[Advocacy Advisors] Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil)

[James Salsman]

Certainly Brazillians are outraged, but I wonder what this does for
the Americas' tax haven treaties. From
http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2013/05/lee-sheppard-dont-sign-oecd-model-tax.html
this is what we're up against:

"You have to have a treaty with Switzerland.
-    Why?
-    We need it for business!
-    What business?
-    Well, tax evasion, OK advoidance. We need it for tax planning."

Best regards,
James

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> hey folks,
>
> I'm curious to know if anyone on this list knows much/anything about changes
> to the Marco Civil da Internet resulting from the NSA leaks?
>
> I've just been reading this Washington Post story interviewing Ronaldo
> Lemos, and it's pretty interesting -- I'm curious to know if anyone knows
> more. Note I'm *not* asking the WMF legal team (or anyone else) to put time
> into researching this -- I'd just like links or basic info if anyone has
> that. I've read the enWP article -- it's pretty thin.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/22/glenn-greenwald-lives-in-brazil-heres-how-brazilians-feel-about-his-reporting/
>
> "This whole story is causing a backlash in terms of Internet regulation in
> Brazil. There’s a frenzy, people trying to regulate the Internet as quick as
> they can. The Marco Civil project [legislation guaranteeing civil rights in
> the use of the Internet] became a top priority for the government.
>
> The government is now introducing changes in the project that are quite
> problematic. One of them mandates that companies that store any type of
> Brazilian data have their servers physically located in Brazil. The idea of
> the government is that having the servers here will make them available for
> the Brazilian courts. But this is a bad idea because it will create huge
> costs for companies.
>
> Imagine if Brazil required every company that has Brazilian data in storage
> to have a server located physically here. That breaks the Internet because
> you remove from companies the ability to make these decisions based on
> efficiency. When you’re deciding where to have your servers, you’re doing it
> in a way that’s cost-effective. Imagine if other countries reciprocate, if
> [every country says] you have a Brazilian Internet company, they have to
> have servers in my country. The potential for balkanization is very high.
>
> What other regulations have been proposed in the wake of the Snowden
> revelations?
>
> Other provisions that were introduced in the bill have to do with expanding
> Brazilian jurisdiction to Internet companies that have subsidiaries in
> Brazil. If Google opens an office, their parent company will be on the hook
> for the Brazilian jurisdiction. Critics are saying this will actually be an
> incentive for companies not to have an office in the country. Why open an
> office and then you have this expanded idea of jurisdiction.
>
> Regulatory agencies like the National Telecommunications Agency, Brazil’s
> equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission, are stepping into the
> picture and trying to fill the regulatory void with regulation without this
> [legislation] being discussed in Congress. The agency is feeling empowered
> and legitimated by the Snowden case and saying, “We have jurisdiction and
> we’re going to regulate them ourselves.”
>
> The way I see it, there are some dark clouds on the horizon in terms of
> regulation. Huge backlash because of the Snowden case. We will see some very
> not very well thought forms of regulation coming from Brazil and a change in
> the way Brazil positions itself in terms of Internet freedom or regulation."
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>