I changed the title to give some context to international headers and stay within the 80 character limit, I hope it stills within the spirit of the rule concerning editorial changes. A literal translation would be "Representative to require Brazilians to give CPF to post in social networks", but the text makes clear the proposed law will affect any website and, in Brazil, CPF is something alike a SSN originally used for taxes but now required for a lot of things, including financial operations, boarding a plane (sometimes even an interstate bus!), opening bank accounts, getting a job, going to school, etc.
The Google-translation is pretty good for an machine translation, but follows a few fixes:
---
Representative to require Brazilians to give CPF to post in social networks
The House of Representatives will discuss a bill that seeks to end anonymity on the Brazilian Internet.
Authored by Congressman Silvio Costa, from the Social Christian Party from Pernambuco, PL 1879/2015 wants to change the Internet Civil Mark to include an obligation to store the full name and CPF number of Internet users who want to publish something on the network.
Any site that allows exposure of ideas would have to store this information of its users. The obligation would be set by adding a paragraph to the Civil Mark as it would read: "Internet application provider, as defined in the head, which allows posting of public information by third parties, as in blog comments, forum posts, status updates on social networks, or any other method to insert information in the Internet, shall keep, in addition, records of these users including at least their full name and their Natural Person Record number (CPF)."
For the deputy Silvio Costa, "this simple requirement will certainly curb the attitudes of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity to disseminate criminal messages in the network. Also," he continues, "individuals who insist in this type of conduct will be more easily identified and properly prosecuted."
The project is still in the House for analysis from commissions of Science and Technology, Communication and Informatics, and Constitution and Justice and Citizenship.
> For the deputy Silvio Costa, "this simple requirement will certainly curb the attitudes of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity to disseminate criminal messages in the network. ["]
And also those who hide behind anonymity to disseminate legal, even helpful messages across the network. Having an online alias allows many shy, repressed, abused, and frightened individuals the opportunity to chat, interact, and discourse about their lives without fear this information will be used against them.
> ["]Also," he continues, "individuals who insist in this type of conduct will be more easily identified and properly prosecuted."
More of the "If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to worry about" attitude. This suspicion is so hostile to normal traffic that its chilling effect is undeniable. It's very sad to see.
Aside from the reprehensible precedent and philosophy engendered by this proposal, it seems the implementation details are something akin to insane, i.e. "Any site that allows exposure of ideas would have to store this information of its members." That certainly seems far from a "simple requirement", nor does it seem very wise from a security and liability standpoint for site operators.
[+] [-] vonuebelgarten|10 years ago|reply
The Google-translation is pretty good for an machine translation, but follows a few fixes:
---
Representative to require Brazilians to give CPF to post in social networks
The House of Representatives will discuss a bill that seeks to end anonymity on the Brazilian Internet.
Authored by Congressman Silvio Costa, from the Social Christian Party from Pernambuco, PL 1879/2015 wants to change the Internet Civil Mark to include an obligation to store the full name and CPF number of Internet users who want to publish something on the network.
Any site that allows exposure of ideas would have to store this information of its users. The obligation would be set by adding a paragraph to the Civil Mark as it would read: "Internet application provider, as defined in the head, which allows posting of public information by third parties, as in blog comments, forum posts, status updates on social networks, or any other method to insert information in the Internet, shall keep, in addition, records of these users including at least their full name and their Natural Person Record number (CPF)."
For the deputy Silvio Costa, "this simple requirement will certainly curb the attitudes of those who cowardly hide behind anonymity to disseminate criminal messages in the network. Also," he continues, "individuals who insist in this type of conduct will be more easily identified and properly prosecuted."
The project is still in the House for analysis from commissions of Science and Technology, Communication and Informatics, and Constitution and Justice and Citizenship.
[+] [-] stephengillie|10 years ago|reply
And also those who hide behind anonymity to disseminate legal, even helpful messages across the network. Having an online alias allows many shy, repressed, abused, and frightened individuals the opportunity to chat, interact, and discourse about their lives without fear this information will be used against them.
> ["]Also," he continues, "individuals who insist in this type of conduct will be more easily identified and properly prosecuted."
More of the "If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to worry about" attitude. This suspicion is so hostile to normal traffic that its chilling effect is undeniable. It's very sad to see.
[+] [-] bcg1|10 years ago|reply
Aside from the reprehensible precedent and philosophy engendered by this proposal, it seems the implementation details are something akin to insane, i.e. "Any site that allows exposure of ideas would have to store this information of its members." That certainly seems far from a "simple requirement", nor does it seem very wise from a security and liability standpoint for site operators.
[+] [-] baseballmerpeak|10 years ago|reply