The Office of Legislative Affairs of the Ministry of Justice , in partnership with the Center for Technology and Law School of Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro Society , launched on October 29, 2009 the first phase of the collaborative process for the construction of a regulatory framework of the Internet in Brazil . Proposed to the society axes discussion covering the conditions of use of the Internet in relation to the rights and duties of its members , service providers and connection , and also the role of the government with regard to the Internet . During the first phase of discussions between October 29 and December 17, 2009 , more than eight hundred contributions from comments , emails and purposeful references on websites . The idea Civil Marco emerged from the conception of the teacher Ronaldo Lemos , expressed in an article published on May 22, 2007 6 . Based on the discussions and suggestions of the first phase was formulated the draft bill to be debated again at a second stage , in the process of collaborative construction with participation. Public debates were initiated in the second phase on April 8 and ended on May 30, 2010 . The Marco Civil was described by the then Minister for Justice , Luiz Paulo Barreto as The Constitution of the Internet 7 . The site Techdirt described the Civil Marco as a an anti - ACTA law in reference to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement , widely criticized for restricting Internet freedom and who just rejected by the Union Européia.8 legislative process After more than a year on August 24, 2011 , the bill was sent by President Dilma Rousseff to the House , originally received under number 2.126/2011.9 On April 12, 2012 , was granted the application for the project to be appended to PL 5.403/2001.10 Several bills on the subject of Internet regulation in Brazil had already been presented to the House of Representatives , both members of ones home , as by the Executive Branch and the Federal Senate . However , the tramitarem joined the Board , a special committee formed to enjoy them rejected thirty-eight projects , after seven public hearings under the Rapporteur Mr Alessandro Molon . On occasion , the deputy concluded the constitutionality and legality of the proposals and argued for the adoption of the Substitute Bill 2.126/11 , this by the Executive Branch. On July 8, 2013 , after the publication of news that communications in Brazil were the target of electronic eavesdropping by the U.S. President Dilma Rousseff and Minister of Institutional Relations Ideli Salvatti stated that the approval of the Civil Framework Internet was a priority for the government federal.11 12 voting Since coming to Congress in 2011 , the Marco Civil was never voted . Within the special committee and on the House of Representatives to vote on the bill has been postponed eight times : in 2012 , on 1013 and July 11, 14 , 18 September 15 1317 07,16 and 20 and novembro18 December 5 , 19 and in 2013 on 16 julho.20 On September 11, 2013 was published in the Official Gazette signed by President Dilma Rousseff.21 With the publication of this act in the Official Gazette of the Chamber of Deputies message of urgency began to count within 45 days for Marco civil was enjoyed by MPs , 22 23 which did not occur . Starting on October 29, 2013 , the agenda of the House of Representatives went into suspensão.24 After approval by Members , the project will still be sent to the Senate , also with 45 days to 23 votação.22 The project themes The bill 2126/11 has twenty- five articles , divided into five chapters : Preliminary provisions , the rights and guarantees of users ; Of the provision of connection and Internet applications ; Da performance of the government , and Final Provisions . Versa that Internet access is essential to the exercise of citizenship ( ... ) . Brings a long list of rights and guarantees of users , plus own definitions of Information Systems . Principle of Neutrality Main article : Network Neutrality Net neutrality (or net neutrality , or neutrality principle ) means that all the information that travels over the network should be treated the same way , looking at the same speed , ie the speed of hiring . It is this principle which guarantees free access to any information on the network . To protect their economic interests , many service providers ( ISPs ) have introduced illegal or harmful use of the Internet , especially the so-called traffic shaping practices . For example , ISPs try to prevent users from using wireless routers , use VOIP , file sharing programs , slow down in TV and video sites , file sharing etc. . The bill , now before the way , expressly provides network neutrality principle disciplinarian as the Internet , in its Chapter I ( art. 3 , IV ) . Moreover , the following clause also brings the principle expressed in the following text : preservation of stability, security and functionality of the network , through technical measures consistent with international standards and by encouraging the use of best practices. This text may compromise net neutrality with regard to restrictions on access to certain services and unrestricted connection speed because , in the name of fictitious stability and functionality of the network , network neutrality can be mitigated . Another critical point is the delegation of regulatory hypothesis of discrimination , degradation , management and mitigation of traffic to the executive branch ( Art. 9, § 1 and its items ) , by decree . Discrimination would be the power management through disruption of an activity , service, transmission or connection. Degradation is the mitigation (reduction ) of the connection speed of some service , activity , or transmission ( Art. 9, § 2 , III ) . The hypotheses are thus expressed : Article 9 The person responsible for transmission, switching or routing has the duty to treat any form isonomic data packets , irrespective of content, origin and destination , service, terminal or application . § 1 The breakdown or degradation of traffic will be regulated by Decree, after hearing the recommendations of the Steering Committee of the Internet in Brazil ( CGI.br ) and can only result from : I - technical requirements necessary for the proper enjoyment of services and applications , and II - prioritizing the emergency services . § 2 In the event of breakdown or degradation of traffic specified in § 1 , the person mentioned in the caption should : I - refrain from causing harm to users ; II - respect free competition , and III - advance notice of transparent, clear and sufficiently descriptive to its users about the management practices adopted or mitigate traffic mode. § 3 The provision of internet connection , onerous or gratuitous , is fenced block , monitor, filter , analyze or monitor the content of data packets , except if permitted by law. Thus , the device gives the Executive Branch , heard the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil ( CGI.br ) , the power to regulate and slow down the principle of net neutrality . judicial Book Under the bill , obtaining data relating to records of connections and access to internet applications will be subject to a prior specific court reasoned decision . Data may be required for the formation of evidence together in civil or criminal actions ( heading of art . 17), or as an incidental character, grounded since presented evidence of the occurrence of illicit , rationale motivated the usefulness of the records and the period to which the records relate . Responsibility of providers Versa design that The provider of Internet connection will not be civilly liable for damages arising from content generated by third parties . ( art. 14 ) . The matter is important , in that there judgments condemning providers for content published by users of the network , through action or omissão.25 26 . Indeed , the content providers ( or applications ) claim that lack of technical and human resources to monitor all the previously virtual environment . Article 15 . In order to ensure freedom of expression and avoid censorship , the provider of Internet applications can only be civilly liable for damages arising from content generated by third parties if , after specific court order not to make arrangements within and technical limits of their service and within the indicated time , make available content identified as infringing, subject to the legal provisions to the contrary . Single paragraph. The order of the caput shall, under penalty of nullity , clear and specific identification of the content identified as infringing, allowing unique location of the material . An internal technical note signed by three attorneys from the Federal Public Ministry considers that the regulation of intermediary liability proposed in the Civil Marco puts on excessive risk consumer rights, privacy of the person , the full protection of children and adolescents and the dignity of the person human .27 An article published in the Journal of Administrative Law argues that the rules of the Civil Marco establish a system of protection without reasonableness , in which freedom of expression gets higher than that guaranteed protection of personality rights , in similarity to the dynamics of the First Amendment the Constitution of the United Unidos.28 controversy As part of its proposal for a collective and open design, the Marco Civil was not conceived as a result of a peaceful consensus, but as the product of a policy option , although based on the diversity of interests of a pluralistic society. This transparency creates several controversies regarding the project lei.29 In favor Several prominent personality instituições30 and declared their support for the adoption of the Civil Marco individually Internet , besides the elaboration of collective documents for the project . institutions National Institutions ABCID - Brazilian Association of Digital Inclusion Centers ARTICLE 19 Google Tradutor para empresas:Google Toolkit de tradução para appsTradutor de sitesGlobal Market Finder
Posted on: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:58:51 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015