?
    Such a distinction should be left to law regulations. Will depend on the wording of article.That’s exactly what we’re studying at the moment. The idea would be to take the big transnational companies which may have collaborated or of which is suspected to have collaborated with the violation of the privacy of Brazilians.

    Speech is always, among other big companies, Google and Facebook. For these companies, there is already a consensus about them having to physically store the data in Brazil?
    This is a strong possibility. But we do not have the wording ready yet. We are studying this writing and thinking about the consequences of each of the essays. This is where we are.

    Which one is your opinion now?
    My opinion is that Brazilian law has to apply to data protection Brazilians who hire these services in Brazil and they are having their privacy violated even by companies that exploit their economic activity in the country, but then at some point they say: “We are not obliged to follow the Brazilian legislation because we store that data in another country. And therefore to protect such data, we follow the laws of another country.” This is not permissible. Who is in Brazil to explore any economic activity is welcome, it is permissible, but must comply with Brazilian legislation for the protection of citizens.

    Google and Facebook are transnational companies that operate on the Internet.They have offices in Brazil, but can not have. Can pack up, leave, dismiss everyone who works here. And will continue to exist. People will continue to have the email from Google, will continue to have their Facebook pages. So, how do?
    And then they will lose millions in advertising.

    Not necessarily. They may receive advertising from overseas offices …
    Power can, but if not economically interesting to have office here, they would not. No doubt about it.

    But if they decide not to have more office in Brazil …?
    Look, I think more likely they build a data center that is three days or a week of its revenues than end the economic activity in the country.

    But there will always be an overseas company … Perhaps hundreds or thousands who are not physically here. These are being benefited by not being here. Those who come here, create jobs, have office, want to operate in the Brazilian economy and will have to pay one price and have the datacenter. Is it fair?
    I put your question another way. Wonder if it is fair that a company will settle in Brazil, creates jobs, has a wide sales in the country at a given time and say, “I am not obliged to comply with the laws of the country because I store the data that I harvest here in Brazil in another country and I treat the privacy of Brazilians, including its rulers, as I well understand. And you have nothing to do about it. ” Imagine that Brazil responded: “You are quite right. We have nothing to do.

    Sorry you treat us well and we would earnestly ask you to think it can not be more generous or kind or gentle with protecting our data. “That is no answer to give a country facing a scandal of this size. E U.S. authorities know it. And if there’s one thing that worries the U.S. is the economic effect on their businesses.’s only one thing that has worried that Americans overall reaction: It’s how much it will cost to firms of them.

    So, in some language that our country is understood to speak for a country that has violated our sovereignty, we need to speak our language. It is not reasonable that, before all that happened, the president says: “I’m sorry, but it is anyway. The internet today is so and, look, I wanted to communicate to the entire Brazilian nation: You are not protected and I have nothing to do to protect you. ” The President will not do that. The Congress will not do it. We will seek, rather, a way to protect the Brazilian and show that this protection is effective. Although this does not guarantee that will not happen one more episode this. Of course we do not want to mislead anyone selling an illusion that any measure taken a law preventing any act that may violate the privacy of the Brazilians again. But it will be illegal from the passage of this law and those who violate the law will respond here in Brazil so.

    Would not it be better to put all these measures in a specific law and not in the Marco Civil, which is another type of legislation?
    Marco is a civil law principles on the internet …

    Exactly …
    So by its nature, I believe that the Civil Marco would not be the best place for the inclusion of measures of data protection as the creation of data centers in Brazil.

    So, in theory, you’re right. In theory, the ideal to discussing this type of issue would be the Data Protection Act. However, political time is different. You know that. The Data Protection Act even left the Ministry of Justice. The Marco Civil is two years in the House.So let’s think how long this Data Protection Act will take to be considered in the House.Imagine the time this policy response be given in three years. Three years from now, we answer this spy scandal saying, “Look, we’re answering what happened here three years ago including the Data Protection Act a measure to respond to the spy scandal of 2013.”So maybe it prevents one adopts the optimal solution, which is to leave this debate to the Data Protection Act. Now, in theory, would make more sense rather put this device in the Data Protection Act.

    For Internet users to understand: that he has a mail account in any company will have the assurance that all emails sent via this account shall be filed in Brazil.That?
    Yes And above all, it could trigger the Justice Department if their privacy was violated in this way by someone without your permission. And Marco Civil brings a series of proposals for privacy protection that netizen. So let’s say someone go to court claiming that spy scandal saying, “Look, all the data that I put in my email account that were violated and I want to receive punitive damages for this violation of my privacy.” Probably, the answer he will get this company is: “We should not discuss the application of Brazilian law for the protection of such data because they are in another country and therefore apply the law of another country to the protection of such data and law of another country does not prevent the violation of that privacy. ”

    How will you make a cut line to determine which companies will have to submit to the requirement of storing everything in Brazil?
    ‘m working on it for over two years, but this issue is new datacenter. We are still studying and listening to all opinions. Even for the points against this proposal. We are evaluating the pros and cons of this proposal also.

    The sr. heard any argument against that is solid and respectable?
    Yeah, I’ve heard many arguments against it are solid and respectable. There are a number of views of people working in Brazil who think this is not the best solution for the protection of personal data.

    What solutions do they offer?
    The most common is that it does not solve the problem of espionage. That is a fact. The problem is that this proposal is not intended to prevent eavesdropping. It does not prevent eavesdropping because there is no way prohibit storing such data in other countries. The requirement for data storage in Brazil does not mean the prohibition of storage of data [in other countries].

    And espionage can be made ​​out there …
    It can be done outside. However, with these data here in Brazil, we can trigger the Justice for breach of privacy that such data are stored here in Brazil and were mirrored out there because that contract was signed by the people here in Brazil. So, this is a reasonable argument to say: “Look, but that will not solve the problem of espionage.” Against which puts this view that, in fact, though not solve the problem of espionage, the Brazilian citizen gives a tool to claim that breach.

    But how will the cut line to define which type of company that would be subject to such requirement, to keep the data here in Brazil?
    Will depend on the economic capacity of the company. It is not reasonable to require a company that is starting she has an investment in this riding. That would stop a “startup” [company just launched]. Defeat an “startup” is not the idea. So, would depend on the financial capacity of the company’s size and the amount of Brazilians attended.The amplitude of the provision of that service to national.

    Therefore, economic size and breadth of services offered should be criteria?
    For example. I think it would be reasonable criteria. But we are analyzing.

    Large companies and serving large number of Brazilians would have to be subject to this rule?
    Possibly.

    As a citizen, to sign an e-mail service, you will know if this company has a data center in Brazil?
    Through the internet he could be informed, even to purchase this service.

    Would that be an information work proactively with companies stating clearly at the time one contracts the service?
    Perhaps this was a possibility. It would be a simple thing. Disclose, communicate what would be the companies. Especially because this court would not take thousands of companies. ‘d Get maybe some companies, perhaps tens of companies. Probably the most used by Brazilian companies. Companies that are heavily used, either for creating profiles on social networks is to use free e-mails.

    We are talking about two there.
    No, maybe we could count on two hands the companies that enter it.

    Name some, for example.
    No, we do general law.

    But mr. are mentioning social network, Facebook, and email, Google. Is not it?
    These are two examples. But there are others. Not for me to mention by name the companies because it might seem too something specifically against one of them. The idea is this. The idea is to make a law that protects the Brazilians. I reverse the point of view. Imagine a Brazilian who feels disrespected in your privacy and will to justice. The answer is that Justice gives: “Sorry, can not do anything.” But I hired a company that is based in Brazil, I hired this service in Portuguese, I signed term use in Portuguese, have their offices here, and the Brazilian government, the Brazilian State, tells me that there is nothing to do? “We are very sorry, but there’s nothing to do, maybe you do not use e-mail from another company, a Brazilian company, and twists her save the data here.’s Not reasonable. Any response has to be given .

    The sr. have an idea of the cost to companies?
    Depends on the size of the company and the size of the datacenter. For some of these companies you mentioned the construction of a datacenter is at most one week of sales.A week of sales, a year to build the data center! Just to give an example. I mean, it’s not prohibitive. There is nothing that one such company can not say “we’ll have to close the doors here in Brazil.” This you can be sure. We will continue discussing whether it is the best way out. If it is the best place. But make sure that a requirement that will not derail the activity of any of these companies in Brazil.

    Another proposal heard within government on secure communication, is about the only internet traffic circulating in Brazil: an information in Brazil have to travel on only here. This will be addressed in the Marco Civil?
    No. This proposal seems erroneous. I do not think is a good solution. Involve changing the operation of the Internet. So I do not think that can be adopted or the Marco Civil or in any other law. This proposal is being discussed, is being analyzed, was in fact made, and we’re talking with the technicians …

    How is the proposal?
    ’s a proposal in which the data traffic between a sender and a Brazilian stay in Brazil. This goes against the very spirit of the internet, the very way the Internet works. It is a proposal quite mistaken.

    Not to mention that the cost would be astronomical …
    The problem is not just the cost. This cost will have to be faced by those who want to commercially exploit the internet. The connection providers have to invest more, of that there is no doubt. They invest little. Therefore the quality of Brazilian internet is very bad.The Brazilian Internet is very expensive.

    Have to have a lot of investment because we pay a lot and get little. Now, the way to do this is not to restrict the data traffic between Brazilians, the Brazilian network. This is not the way to guarantee these investments. It is not, by far the best way.

    This theme should stay out of the Marco Civil?
    Yes

    If the Civil Marco had already been approved with the requirement of data centers in Brazil, this measure would have inhibited intelligence agencies in the United States spy on here?
    ‘ll respond otherwise. Whenever there is an act in violation of our sovereignty that deserves a strong response, hard, representing inclusive cost for companies that country violated our sovereignty will certainly think twice about violating our sovereignty. If that means loss of resources for businesses in these countries.

    Ie, is related to a financial-economic issue?
    There is economic and financial. It is a political response to a political problem. The impact of this answer is economic and financial. Unfortunately, often the only language that is understood is the economic and financial language. But the answer is politics, a political problem. It is a political decision being taken, which will eventually be taken. I do not know if the Marco Civil law or data protection, but it is a political problem, so yes, if so, I’m sure will think twice before doing it again.

    Does the spy agency in the U.S. will really consider this argument before making espionage?
    I would say that the reaction from the U.S. authorities, of concern only arose when it became clear that this would represent loss of resources for American companies.

    As Mr.. define in a very direct and objective concept of net neutrality embedded in the proposed Civil Framework Internet?
    Through the network, by fiber optics, data packets travels as if it were boxes of Sedex.Each is a piece of information. These packages come from one place, go somewhere else and they have a content. Net neutrality means that prohibit these optic fibers discriminate, or whether it worse, or better, a data packet and make it go faster or slower depending on where it comes from where he goes or what it contains.

    Forbid this is to ensure net neutrality. A neutral network is a network that does not discriminate data packets depending on where they come from, where they are going or what they contain. That’s basically it.

    Telephone companies are the most refractory to the concept. Defend the ability to sell different packages of access for consumers. This type of differentiation would undermine net neutrality?
    Exactly. Encroached. If I’m paying for 10 megs of speed, I want to use my 10 megs for what I want. Do not have my connection provider the right to say, “No, these are their 10 megs, Molon, are only for email. But do not watch video on Youtube or not to use Skype”. This is a violation of neutrality.

    Neutrality prohibits them fatiem that providers tend to sell internet connection for us sliced. Ie: “No, if you want 10 megs just to read e-mail, U.S. $ 100. If you want 10 megs to use e-mail and use social network, R $ 150. If you also want to download music, £ 200 per months. Whether you want to watch video on Youtube, R $ 250. If you want to use Skype, £ 500, because then you compete with my primary business. ” The business is the sale of telephone connection.

    Today telcos now sell the service with two staples. One is speed. The other is the limit of data that can be climbed or downloaded. When the Internet user, the consumer reaches this limit upload and download speed to low. This kind of package also goes against net neutrality?
    Look, not directly. Because the amount of data you will download until its limit is independent of the type of data you are downloading.

    Now, if the threshold is too small, to some extent you will not be able to download, from a certain point, any content. There was a proposal that fell within this forecast permission franchise sales data, what exactly is this business model.

    It is what is in place today in most carriers, is not it?
    Yeah, especially in the mobile Internet. Although there are operators who have [come] offering this type of service or broadband internet selling so well. But there was a proposal that we put in Marco Civil such sale has not undermined the neutrality and the president was very firm in stand against this proposal.

    Ie …?
    Namely, the president did not want to stay positivised, explicit Marco Civil, it does not compromise neutrality.

    If she stood firmly against explicit that does not compromise network neutrality, this means that if the text in this section keeps the current wording it will be prohibited when the Marco Civil is approved?
    Actually, it seems to me that the president meant is that the Marco Civil is no place to put business model. There is place to make positive, to treat as lawful or unlawful certain business model.

    The sr. is saying that Brazil is about to have a very important law that will contain an ambiguous passage that will be settled by the courts?
    There is no law that does not admit several interpretations. I challenge you to provide one.

    But the interpretation is always right. Because if not interpretation, we would not need neither judges nor lawyers, nor Justice. Would place a computer would say it is or is not.So that is an inherent part of the right.

    The PT must break with the PMDB in Rio de Janeiro next year, 2014, and have its own candidate for governor of Rio?
    No. The PT must break with the PMDB in 2013, this year also. The PT’s past time to get out of the state government, a government that takes us away from our social base. The PT in Rio de Janeiro is declining, including the lack of a face, a visibility application itself.So I hope it breaks as soon as possible, get out of the government and has its own candidate in 2014.

    Who should be the PT candidate for governor of Rio de Janeiro in 2014?
    natural name is the name of Senator Lindbergh [Farias], which was the senator most voted in the last election, who wants to play and I think that is the most opportune time possible to contest the election of the state government.

    The sr. intends to fight for another term congressman?
    Probably not yet made ​​that decision, but probably yes.

    Nationally the PT is an ally of the PMDB. At the national level, the alliance between PT and PMDB be maintained?
    The governance requires that the PT has allies, including the PMDB, to govern the country and get to have a majority in Congress, it is indispensable.

    But the electoral alliance should be maintained with the PMDB?
    I think so. Electoral alliance can be maintained, but we need to qualify this alliance. Not long ago the Minister Genro was here and I follow the same line as him, I think you need to qualify this alliance and make it clear what the terms of this covenant, which is the project that we will defend the next term of President Dilma, to avoid divergences that arise in the Congress itself, repeatedly.

    ReggieRoning

    19 september 2013 at 19:48

  8. […] van Latijns-Amerika. Vorige week zegde president Rouseff vanwege de spionage door de Amerikanen een staatsbezoek aan de VS af. Met haar toespraak zet Rousseff de puntjes op de i en schetst ze een uitweg om onder de […]

  9. […] hem tijdelijk asiel van een jaar is verleend. In september 2013 zegde de Braziliaanse president een staatsbezoek aan de VS af omdat president Obama aan Rousseff geen bevredigende uitleg kon geven voor de […]


Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google photo

Je reageert onder je Google account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s

Deze site gebruikt Akismet om spam te bestrijden. Ontdek hoe de data van je reactie verwerkt wordt.

%d bloggers liken dit: