Direito da Informática

"THE SUNLIGHT SOCIETY" (https://t.co/trKu6uX7j8) #G11000https://t.co/1pzCMMCPIq pic.twitter.com/62d9ANxhg2

— Paulo Sa Elias (@paulosaelias) February 23, 2018

This Sunday's @NYTmag cover story entitled "The Case Against Google" has struck such a nerve that Google is paying to promote tweets at reporters in an attempt to discredit it. @CDuhigg's piece is a must-read: https://t.co/raar5TACWB

…A thread on the anatomy of Google's spin:

— Luther Lowe (@lutherlowe) February 22, 2018

Tech investor Roger McNamee: 'I would like Google to be broken up into 8 or 10 different monopolies' https://t.co/BK06qqGZHp via @CNBC

— Google Transparency (@GTP_updates) February 21, 2018

1/ Overall good piece by @NYTmag, but NYT fails to note that the two legal experts it cites in Google’s defense — Geoffrey Manne and Herbert Hovenkamp — have both been paid by the company. https://t.co/H09UsZTdOk

— Google Transparency (@GTP_updates) February 20, 2018

2/ Geoffrey Manne has done numerous Google-funded papers: https://t.co/1SXXGXWThX

Herbert Hovenkamp was consultant for Google during its FTC fight: https://t.co/ZKmbfAD2KJ

— Google Transparency (@GTP_updates) February 20, 2018

If you love @Google, then perhaps you ought to hope it gets sued: https://t.co/AbB28yWmMc

— Charles Duhigg (@cduhigg) February 20, 2018

Na ocasião, o Facebook alegou que não seria possível cumprir a ordem porque o armazenamento e processamento de dados dos usuários seriam de responsabilidade do serviço prestado pelo Facebook dos EUA e da Irlanda. https://t.co/6V5ikI9udC pic.twitter.com/90iGQcgGmc

— STJ (@STJnoticias) February 21, 2018

A recente decisão Indicação de URLS-art20180219-08 da Ministra Nancy Andrighi do STJ quanto à sempre necessária e indispensável indicação de URLs para identificação clara e específica de conteúdo apontado como infringente na Internet é absurda e equivocada. Pela leitura do acórdão (RECURSO ESPECIAL Nº 1.698.647 – SP (2017/0047840-6)) -, verifica-se que a muito distinta Ministra interpretou equivocadamente (para aplicação de modo geral em outras causas) a exigência prevista no parágrafo primeiro do art. 19 da Lei 12.965/2014 (Marco Civil da Internet).

Para o caso concreto em questão, a decisão pode até estar correta, mas daí entender que sempre (em todos os casos) deve ser exigido o URL sob pena de não ser considerado possível identificar clara, inequívoca e especificamente um conteúdo disponível na Internet por outros meios em direito admitidos, é no mínimo, uma demonstração clara de desconhecimento sobre o funcionamento das aplicações de Internet, onde, em casos especiais, nem sempre os provedores de aplicações de Internet respeitam a regra de disponibilidade/acesso de URLs aos usuários – e, por consequência, aos advogados e partes.

Art. 19. Com o intuito de assegurar a liberdade de expressão e impedir a censura, o provedor de aplicações de internet somente poderá ser responsabilizado civilmente por danos decorrentes de conteúdo gerado por terceiros se, após ordem judicial específica, não tomar as providências para, no âmbito e nos limites técnicos do seu serviço e dentro do prazo assinalado, tornar indisponível o conteúdo apontado como infringente, ressalvadas as disposições legais em contrário.

§ 1o A ordem judicial de que trata o caput deverá conter, sob pena de nulidade, identificação clara e específica do conteúdo apontado como infringente, que permita a localização inequívoca do material.

Ora, a lei não exige URLs como requisito indispensável para identificação clara e específica do conteúdo e que permita a localização inequívoca do material.

Veja jurisprudência do TJSP em sentido contrário ao que foi decidido pela Ministra:

• (1) TJSP – 0000221-31.2015.8.26.0301
• (2) TJSP – 2008544-84.2016.8.26.0000
• (3) TJSP – 2057181-66.2016.8.26.0000
• (4) TJSP – 2060794-60.2017.8.26.0000
• (5) TJSP – 2079777-44.2016.8.26.0000

Surveillance Valley on sale today. Read about the internet's origins as a counterinsurgency weapon: an early warning radar system for human societies — from the Vietnam War to the Tor Project. https://t.co/BJ0ZDPGVek

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 6, 2018

The internet is a weapon: The first functional demonstration of TCP/IP involved a simulation of a NATO war with the Soviet Union. The guy who ran the test: Vint Cerf, Internet "Founding Father" and Google Evangelist. https://t.co/ziUQWmgb7z pic.twitter.com/fKchaHt8tD

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 7, 2018

Who weaponized the Internet? H'mmmmm… https://t.co/3w1sOYvzjn

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 7, 2018

The question I answer in this book is: Why did the internet become a corporate spy machine? Was that destiny built in? https://t.co/4P6Up4cU1B

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 6, 2018

From the legendary historian Stuart Ewen:

"Defying common Internet tropes that present a battle between valiant and independent rebels versus omnipresent state and corporate powers, no one comes out of this book looking clean." pic.twitter.com/VTxIBC2vUR

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 6, 2018

Fans of the Tor Project and other USG-funded privacy tech might want to pick up a copy — or actually, you probably don't. It won't give comfort to your myths.

Tor would never disclose possible security weaknesses to the federal government before telling its users, right? pic.twitter.com/ZiqlSTBlCC

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 6, 2018

"In this fast-paced, myth-busting expose, Yasha Levine documents how a collection of spooks, cybernetic fanatics and libertarian oligarchs have exploited the internet to promote regime change abroad and establish a totalistic spying network at home." — @MaxBlumenthal pic.twitter.com/VDFpvcEPy9

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 6, 2018

Hell yeah. Surveillance Valley is on the front page of @thebafflermag. It's an honor! https://t.co/cSOjw5C9y9 (It's an excerpt from the prologue.) pic.twitter.com/L213BRLUh1

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 6, 2018

"Some even dreamed of creating a sort of early warning radar for human societies: a networked computer system that watched for social and political threats and intercepted them in much the same way that traditional radar did for hostile aircraft." pic.twitter.com/65rGoqUaZ4

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 6, 2018

The found that the internet was used to spy on millions of Americans as early as 1972, as soon as it was created.

You won't read about this episode in any other book about the internet because it doesn't sit well with our culture's tech utopia myth.https://t.co/xpu31yBGFd pic.twitter.com/QIWlhmElew

— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) February 7, 2018

???????? With Vint Cerf from @DARPA
I'm extremely honored.
Because I am fan of the man.
And I am fan of DARPA. pic.twitter.com/aHD31DbkZT

— Paulo Sa Elias (@paulosaelias) February 15, 2016