WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/whatsapp-used-by-100-million-brazilians-was-shut-down-nationwide-today-by-a-single-judge/
622 comments
There seem to be a few problems with this analysis.
First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content, except in emergencies. Instead, foreign law enforcement must make a request for assistance to the US DoJ, which will then (eventually, and maybe) process it and serve it on the US company. This is one of the reasons why MLAT reform, such as the proposed UK-US agreement[1], is so important because it would allow US companies to directly respond to foreign law enforcement requests.
Second, apparently, the data does not exist. WhatsApp publicly stated, including in testimony before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes[2], that it does not and has not retained any message content once messages are delivered, even before the recent full roll-out of E2E. Based on these statements, it would seem that WhatsApp is indeed unable to comply with the court's request, regardless of any jurisdictional arguments.
[1] https://www.justsecurity.org/29203/british-searches-america-...
[2] http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co...
First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content, except in emergencies. Instead, foreign law enforcement must make a request for assistance to the US DoJ, which will then (eventually, and maybe) process it and serve it on the US company. This is one of the reasons why MLAT reform, such as the proposed UK-US agreement[1], is so important because it would allow US companies to directly respond to foreign law enforcement requests.
Second, apparently, the data does not exist. WhatsApp publicly stated, including in testimony before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes[2], that it does not and has not retained any message content once messages are delivered, even before the recent full roll-out of E2E. Based on these statements, it would seem that WhatsApp is indeed unable to comply with the court's request, regardless of any jurisdictional arguments.
[1] https://www.justsecurity.org/29203/british-searches-america-...
[2] http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co...
> First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content, except in emergencies. Instead, foreign law enforcement must make a request for assistance to the US DoJ, which will then (eventually, and maybe) process it and serve it on the US company. This is one of the reasons why MLAT reform, such as the proposed UK-US agreement[1], is so important because it would allow US companies to directly respond to foreign law enforcement requests.
This is all WhatsApp's and the US's problem, not Brazil's. In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings. If anything, I think this would justify ruling against WhatsApp more harshly, as it sends the message to the US that policies which don't respect the sovereignty of Brazil will hurt US economic interests in Brazil.
That said:
> Second, apparently, the data does not exist. WhatsApp publicly stated, including in testimony before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes[2], that it does not and has not retained any message content once messages are delivered, even before the recent full roll-out of E2E. Based on these statements, it would seem that WhatsApp is indeed unable to comply with the court's request, regardless of any jurisdictional arguments.
If this is true, that's a solid argument and stands on its own.
This is all WhatsApp's and the US's problem, not Brazil's. In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings. If anything, I think this would justify ruling against WhatsApp more harshly, as it sends the message to the US that policies which don't respect the sovereignty of Brazil will hurt US economic interests in Brazil.
That said:
> Second, apparently, the data does not exist. WhatsApp publicly stated, including in testimony before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes[2], that it does not and has not retained any message content once messages are delivered, even before the recent full roll-out of E2E. Based on these statements, it would seem that WhatsApp is indeed unable to comply with the court's request, regardless of any jurisdictional arguments.
If this is true, that's a solid argument and stands on its own.
> In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings.
My apologies, but I think that if you re-read what was written, you will find that this was not suggested. The comment was written in response to one that came to the conclusion that this "was all [WhatsApp's] fault." It is suggesting that WhatsApp is not at fault, is probably strictly complying with US law, and cannot share the information in any case. At no point does it even come close to suggesting that the judge in the case should have "considered US law" in his rulings.
Moreover, I feel that your claim does not clearly differentiate between 'considering US law' as a material fact and 'considering US law' as a judicial precedent. You seem to be suggesting that someone arguing that US law ought to be held material to the case is somehow demanding that the Brazilian judiciary hold itself subservient to the US courts. You also seem to be suggesting that a Brazilian state judge has any business interpreting the law so as to "send a message" to the government of another nation, which is simply and patently untrue.
My apologies, but I think that if you re-read what was written, you will find that this was not suggested. The comment was written in response to one that came to the conclusion that this "was all [WhatsApp's] fault." It is suggesting that WhatsApp is not at fault, is probably strictly complying with US law, and cannot share the information in any case. At no point does it even come close to suggesting that the judge in the case should have "considered US law" in his rulings.
Moreover, I feel that your claim does not clearly differentiate between 'considering US law' as a material fact and 'considering US law' as a judicial precedent. You seem to be suggesting that someone arguing that US law ought to be held material to the case is somehow demanding that the Brazilian judiciary hold itself subservient to the US courts. You also seem to be suggesting that a Brazilian state judge has any business interpreting the law so as to "send a message" to the government of another nation, which is simply and patently untrue.
Complying or not complying to a foreing judges orders is a pretty common problem for any multinational company. Even if they have local presensence, the thing requested (data, object, whatever) might be somewhere else. And simply fetching it across a border on a foreign judges order can get you into trouble for "aiding a foreign power" and stuff like that.
It's worse that most local judges simple don't know that there's even a problem, and even if that'a clear to them, the judge most likely has 0 experience in making a successful request to the foreign state. And since all bureaucrats if the request isn't perfect it falls through the cracks. So often (at least if you're locally present) your laywers will need to help the judge to draft and push such a request through.
Long story short: These jurisdictional issues are not at all US specific, it's everywhere. Sovereign states just don't like it all over if their citizens and companies do stuff within their borders under orders of a foreign state.
It's worse that most local judges simple don't know that there's even a problem, and even if that'a clear to them, the judge most likely has 0 experience in making a successful request to the foreign state. And since all bureaucrats if the request isn't perfect it falls through the cracks. So often (at least if you're locally present) your laywers will need to help the judge to draft and push such a request through.
Long story short: These jurisdictional issues are not at all US specific, it's everywhere. Sovereign states just don't like it all over if their citizens and companies do stuff within their borders under orders of a foreign state.
Huge international US-based companies tend to comply with EU laws just fine (or at least participate in the judicial process) if they are doing business there.
Whatsapp can choose to assign resources to this issue, or it can ignore it and let it solve itself. If Whatsapp thinks that Brazil is an interesting market for whatever it is selling (what are they selling?) or if it is good for PR then they may choose to seek ways to intervene.
Whatsapp can choose to assign resources to this issue, or it can ignore it and let it solve itself. If Whatsapp thinks that Brazil is an interesting market for whatever it is selling (what are they selling?) or if it is good for PR then they may choose to seek ways to intervene.
> Huge international US-based companies tend to comply with EU laws just fine
When they are operating their business within the EU, yes. For example US companies operating servers in the EU must comply with EU data protection laws regarding information on those servers. This situation is analogous. WhatsApp's servers are in the US so US law applies. If the servers were in the EU then EU law would apply, not Brazilian law.
When they are operating their business within the EU, yes. For example US companies operating servers in the EU must comply with EU data protection laws regarding information on those servers. This situation is analogous. WhatsApp's servers are in the US so US law applies. If the servers were in the EU then EU law would apply, not Brazilian law.
US companies operating servers in the EU must comply with EU data protection laws regarding information on those servers.
More accurately, US companies processing personal data of EU citizens must comply with EU data protection laws. It just so happens that locating the servers in the EU is among the easiest ways to comply with that.
More accurately, US companies processing personal data of EU citizens must comply with EU data protection laws. It just so happens that locating the servers in the EU is among the easiest ways to comply with that.
Right, because the personal information is being transmitted outside the EU. Even if it's from a browser in the EU to a server in the US, that still counts. It's still an activity taking place in the EU.
The Brazilian case isn't about data transmission though. WhatsApp isn't in breach of any rules about that. It's about court ordered access to records stored on an server in a specific geographic location - The USA. Now if the Brazilian government passed a law requiring WhatsApp to record all data on servers in Brazil that would at least be possible to comply with.
The Brazilian case isn't about data transmission though. WhatsApp isn't in breach of any rules about that. It's about court ordered access to records stored on an server in a specific geographic location - The USA. Now if the Brazilian government passed a law requiring WhatsApp to record all data on servers in Brazil that would at least be possible to comply with.
But by the US laws the US company has to share information information on those servers located in EU with US government if requested...
Which of course is bonkers. But that doesn't mean it's OK for a Brazilian judge to be similarly bonkers.
> You seem to be suggesting that someone arguing that US law ought to be held material to the case is somehow demanding that the Brazilian judiciary hold itself subservient to the US courts.
Allowing a company to break Brazilian law because US law demands that the company break Brazilian law would absolutely put the Brazilian judiciary in a subservient position to US law.
> You also seem to be suggesting that a Brazilian state judge has any business interpreting the law so as to "send a message" to the government of another nation, which is simply and patently untrue.
Brazil decides what is and is not the business of Brazilian state judges.
Allowing a company to break Brazilian law because US law demands that the company break Brazilian law would absolutely put the Brazilian judiciary in a subservient position to US law.
> You also seem to be suggesting that a Brazilian state judge has any business interpreting the law so as to "send a message" to the government of another nation, which is simply and patently untrue.
Brazil decides what is and is not the business of Brazilian state judges.
As a digital native, I feel like an international Internet is more important than national sovereignty. That is, I don't think the interesting question is whether US or Brazilian law should apply, the question is how to ensure international access to international digital resources.
Internet sovereignty, for sure.
It's really the only way to go. Otherwise, you get pissing matches. Brazil blocks WhatsApp. China blocks Facebook, GitHub, etc. Iran blocks so much stuff that people need to get data dumps via satellite TV. The US blocks a lot too, but mostly about gambling, "piracy", etc.
It's really the only way to go. Otherwise, you get pissing matches. Brazil blocks WhatsApp. China blocks Facebook, GitHub, etc. Iran blocks so much stuff that people need to get data dumps via satellite TV. The US blocks a lot too, but mostly about gambling, "piracy", etc.
That has nothing really to do with Internet sovereignty (whatever that means).
It has to do with some countries suck more, and some suck less.
Plenty of countries don't block anything. Like military aggression, child mortality, literacy rate, etc., that is one important data point about any country and its government.
It has to do with some countries suck more, and some suck less.
Plenty of countries don't block anything. Like military aggression, child mortality, literacy rate, etc., that is one important data point about any country and its government.
> That has nothing really to do with Internet sovereignty (whatever that means).
If you don't know what "internet sovereignty" means, then how can you possibly claim that something had nothing to do with it?
If you don't know what "internet sovereignty" means, then how can you possibly claim that something had nothing to do with it?
I may a.gree with that but still, just because you do not like a law you have to comply. You can try to change it but as long as it exists its law for everyone. You cannot say murder should be legal, therefore I am allowed to do it.
On the other hand, I believe that we have a duty to disobey laws that prevent communication. Civil disobedience is also much easier when you're outside their jurisdiction.
> I may a.gree with that but still, just because you do not like a law you have to comply. You can try to change it but as long as it exists its law for everyone. You cannot say murder should be legal, therefore I am allowed to do it.
Bad laws are bad laws. If you can avoid complying with them, you absolutely should.
I wonder if you'd say the same to Gandhi. "The law is for everyone so you can't evade taxes by making your own salt." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March
Bad laws are bad laws. If you can avoid complying with them, you absolutely should.
I wonder if you'd say the same to Gandhi. "The law is for everyone so you can't evade taxes by making your own salt." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March
>In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings.
It's just as insensitive for a judge of a foreign nation to suggest that all foreigners must consider his rulings when making decisions under their own sovereign laws.
It's just as insensitive for a judge of a foreign nation to suggest that all foreigners must consider his rulings when making decisions under their own sovereign laws.
If a business wants to operate in a foreign country, it seems natural to me to follow the rules of that country; the fact that the business did not open an office in that country looks irrelevant--otherwise, do not open any office abroad and do what you want.
Incidentally, I wonder how the situation would be handled and what the opinion would be if some big foreign company operating in the US were shut down in the same way.
Incidentally, I wonder how the situation would be handled and what the opinion would be if some big foreign company operating in the US were shut down in the same way.
> otherwise, do not open any office abroad and do what you want.
Isn't this a fair position ? Imagine you are a lone dev creating a service that has no specific limitations. You are subject to your countries law, but should also be liable under each single law of every country where your users might happen to be ?
It seems to me that countries should have the right to do what they want within their borders (including shutting down access to some services) but go the diplomatic route if they have to interact with people out of their borders.
Isn't this a fair position ? Imagine you are a lone dev creating a service that has no specific limitations. You are subject to your countries law, but should also be liable under each single law of every country where your users might happen to be ?
It seems to me that countries should have the right to do what they want within their borders (including shutting down access to some services) but go the diplomatic route if they have to interact with people out of their borders.
What is your problem here? He does not shut down WhatsApp in total or request info for US user or anything like that, only in Brazil. This does not affect you at all. If they do not obey the law in another country, they do not get access there. Their activities in any other country do not change.
One problem I have is free trade. Can the US just randomly ban one of Brazil's exports? I mean the US likely exports more to Brazil than imports from it but if this weren't the case...
The US have always strictly controlled what they imported (if only via tariff) and what they exported.
Well, technically one could argue that it's not strange for a foreigner to comply with the judge's orders if they want their service to keep working in his country. They may refuse, sure, but there are consequences for that.
So, in this case, "all foreigners must consider his rulings", applies only for the those who wish to keep their service working in Brazil.
So, in this case, "all foreigners must consider his rulings", applies only for the those who wish to keep their service working in Brazil.
Really it's just absurd that we have borders. Ergo absurd situations arise.
Would you rather no borders exist, and a Brazilian judge ruling against WhatsApp taking out service worldwide, instead?
I'm not sure what I'd prefer, but borders are an artifact of lag-induced information asymmetry that has drastically lessened with modern means of communication and travel and their existence is a pre-requisite for a lot of the fucked up power dynamics on our planet so I imagine a number of potential systems without them could be an improvement.
> It's just as insensitive for a judge of a foreign nation to suggest that all foreigners must consider his rulings when making decisions under their own sovereign laws.
If you are operating in Brazil you have to follow Brazilian laws, including judges' orders. Just because I decide to do something in the US doesn't mean it's automatically legal when I do it in Brazil.
If you are operating in Brazil you have to follow Brazilian laws, including judges' orders. Just because I decide to do something in the US doesn't mean it's automatically legal when I do it in Brazil.
[deleted]
"The truth is like a lion. it needs not defense. it will defend itself" -- St. Augustine
St. Augustine was wrong
> This is all WhatsApp's and the US's problem, not Brazil's.
So you're saying it's OK for Brazil to send a SWAT team to raid a house in the US? The judge's order has no validity outside his jurisdiction; just like a US judge's order has no validity in Brazil.
So you're saying it's OK for Brazil to send a SWAT team to raid a house in the US? The judge's order has no validity outside his jurisdiction; just like a US judge's order has no validity in Brazil.
> So you're saying it's OK for Brazil to send a SWAT team to raid a house in the US?
No.
> The judge's order has no validity outside his jurisdiction; just like a US judge's order has no validity in Brazil.
Which is why the judge only banned WhatsApp from operating in Brazil.
No.
> The judge's order has no validity outside his jurisdiction; just like a US judge's order has no validity in Brazil.
Which is why the judge only banned WhatsApp from operating in Brazil.
I can believe them when they say they don't keep data. When I got a new phone (the old one broke), I was expecting my conversations to be in the cloud somewhere so that I could recover them. Nope, I lost everything that I hadn't backed up.
I don't see what they can gain from storing masses of old chats and then not allowing users to download them onto new devices. If they kept chats to do analytics on, there's no reason that they wouldn't expose it to users too.
(This may also explain how they survived as a company for so long with so many users and so little revenue. All they're doing is running a few fast servers to shuttle messages back and forth, no storage requirements at all).
On the other hand Telegram does seem to store conversations - if you log in using a desktop app, it will pull down your recent chats.
I don't see what they can gain from storing masses of old chats and then not allowing users to download them onto new devices. If they kept chats to do analytics on, there's no reason that they wouldn't expose it to users too.
(This may also explain how they survived as a company for so long with so many users and so little revenue. All they're doing is running a few fast servers to shuttle messages back and forth, no storage requirements at all).
On the other hand Telegram does seem to store conversations - if you log in using a desktop app, it will pull down your recent chats.
> I can believe them [WhatsApp] when they say they don't keep data.
If that's true, I'm in awe of their integrity. Skype on the other hand now has complete disregard for user privacy. Skype stores your voice mails and video messages forever[1]. This is something that they started doing 2-3 years ago and few people seem to be aware of it. It's amazing how low Skype fallen from its early days when it was considered a beacon of privacy and on the cutting edge of encryption and security.
[1] Details: Clicking on Preferences -> Privacy -> Delete history (OS X) or Options -> Privacy Settings -> Clear history (Windows) pretends to delete the voice/video messages but it merely hides them from your view. If you re-install Skype on the same computer or run Skype on a different computer, all those "deleted" voice mails and video messages re-appear. The delete and clear buttons are basically lies; there's no polite way to put it.
If that's true, I'm in awe of their integrity. Skype on the other hand now has complete disregard for user privacy. Skype stores your voice mails and video messages forever[1]. This is something that they started doing 2-3 years ago and few people seem to be aware of it. It's amazing how low Skype fallen from its early days when it was considered a beacon of privacy and on the cutting edge of encryption and security.
[1] Details: Clicking on Preferences -> Privacy -> Delete history (OS X) or Options -> Privacy Settings -> Clear history (Windows) pretends to delete the voice/video messages but it merely hides them from your view. If you re-install Skype on the same computer or run Skype on a different computer, all those "deleted" voice mails and video messages re-appear. The delete and clear buttons are basically lies; there's no polite way to put it.
Skype was never a reliable option. They never published their protocols or security (just that one "review" iirc). They took many measures to prevent people from inspecting the client.
I thought Skype only stores the last 30 days of data on their servers, while it will store every piece of data received on your local computer indefinitely (unless you delete it, of course).
No. I personally have a video message that is almost 3 years old that I've tried to delete multiple times over the years and it still shows up if I do a fresh install of Skype on a new computer.
Very old voice messages are also accessible even if "deleted".
Text chats do seem to disappear, but at this point I don't believe anything Skype says. I figure they keep the chats forever as well.
Very old voice messages are also accessible even if "deleted".
Text chats do seem to disappear, but at this point I don't believe anything Skype says. I figure they keep the chats forever as well.
Chats are definitely saved, but files aren't. You can't retrieve files after certain amount of time. I can also retrieve conversation from 3+ years ago. I don't remember if there is an option to forget conversation history though.
In all fairness, that's not say they're not being moved to deep physical storage. That's a practice in many organisations dealing with mass data.
storing data for 1 billion users and maintaining consistency is a pain the butt operationally. Whatsapp isn't storing the data. If they are, they're spending hundreds of millions on servers for data they can't monetize easily without alienating all of its users.
It is just text records, I doubt it will take hundreds of millions, even at whatsapp levels
No, a lot of pictures and audio messages as well go through Whatsapp
You used to could store your archive to Google Drive (at least with the Android client).
Edit: yes, the chat backup functionality still works. I have never tried to restore it though.
Go to settings > chats >> Chat backup to start backing up your messages to Google Drive. (Make sure you have 2FA on your Google account)
Edit: yes, the chat backup functionality still works. I have never tried to restore it though.
Go to settings > chats >> Chat backup to start backing up your messages to Google Drive. (Make sure you have 2FA on your Google account)
Telegram isn't end-to-end encrypted unless you're in a "secret chat", and that chat exists only between two different devices and can't be used by multiple devices on one account.
It's a "feature" of the normal chats/channels/groups/supergroups of Telegram that you are able to download them to other devices, or to restore them on a freshly wiped device, because (and I'm over-simplifying here, but the end result is the same) they are encrypted with a key known to the server, and which other devices signed into your account can then be authorized to use.
It's a "feature" of the normal chats/channels/groups/supergroups of Telegram that you are able to download them to other devices, or to restore them on a freshly wiped device, because (and I'm over-simplifying here, but the end result is the same) they are encrypted with a key known to the server, and which other devices signed into your account can then be authorized to use.
My point was more that if WhatsApp retained messages in some form they most likely would expose that functionality to its users (as Telegram does). So when people say 'apparently' they don't store messages, I'm inclined to believe WhatsApp/Facebook.
Digressing from the actual discussion, Whatsapp now allows you to keep a backup of your chats and related media on your Google Drive and then recover it when you move to a new device. Probably applicable only for newer versions of Android (not sure about iOS).
You can backup to (and restore from) iCloud, but then again WhatsApp (the company) does not have the data then.
Yes, I didn't mean to say they have the data. That's why I said I'm digressing from the topic (realizing the parent commenter might find it useful).
[deleted]
I wonder if they record the necessary analytics data from mining the text, and then delete the actual text. Depending on what data you're trying to mine, you may be able to get what you need on transmission, and then dump the source data in favor of the output of the analytics event.
The chats are end-to-end encrypted, so there is no plain text anyone could "mine"
That's true if you believe WhatsApp (and I do with some probability of certainty--not certain enough to trust it with data I wouldn't want the government to see, but enough that I'm comfortable hackers won't get my bank info).
But, the NSA approach to data collection is basically to vacuum it all up and, if possible, decrypt it later. This has two implications:
1. Metadata. "We kill people based on metadata" isn't a joke, it's a quote from Michael Hayden, ex-executive in both the NSA and CIA. End-to-end encryption doesn't hide who you're talking to or when.
2. It seems unlikely that it will be computationally possible for them to decrypt all traffic, but it would only surprise me a little if AES128 is breakable for high-value targets in the next 20 years: increased computing power, better multi-threading, better cryptanalysis algorithms, maybe quantum computing or some completely unexpected technology; it's hard to say what will come along.
In short: mining encrypted data still matters.
But, the NSA approach to data collection is basically to vacuum it all up and, if possible, decrypt it later. This has two implications:
1. Metadata. "We kill people based on metadata" isn't a joke, it's a quote from Michael Hayden, ex-executive in both the NSA and CIA. End-to-end encryption doesn't hide who you're talking to or when.
2. It seems unlikely that it will be computationally possible for them to decrypt all traffic, but it would only surprise me a little if AES128 is breakable for high-value targets in the next 20 years: increased computing power, better multi-threading, better cryptanalysis algorithms, maybe quantum computing or some completely unexpected technology; it's hard to say what will come along.
In short: mining encrypted data still matters.
> WhatsApp is a US company and...
I always feel like many large US tech companies want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be a global company, they want to have 2 billion users, and are valued at having that many users. But when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone.
I wouldn't mind if they ignored all national laws, and acted like a true global company. But I'm not from the USA (or Brazil), and don't want to be under US law. If you want to operate only user US law, then why not constrain yourself to the US market? Only operate there?
I always feel like many large US tech companies want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be a global company, they want to have 2 billion users, and are valued at having that many users. But when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone.
I wouldn't mind if they ignored all national laws, and acted like a true global company. But I'm not from the USA (or Brazil), and don't want to be under US law. If you want to operate only user US law, then why not constrain yourself to the US market? Only operate there?
> when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone
And when it comes to taxes...
And when it comes to taxes...
... and when it comes to taxes they operate under US law, meaning that if they repatriate any foreign profits, they will have to pay taxes. If they decide not to, like Apple has decided, they won't be liable for any tax payment.
There's absolutely nothing special in this case because WhatsApp happens to be operating on the internet. Suppose they were a mail order company based in Brazil but serving customers internationally by post. If a US judge issued a court order in the US requiring the company to hand over business records stored on paper in Barzil, he would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Brazilian law protecting the privacy of information stored in Brazil would prevail. there would be no controversy about this.
The fact that WhatsApp's info is stored on servers rather than paper records is irrelevant. The jurisdiction in which the records reside applies. Although the fact that their servers don't even store the information requested anyway should be.
The fact that WhatsApp's info is stored on servers rather than paper records is irrelevant. The jurisdiction in which the records reside applies. Although the fact that their servers don't even store the information requested anyway should be.
> Suppose they were a mail order company based in Brazil but serving customers internationally by post. If a US judge issued a court order in the US requiring the company to hand over business records stored on paper in Barzil, he would have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
Fair point. But to continue that analogy, the US judge is quite free to ban the commercial operation of that Brazilian company in the USA. Which is exactly what happens, and is happening here.
Fair point. But to continue that analogy, the US judge is quite free to ban the commercial operation of that Brazilian company in the USA. Which is exactly what happens, and is happening here.
OK. So now you're banning a company for operating in your country, because they choose not to become criminals in their own jurisdiction. So why ban them for a day or two? What's that supposed to accomplish? Logically if this was the justification they would ban it permanently. Banning it temporarily is just playing spiteful games that isn't going to accomplish anything.
That makes sense to me. But there really is no international law that's coherent and enforceable. It's a hard problem.
I think given that, it is reasonable for local jurisdictions to act as they see fit.
For everyone to act as they see fit, I believe.
You mean as a Freeman of the Land? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
As an ideological position it has some interesting points to make, but in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing.
My personal position is informed by Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) ) in that we have to make compromise with our individual liberty to bring about a greater good.
> "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
As an ideological position it has some interesting points to make, but in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing.
My personal position is informed by Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) ) in that we have to make compromise with our individual liberty to bring about a greater good.
> "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
> in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing.
Freemnan-on-the-land is totaly quackery in a comptemporary legal setting. It's like homeopathy, but for laws. It's Creationism, it's snake oil. Fundamentally it presumes/assumes that laws work differently from how the organs of the state think they work.
Freemnan-on-the-land is totaly quackery in a comptemporary legal setting. It's like homeopathy, but for laws. It's Creationism, it's snake oil. Fundamentally it presumes/assumes that laws work differently from how the organs of the state think they work.
Law ≠ Science. It's an interesting thought experiment. It's not like homoeopathy or creationism in that legal precedent emerges by evaluating any reasonable legal argument and their counterpoints and determining which among many is 'right'. It is not hard to conceive of a "freeman" society but what's important is to point out why isn't a realistic aspiration, rather than just shouting "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong".
I am not talking about separation in meatspace. Or at least, only in subtle ways. Attracting attention is just stupid.
You're always in meatspace - cyberspace is just another dimension to it. Unless you're Job from the lawnmower man.
True enough. What I mean is that I don't wear disguises, have multiple sets of IDs, hang out at anonymous exchange sites, and so on. But one can compartmentalize cyberspace substantially from the rest of meatspace, and then compartmentalize within cyberspace. Or at least, that's my experience. Maybe I'm just not interesting enough ;)
Well, that's the Internet, isn't it?
I mean this: https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/declarationseparation.html
I mean this: https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/declarationseparation.html
Interesting. I think it boils down to a freeman argument though - you're basically issuing refutation of your implicit social contract. While the sentiment therein is laudable it is somewhat premature. Though one has a great deal of independence in the cyber realm one is can still run afoul of limitations of the real world and her laws (as demonstrated today in Brazil).
I think cyberspace currently is best categorized as a distinct estate rather than realm in a similar vein to the press and the judiciary. Each functions with more or less autonomy but can occasionally be subjugated to the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate
I think cyberspace currently is best categorized as a distinct estate rather than realm in a similar vein to the press and the judiciary. Each functions with more or less autonomy but can occasionally be subjugated to the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate
One can always be subjugated. By robbers. By terrorists. By ISPs. By governments. By whatever. So one does what one can to be left alone. And helps others following the path.
But in meatspace, one blends in, doesn't attract attention. As in Vinge's True Names. Ultimately, authoritarian states may wither. Or not. But in the meantime, one can manage, under occupation.
But in meatspace, one blends in, doesn't attract attention. As in Vinge's True Names. Ultimately, authoritarian states may wither. Or not. But in the meantime, one can manage, under occupation.
If it was a small company based out of Iceland, or South Africa, or Singapore, it would still be in the same legal situation. The company (assuming just a single incorporation presence) is under the laws of the country it's from, and Joe Random user from across the internet is internationally accessing it.
National law cannot enforce anything on organizations not within the national jurisdiction, without international cooperation. However, they can (attempt to) stop their own citizens from accessing the international service.
National law cannot enforce anything on organizations not within the national jurisdiction, without international cooperation. However, they can (attempt to) stop their own citizens from accessing the international service.
That is false, at least in the example of online retail. If you sell stuff to someone in another country, online or not, you are bound by the consumer protection laws of that country. So someone in Scandinavia has two years of warranty on a laptop bought on dell.com, vs. one year for an American making the same purchase.
I don't think it makes a difference whether what you are offering is physical or not, your service is bound by the laws in whichever country the exchange takes place. Of course enforcement might be an issue, which is exactly why the Brazilian judge did what he did, when Whatsapp failed to abide by Brazilian law.
I don't think it makes a difference whether what you are offering is physical or not, your service is bound by the laws in whichever country the exchange takes place. Of course enforcement might be an issue, which is exactly why the Brazilian judge did what he did, when Whatsapp failed to abide by Brazilian law.
Note that I only said "enforce". A country can claim whatever they want within their own borders, but cannot really enforce them across the border.
Even with the laptop warranty case, if some small retailer from Country A shipped a laptop to Scandinavia, but didn't uphold a 2 year warranty, the Scandinavian governments would not be able to force the warranty to be upheld. They can make whatever local judgments they want, but none of them would touch Country A without international agreements in place.
Even with the laptop warranty case, if some small retailer from Country A shipped a laptop to Scandinavia, but didn't uphold a 2 year warranty, the Scandinavian governments would not be able to force the warranty to be upheld. They can make whatever local judgments they want, but none of them would touch Country A without international agreements in place.
completely agree.
If WhatsApp is unable to comply with Brazilian law, should it be allowed to operate in Brazil?
I think this is a bad law by the way. Hopefully the clearly negative impact it is having will lead to it's reform.
I think this is a bad law by the way. Hopefully the clearly negative impact it is having will lead to it's reform.
It seems to me that they did comply with Brazilian law. They handed over all the conversations they had — zero. Is there a law that says they have to record all the conversations?
They didn’t – they didn’t hand over the IP addresses that were requested.
Where did you read that?
I don't remember if those comments had sources, but I've seen that in various comments in this thread. There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around.
Do they operate in Brazil? They apparently have no offices there and are only available over the internet (as is true of all websites throughout most of the world.) How can anyone expect to hold what amounts to a random IP address on the internet responsible for anything?
This argument looks like it can also be applied to even malware. If I put something illegal doesn't has the judges right to stop the distribution of that app in the country?
Another question is if what Watsapp did should be illegal. But if the judges can't stop internet companies from doing something illegal who do you thing should do it?
No, he does not have that right. By that same logic brazilians shouldn't be allowed to visit websites from any other country where there's a discrepancy with brazilian law. With a government like ours next thing you know we have our own Great Firewall.
This kind of thing can't even be enforced, being so easy to bypass.
This kind of thing can't even be enforced, being so easy to bypass.
except you are wrong. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_T...
every country treats certain content as criminal as they wish. Where the servers are is just a minor detail.
every country treats certain content as criminal as they wish. Where the servers are is just a minor detail.
No it's not a minor detail, because it's easy to bypass, specially if its a decentralized service. Nevertheless its an outrageous retrenchment of our freedom.
No it's not a minor detail, because it's easy to bypass
All laws are easy to bypass, what's your point? Ever tried to go 60 in a 30km/h zone? Lack of 100% enforcement does not make a law useless.
All laws are easy to bypass, what's your point? Ever tried to go 60 in a 30km/h zone? Lack of 100% enforcement does not make a law useless.
BS!
they have bank accounts and deals with many tel co to operate as they do in each country they are.
you do not get pre-installed on the three biggest mobile operators phones (99.9% of market) and get deals where data to your service do not count as part of the limited data-plan on two of them, by just "being an IP address on the web".
they have bank accounts and deals with many tel co to operate as they do in each country they are.
you do not get pre-installed on the three biggest mobile operators phones (99.9% of market) and get deals where data to your service do not count as part of the limited data-plan on two of them, by just "being an IP address on the web".
Right now, it's more of a benefit to phone manufacturers to pre-install whatsapp than it is to whatsapp itself.
Same goes for the telcos. Offering free whatsapp and Facebook is a thing. And it's not because whatsapp had a "deal". It's because the telcos want more users.
Developing countries eat that up. People explicitly want to see whatsapp support or they don't buy the phone and many terrible devices have been sold on this premise.
Source: Experience
Same goes for the telcos. Offering free whatsapp and Facebook is a thing. And it's not because whatsapp had a "deal". It's because the telcos want more users.
Developing countries eat that up. People explicitly want to see whatsapp support or they don't buy the phone and many terrible devices have been sold on this premise.
Source: Experience
Source: 20+yrs on the online advertising industry.
Nothing that lives of ads or telecomunication companies survive only by "serving the user". The telco only pre-install something on the device if: A. they are paid upfront, B. if they get a percentage of the ads.
yeah, serving the user is good, but remember that you are talking about companies that charges for SMS. the day they have to rely on "pleasing the user" hell will freeze over. They rely on regional monopoly, just like in the US.
Nothing that lives of ads or telecomunication companies survive only by "serving the user". The telco only pre-install something on the device if: A. they are paid upfront, B. if they get a percentage of the ads.
yeah, serving the user is good, but remember that you are talking about companies that charges for SMS. the day they have to rely on "pleasing the user" hell will freeze over. They rely on regional monopoly, just like in the US.
Does not including a popular app preinstalled increase sales?
not at all. what part of monopoly didn't you get? they already have all the sales.
We have a clear market leader, but it's by no means a monopoly.
People constantly switch network providers here since we have number portability. My wife, me and many of our friends switched to Vodafone cos they were offering a really great Internet package. Free Whatsapp, Facbook, Twitter, Instagram,and Snapchat plus 3.5 GB for what's essentially $9 a month. Here that's unbeatable and unheard of. http://support.vodafone.com.gh/customer/portal/articles/1813...
I doubt all these services are paying for for Vodafone to do this.
People constantly switch network providers here since we have number portability. My wife, me and many of our friends switched to Vodafone cos they were offering a really great Internet package. Free Whatsapp, Facbook, Twitter, Instagram,and Snapchat plus 3.5 GB for what's essentially $9 a month. Here that's unbeatable and unheard of. http://support.vodafone.com.gh/customer/portal/articles/1813...
I doubt all these services are paying for for Vodafone to do this.
Luckily, there is serious competition here.
MTN does it, Airtel does it and Vodafone I think does it as a package.
If you currently don't offer some sort of package or free service, you're out of the competition.
MTN does it, Airtel does it and Vodafone I think does it as a package.
If you currently don't offer some sort of package or free service, you're out of the competition.
Do you have a source for this? Why would bank accounts need to be situated in Brazil for these deals to happen? That doesn't make sense.
you can pay whats app directly via the operator. e.g. http://www.tim.com.br/sp/para-voce/planos/pre-pago/turbo-wha...
you can't do that in brazil without having the papers to do business there. in fact, you can't even sell anything without the right documents. Just like everywhere else.
you can't do that in brazil without having the papers to do business there. in fact, you can't even sell anything without the right documents. Just like everywhere else.
paying whatsapp?
I don't know portuguese so I didn't actually read what the deal is.
Is this a service where subscribers pay the carrier a fee for 30 days of unlimited data traffic to whatsapp servers (VoIP excluded) + 50M of data ?
If yes, does that constitute a transaction the consumer makes directy to whatsapp via the operator? I understand that likely whatsapp and TIM (an Italian company btw) might have made some deal and exchanged some money for the use of whatsapp logo etc, but I guess that transaction could have been done anywhere.
I don't know portuguese so I didn't actually read what the deal is.
Is this a service where subscribers pay the carrier a fee for 30 days of unlimited data traffic to whatsapp servers (VoIP excluded) + 50M of data ?
If yes, does that constitute a transaction the consumer makes directy to whatsapp via the operator? I understand that likely whatsapp and TIM (an Italian company btw) might have made some deal and exchanged some money for the use of whatsapp logo etc, but I guess that transaction could have been done anywhere.
tim is Spanish.
the app has in app purchase. that page describes both what you described plus paying for in app purchases via operator
the app has in app purchase. that page describes both what you described plus paying for in app purchases via operator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIM_(brand)
> TIM is an Italian brand owned by Telecom Italia. Originally founded as a mobile telephony company in 1995
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIM_Brasil
> Parent Telecom Italia Mobile, Telecom Italia
> TIM is an Italian brand owned by Telecom Italia. Originally founded as a mobile telephony company in 1995
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIM_Brasil
> Parent Telecom Italia Mobile, Telecom Italia
Their apps are in the Brazilian app stores
My apps are in the Danish Google Play and Apple App Store...
I never been there, I don't read or write danish, I never interacted with danish government, or met any danish person.
If the dane government wanted something from me, and sent a letter to some random person, written in danish, even if it reaches me, I wouldn't understand it anyway.
Thus, having app in some other country store doesn't prove much, except that you clicked "publish" somewhere on Google or Apple uploading interfaces.
I never been there, I don't read or write danish, I never interacted with danish government, or met any danish person.
If the dane government wanted something from me, and sent a letter to some random person, written in danish, even if it reaches me, I wouldn't understand it anyway.
Thus, having app in some other country store doesn't prove much, except that you clicked "publish" somewhere on Google or Apple uploading interfaces.
> except that you clicked "publish" somewhere on Google or Apple uploading interfaces.
At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations.
A famous example of someone operating legally under local law, but who got prosecuted for having merely a website accessible in another country, was Kim Dotcom.
That’s the current state of international law, either lobby to change it, or accept it, but don't ignore it.
At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations.
A famous example of someone operating legally under local law, but who got prosecuted for having merely a website accessible in another country, was Kim Dotcom.
That’s the current state of international law, either lobby to change it, or accept it, but don't ignore it.
>>At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations.
Uhm nope. If my app(published on Apple Store/Google Play) violated a law in Saudi Arabia and they sent me a letter requesting me to appear and subject myself to 100 lashes for violating their law, I would very promptly disregard said letter, to put it politely.
Uhm nope. If my app(published on Apple Store/Google Play) violated a law in Saudi Arabia and they sent me a letter requesting me to appear and subject myself to 100 lashes for violating their law, I would very promptly disregard said letter, to put it politely.
You might do this and then you get convicted in absentia, Saudi Arabia will send a request for extradiction, your country will say no, done.
Except: better not travel to Saudi Arabia or any other country that will extradict. Also Saudi Arabia will propably ban your App, which is what is happening in Brasil.
> You might do this and then you get convicted in absentia, Saudi Arabia will send a request for extradiction, your country will say no, done. Except: better not travel to Saudi Arabia or any other country that will extradict.
And that is the problem. You can't actually expect people to hire lawyers from 108 different countries to see if their app is legal in each of them just because they're going to distribute it on the internet, to say nothing of what happens when two countries have mutually contradictory laws (e.g. privacy vs. data retention). And a person who goes to see the Great Pyramids shouldn't have to worry about being hauled off to Saudi Arabia and then stoned to death because their app doesn't prohibit blasphemy.
> Also Saudi Arabia will propably ban your App, which is what is happening in Brasil.
Which only increases the proliferation of tools to bypass the restriction.
And that is the problem. You can't actually expect people to hire lawyers from 108 different countries to see if their app is legal in each of them just because they're going to distribute it on the internet, to say nothing of what happens when two countries have mutually contradictory laws (e.g. privacy vs. data retention). And a person who goes to see the Great Pyramids shouldn't have to worry about being hauled off to Saudi Arabia and then stoned to death because their app doesn't prohibit blasphemy.
> Also Saudi Arabia will propably ban your App, which is what is happening in Brasil.
Which only increases the proliferation of tools to bypass the restriction.
> You can't actually expect people to hire lawyers from 108 different countries
You could expect facebook, with their almost infinite resources to so.
You could expect facebook, with their almost infinite resources to so.
No business should play along with their BS or hand over customer data.
I never thought I'd say this, but: Good on Facebook for not complying.
I never thought I'd say this, but: Good on Facebook for not complying.
They have every right to pull your app, arrest you and prosecute you if you ever do go to their country, and apply to have your extradited under relevant treaties.
I disagree, because I believe human rights exist.
They have every right to do something ridiculous like that, in the same sense Hitler had every right to kill the Jews. I.e. only in their minds.
Harmful lays laws should not be considered lawful just because somebody wrote them down.
Harmful lays laws should not be considered lawful just because somebody wrote them down.
While I agree that whipping someone, execution via stoning, and other punishments are inhuman and no country has the right to exact them, I stand by my point in general.
And you won't care if they summarily shut down your app in their country, then, of course?
Then don’t publish your app in those countries.
But....why not? As a person interested in selling my app, why would I not publish it in the largest number of markets available?
Selling apps is like selling any other product.
I can’t sell medical marihuana in most states of the US – and I don’t go and try, and then complain about getting arrested.
Instead, if I wanted to start a business doing that, I’d check out where it would be legal, and in which ways, and sell my product in those markets.
Why do you assume you can sell your product in markets without having checked the legality, and then complain when they ban your product because it violates the local law?
I can’t sell medical marihuana in most states of the US – and I don’t go and try, and then complain about getting arrested.
Instead, if I wanted to start a business doing that, I’d check out where it would be legal, and in which ways, and sell my product in those markets.
Why do you assume you can sell your product in markets without having checked the legality, and then complain when they ban your product because it violates the local law?
Hmmmm your example isn't exactly valid. If I was selling something on ebay out of EU, and you ordered something from me to US, I would almost definitely not get in trouble for sending it to you, unless it was an item which has export restrictions from my country. Or to go back to my example of Saudi Arabia - if someone from Saudi Arabia bought something from me I would definitely absolutely not bother to check if what I'm sending is legal in there. If it isn't, then customs will confiscate it and the person buying it will be in trouble, most likely.
My point was - is there any reason why I, as a developer, should not check "all countries" when publishing an app? If Saudi Arabia wants to ban my app later - let them, I literally don't care.
My point was - is there any reason why I, as a developer, should not check "all countries" when publishing an app? If Saudi Arabia wants to ban my app later - let them, I literally don't care.
They have the power to block you in their country, just as you have the power to publish in their country.
Just because you can take their money doesn't mean they have to accept that.
Just because you can take their money doesn't mean they have to accept that.
Because if you're not willing to do the legwork to see if your app is following the letter of the law in those countries, you may be subjected to being banned due to violation of said laws.
That's not really an argument. Go ahead and ban it. There's no reason anyone should preemptively ban themselves just because someone else wants them banned.
It's a bit like saying "You should hang yourself, because if you don't, I'll hang you." The proper response is "get on with it then."
It's a bit like saying "You should hang yourself, because if you don't, I'll hang you." The proper response is "get on with it then."
> A famous example of someone operating legally under local law, but who got prosecuted for having merely a website accessible in another country, was Kim Dotcom.
That's a pretty shit example, given everything that happened around that case.
That's a pretty shit example, given everything that happened around that case.
Lesson there is not to piss off the US IP industry ;)
They are in the Apple and Google app stores, you mean to say.
The person I was replying to asked "Do they operate in Brazil?". And considering that the app stores are on a country level, I'd say they do.
The app stores operate there as distributors. Just because my product is distributed somewhere by a third party doesn't necessarily mean I operate there.
If an art dealer sells a painting to someone in brazil, does it mean the original artist operates in Brazil?
If an art dealer sells a painting to someone in brazil, does it mean the original artist operates in Brazil?
I think the difference is that you /knowingly/ (to an extent) sell your app to Brazil. If you sell your art depicting, say, women in power to Saudia Arabia to someone here and they move to Saudia Arabia and sell it, it's not your fault. But if you told him it's ok to sell that painting in Saudia Arabia, I would assume you can be held liable.
(Not that I agree with that, but that's what it looks like)
(Not that I agree with that, but that's what it looks like)
In the artist/dealer scenario, only the latter is actually under the legal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia and could be legally compelled to follow a court order. They can choose to hold anyone liable but their legal and practical ability to compel an entity to comply doesn't extend beyond their state unless they have an agreement with another state.
Apple has a corporate office in Brazil (google too) and they're the ones who distribute and approve the application for sale there. They're legally required (I assume) to respond to legal notice they're served with. WhatsApp is not legally required to do so, and others have pointed out that it might not even be legally feasible for them to do so.
Of course this situation is more complex because obviously Apple doesn't have the data and I doubt Brazil wants to get into a legal battle with Apple. And although Brazil doesn't have the ability to force WhatsApp to comply with anything, they do have the leverage of being able to shut down their service. Should make for an interesting story to follow.
At the very minimum, if they had served Apple/Google instead, they would have had a legal requirement to actually respond. I don't know much about the actual case so these are mostly assumptions.
Apple has a corporate office in Brazil (google too) and they're the ones who distribute and approve the application for sale there. They're legally required (I assume) to respond to legal notice they're served with. WhatsApp is not legally required to do so, and others have pointed out that it might not even be legally feasible for them to do so.
Of course this situation is more complex because obviously Apple doesn't have the data and I doubt Brazil wants to get into a legal battle with Apple. And although Brazil doesn't have the ability to force WhatsApp to comply with anything, they do have the leverage of being able to shut down their service. Should make for an interesting story to follow.
At the very minimum, if they had served Apple/Google instead, they would have had a legal requirement to actually respond. I don't know much about the actual case so these are mostly assumptions.
Who cares what the law says? The laws should serve the citizens. And in this case, a huge majority of the citizens prefer to use WhatsApp.
The judge cares. Because the basic tenet of a Republic is the separation of powers, a Judge is not allowed to decide whether or not a law is fair or good for the people; that decision falls on the legislative branch.
> has no presence in Brazil.
If they have no presence in Brazil, how did they get shut down in Brazil? I don't mean to be glib, but I don't see how the two concepts jive with each other.
On a purely practical level, if they were interesting in maintaining their service in Brazil, why didn't they establish a presence in Brazil when all these previous orders and shutdowns were going on? This is like ignoring notices in the mail and then wondering why you're getting collections calls.
If they have no presence in Brazil, how did they get shut down in Brazil? I don't mean to be glib, but I don't see how the two concepts jive with each other.
On a purely practical level, if they were interesting in maintaining their service in Brazil, why didn't they establish a presence in Brazil when all these previous orders and shutdowns were going on? This is like ignoring notices in the mail and then wondering why you're getting collections calls.
> If they have no presence in Brazil, how did they get shut down in Brazil?
Blocked at the ISP level.
Blocked at the ISP level.
Seems like a flaw in the service if it can be shut down that easily.
Why is that a flaw in the service? The ISP/mobile operator is essentially the gatekeeper to the Internet; having them block WhatsApp (or anything else) is just a case of them adding a block rule to their DNS.
What would interest me is knowing whether or not access is still blocked if you change your default DNS server to something like 8.8.8.8?
What would interest me is knowing whether or not access is still blocked if you change your default DNS server to something like 8.8.8.8?
Changing the DNS server has no effect; I use Google's and it's still blocked.
WhatsApp uses IP addresses directly to route the traffic, but you could still use a VPN. The problem is that unless everyone else uses one you won't be able to talk to them...
What if you hit it via some VPN service?
I can reach them through a VPN, no problem at all to communicate with people outside of Brazil or with those connected through a VPN.
OT: Intrigued and tempted by ivpn.net but the about page don't give me enough info to decide (no team, no physical address...) Where can I read more?
OT: Intrigued and tempted by ivpn.net but the about page don't give me enough info to decide (no team, no physical address...) Where can I read more?
Whois has provider name, business address and telephone.[0] They say:[1]
> VPN was founded in 2009 by a group of information security professionals who met whilst doing their Msc in Information Security at Royal Holloway, University Of London.
I've never researched that, but I've worked with them for years, and it's consistent with my experience. They're good people, I believe.
[0] http://www.siteshowinfo.org/sites/www.ivpn.net
[1] https://www.ivpn.net/aboutus
> VPN was founded in 2009 by a group of information security professionals who met whilst doing their Msc in Information Security at Royal Holloway, University Of London.
I've never researched that, but I've worked with them for years, and it's consistent with my experience. They're good people, I believe.
[0] http://www.siteshowinfo.org/sites/www.ivpn.net
[1] https://www.ivpn.net/aboutus
Using DNS is the start of the flaw.
If a US law makes it impossible for a US company to comply with laws in another country in which they operate, that other country has the right to prohibit said company from operating there.
That doesn't mean it's wise for the said country to do so. In this case, doesn't seem like it is.
> WhatsApp publicly stated that it does not and has not retained any message content once messages are delivered
This does not make a lot of sense.
If they don't retain any message content, then how am I able to browse all my message threads on https://web.whatsapp.com?
EDIT: I'm wrong.
This does not make a lot of sense.
If they don't retain any message content, then how am I able to browse all my message threads on https://web.whatsapp.com?
EDIT: I'm wrong.
The messages come from your phone; that's why you need your phone to access the webapp.
I also use the web interface and I believe it tethers your phone to the browser - so the phone is sending the unencrypted messages to the browser window.
If you delete a message on the phone the message disappears in the web interface too.
If you delete a message on the phone the message disappears in the web interface too.
Looks like you guys are right:
"WhatsApp Web connects to your phone to sync messages."
I.. did not know that.
"WhatsApp Web connects to your phone to sync messages."
I.. did not know that.
[deleted]
It connects to your phone which stores the messages, I believe.
Foreign law enforcement may kindly request US DoJ OR operate under their (foreign) laws (and with 0 help, it's not hard to guess what route would be taken).
Your first point makes no sense whatsoever. Because an American company operates in a foreign country doesn't mean they don't have to follow the law.
"oh sorry, breaking local laws? Oh well, we're in america! Too bad!"
Doesn't work like that.
"oh sorry, breaking local laws? Oh well, we're in america! Too bad!"
Doesn't work like that.
> Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content
i know nothing about law, but where are you getting this from? does not seems to be the case with any company in china (yahoo gave in, google decided to leave) for example.
i know nothing about law, but where are you getting this from? does not seems to be the case with any company in china (yahoo gave in, google decided to leave) for example.
The difference is likely that these companies had the type of presence that causes Chinese law to come into effect ... such as physical presence (servers), buildings (owned property), human presence (employees, especially if they're Chinese citizens), financial presence (bank accounts, insurance), business/legal presence (i.e. local corp, subsidiary, company of some sort).
And in that case, it's the Chinese subsidiary that makes the decision to comply with Chinese law, as it obviously has to.
> First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil.
I certainly disagree with this ruling, but "no presence in Brazil" is wrong and contradicted by Facebook itself:
https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/saopaulo/
> São Paulo, Brazil 23 open positions
> One of the most talented and diverse cities in the world, Sao Paulo is a hub for our operations throughout Latin America. Our teams make an impact by providing support to our communities, small and medium businesses and brands in the region.
And of course their Latin America VP is located in this office:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-hires-new-latin-americ...
So I don't know where the bizarre idea that Facebook has "no presence" in Brazil comes from.
I certainly disagree with this ruling, but "no presence in Brazil" is wrong and contradicted by Facebook itself:
https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/saopaulo/
> São Paulo, Brazil 23 open positions
> One of the most talented and diverse cities in the world, Sao Paulo is a hub for our operations throughout Latin America. Our teams make an impact by providing support to our communities, small and medium businesses and brands in the region.
And of course their Latin America VP is located in this office:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-hires-new-latin-americ...
So I don't know where the bizarre idea that Facebook has "no presence" in Brazil comes from.
WhatsApp and Facebook are in fact still separate companies. Just making this distinction.
"Separate" as in WhatsApp Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Facebook Inc. That matters a lot.
I suppose, but would you refer to General Electric and Telemundo in the same interchangeable way? Same difference. If I were applying to a job in GE's aviation research division, I wouldn't mail my application to Telemundo.
That's actually wrong at multiple levels; Telemundo is a division of NBCUniversal, a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast since 2013.
It would be an apt comparison, if you imagine that Comcast had a Latin American headquarters in Brazil, where Telemundo's Portuguese telenovelas have millions of viewers; it would be weak tea for NBCUniversal to then argue that Brazil had no jurisdiction over it and the programming it distributes there because the shows are produced in Florida and NBCUniversal has no employees there.
It would be an apt comparison, if you imagine that Comcast had a Latin American headquarters in Brazil, where Telemundo's Portuguese telenovelas have millions of viewers; it would be weak tea for NBCUniversal to then argue that Brazil had no jurisdiction over it and the programming it distributes there because the shows are produced in Florida and NBCUniversal has no employees there.
> First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content, except in emergencies. Instead, foreign law enforcement must make a request for assistance to the US DoJ, which will then (eventually, and maybe) process it and serve it on the US company. This is one of the reasons why MLAT reform, such as the proposed UK-US agreement[1], is so important because it would allow US companies to directly respond to foreign law enforcement requests.
If you want to do business in a country then you should follow its laws.
If you want to do business in a country then you should follow its laws.
You are missing the most important part of the story. Facebook and Whatsapp are not ignoring the request. They have said that it is impossible for them to provide the information requested.
That's the problem with all these judicial orders. They think it's a flip of the switch to comply. Why don't the courts provide the money to build the services and infrastructure to comply with the order?
Orders like these are normally written out by judges that are completely oblivious to how reality works. Adding to that the fact that people with power know they tend to get things their way in Brazil, and that the government is all-powerful, I'm quite sure this guy just assumed he could change the laws of the universe with a stroke of his pen.
> he could change the laws of the universe with a stroke of his pen
that's how the legislative and judiciary branches think here in Brazil, write the problems away with a law. it called 'canetada'.
that's how the legislative and judiciary branches think here in Brazil, write the problems away with a law. it called 'canetada'.
> it called 'canetada'.
It's wonderful to have a succinct word for a concept like that; I wish there were such a word in English. Do you have any background information about the origins and meaning of this word?
It's wonderful to have a succinct word for a concept like that; I wish there were such a word in English. Do you have any background information about the origins and meaning of this word?
Caneta means pen in portuguese. Canetada, although not a dictionary word, means the act of swiftly using a pen to show "who is the boss" - signing an impromptu decree or order of questionable legitimacy for example.
Portuguese, maybe especially Brazilian Portuguese, has a good number of made-up words that can be created by simply adding certain suffixes to common words. They might not be in the dictionary; that'd grow its number of words exponentially I assume. But they're widely used and understood. In this case, "-ada" is basically added to words when something is used indiscriminately, normally by hitting something or someone, or throwing it.
Whacking someone with a wooden stick ("pau") is a "paulada". Kicking a ball ("bola") on someone is a "bolada". Poking someone with a pin ("alfinete") is a "alfinetada".
Therefore, using a pen ("caneta") indiscriminately becomes a "canetada".
The same word would be used if you threw the pen at someone's head, so there's that.
Whacking someone with a wooden stick ("pau") is a "paulada". Kicking a ball ("bola") on someone is a "bolada". Poking someone with a pin ("alfinete") is a "alfinetada".
Therefore, using a pen ("caneta") indiscriminately becomes a "canetada".
The same word would be used if you threw the pen at someone's head, so there's that.
Yes, judges are fond of doing that.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/29/fbi-hacki...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/29/fbi-hacki...
In Germany you get recompensation for that. Also one might argue if they don't like the laws they shouldn't access the market.
Not that I am a big fan of this particular law/result, but I want to highlight the second half of your sentence:
"if they don't like the laws they shouldn't access the market"
That is something the HN crowd does not seem to understand/respect. Most of us enjoy the personal protection of the law yet we want to whip up a webapp and have no laws apply to us.
"if they don't like the laws they shouldn't access the market"
That is something the HN crowd does not seem to understand/respect. Most of us enjoy the personal protection of the law yet we want to whip up a webapp and have no laws apply to us.
Bad laws are bad laws, it's idiotic to support them.
If you think harder you will realize that is false. The rule of law itself has value, and we can only live in a lawful society if we respect all laws and change them via established processes. Otherwise someone may decide that your favorite law is "idiotic" and you will have no recourse.
Not only idiotic but also immoral. If you obey an immoral law you are acting in a way which strengthens that law and keeps other people under its influence. By your actions you are essentially condemning people to be affected by an immoral law - which in itself is immoral behavior.
As far as I understand, WhatsApp is not conducting any activities in Brazil.
There are people in Brazil who have downloaded the application, and those people are connecting OUT to WhatsApp, which is operating in America.
So all the Brazilian government can do, is BLOCK its own people from accessing WhatsApp through the Internet.
The question is, should the Brazilian government have the right to block websites that it doesn't want its people to be able to see?
Ultimately that's a problem for Brazilian domestic politics, and also a greater issue of human rights. After all, that's how we describe it when discussing the Great Firewall of China.
There are people in Brazil who have downloaded the application, and those people are connecting OUT to WhatsApp, which is operating in America.
So all the Brazilian government can do, is BLOCK its own people from accessing WhatsApp through the Internet.
The question is, should the Brazilian government have the right to block websites that it doesn't want its people to be able to see?
Ultimately that's a problem for Brazilian domestic politics, and also a greater issue of human rights. After all, that's how we describe it when discussing the Great Firewall of China.
Brazil can apply whatever laws they want wherever they want. They just might not be able to enforce them and therefore non-residents might decide to ignore them. The same is true for everyone else.
Nah, you just gotta DISRUPT the current laws.
That would require a backdoor that didn't exist at the time and that WhatsApp doesn't want to create.
It would require more than a backdoor but dozens of data centers as well as the software and personnel to manage them all
And not just the money. They try to override the logic of the universe.
A company cannot provide data that it does not have and has no way of acquiring.
A company cannot provide data that it does not have and has no way of acquiring.
To give them some message that was deleted years ago? What is Facebook supposed to do, build a time machine?
It doesn't matter what 'they said', if it was not 'said' in formal legal response. If you are subpoenaed, you don't go ahead and publish in your blog 'hey judge, I've done nothing', you hire a lawyer and do it via legal channels. Facebook/WhatsApp haven't done the legal work, thus, their answer amounts to nothing.
Well finally.
Whether or not they have a presence, operate there, are required to comply or whatsoever is not an issue.
They simply can't comply. If they could initially they can't anymore. End-to-end encryption made sure of that.
Again, unless they're lying to us.
Whether or not they have a presence, operate there, are required to comply or whatsoever is not an issue.
They simply can't comply. If they could initially they can't anymore. End-to-end encryption made sure of that.
Again, unless they're lying to us.
[deleted]
> They have said that it is impossible for them to provide the information requested.
They have said this to the press or to the court? Because it seems to me like Fb/Whatsapp have been pointedly ignoring the courts for months. The least they could do is fly down a lackey to Brazil and say it in person and/or alternatively hire a Brazilian law firm to represent them.
They have said this to the press or to the court? Because it seems to me like Fb/Whatsapp have been pointedly ignoring the courts for months. The least they could do is fly down a lackey to Brazil and say it in person and/or alternatively hire a Brazilian law firm to represent them.
Brazil already arrested a Facebook executive and detained them for 24hrs this year over the fact they said there is nothing that can do regarding the information request.
I'm not sure what you're proposing Facebook to do here? Hand over useless encrypted data? Hold a cryptography seminar for Brazillian law enforcement to explain what end-to-end encryption means? Have more of their employees risk arrest?
I'm not sure what you're proposing Facebook to do here? Hand over useless encrypted data? Hold a cryptography seminar for Brazillian law enforcement to explain what end-to-end encryption means? Have more of their employees risk arrest?
They should say it like it is, and FB having a high visibility platform is a plus. Just put a banner there saying those guys are idiots in an authoritarian power trip, and fuck them. After that you'll probably be found dead or something. So YMMV
Putting up banners with "fuck them" is not how companies work, and it is not a good communication strategy.
Some more subtle hints may work better, but generally, what Facebook says, "it can't be done" is the correct strategy.
Some more subtle hints may work better, but generally, what Facebook says, "it can't be done" is the correct strategy.
This is going to sound flippant, but think about it, it isn't.
What lackey is going to want to fly to a hostile country where the government is battling your employer?
I don't want to spend any time in a foreign prison. Who would?
What lackey is going to want to fly to a hostile country where the government is battling your employer?
I don't want to spend any time in a foreign prison. Who would?
[deleted]
They dont have to fly anyone down to brazil. They had someone there. He was arrested a few months go for not fulfilling the request. Its all in the article we are commenting on.
Terrifyingly Brazil is probably on the no-go list for lots of Apple employees right now, like how the Middle East is in general for LGBT people.
"It's impossible for me to follow the law" is not a valid defense.
To repeat what everyone else has said: The data doesn't exist on whatsapp's servers.
Now I know the law's position is basically "do what we say or we'll punish you until you comply - and we'll simply ignore you until you figure out a way to do so".
Obviously that's literally impossible for data that doesn't exist anymore, but of course it's technically possible to comply with these laws in the future. And I think that's a bigger problem here - that governments want to turn companies into surveillance tools. It's like telling the postal service to open and scan every single letter - which would have sounded pretty bad in the past, but nowadays that's somehow okay. Not because morals have changed but because it's feasible now.
Following/enforcing laws is generally a good thing, but since we live in a human society and not a robot one, things like that get fuzzy around the edges. Let's imagine an extreme, outlandish case where some odd and unforeseen circumstances in poorly written laws lead to a judge being able to order nuclear attacks on several cities of their own country. I'd want the judge to hold off on that and maybe wait for the legislature to catch up with the will of the people - which is not to die in millions.
Whatsapp isn't exactly a matter of life and death (at least I hope it isn't), but maybe this is a case where values like common sense, the common good and the interests of hundreds of millions of people weigh more than maybe locking up some stupid drug dealer.
I completely disagree with "If they disobey the law, it must have consequences, no matter how big and important to brazilian society they are.". That's the kind of idiocy that emerges right when society ends up working for the benefit of its government instead of the other way around.
If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
Now I know the law's position is basically "do what we say or we'll punish you until you comply - and we'll simply ignore you until you figure out a way to do so".
Obviously that's literally impossible for data that doesn't exist anymore, but of course it's technically possible to comply with these laws in the future. And I think that's a bigger problem here - that governments want to turn companies into surveillance tools. It's like telling the postal service to open and scan every single letter - which would have sounded pretty bad in the past, but nowadays that's somehow okay. Not because morals have changed but because it's feasible now.
Following/enforcing laws is generally a good thing, but since we live in a human society and not a robot one, things like that get fuzzy around the edges. Let's imagine an extreme, outlandish case where some odd and unforeseen circumstances in poorly written laws lead to a judge being able to order nuclear attacks on several cities of their own country. I'd want the judge to hold off on that and maybe wait for the legislature to catch up with the will of the people - which is not to die in millions.
Whatsapp isn't exactly a matter of life and death (at least I hope it isn't), but maybe this is a case where values like common sense, the common good and the interests of hundreds of millions of people weigh more than maybe locking up some stupid drug dealer.
I completely disagree with "If they disobey the law, it must have consequences, no matter how big and important to brazilian society they are.". That's the kind of idiocy that emerges right when society ends up working for the benefit of its government instead of the other way around.
If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
> If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
Totally agree. This is unfortunately a very authoritarian world of view that is not uncommon.
Totally agree. This is unfortunately a very authoritarian world of view that is not uncommon.
This has mothing to do with authoritarianism. Upholding the law itself is important. If everybody ignores the law all the time you'll have a pretty shitty society.
The Brazilian people have a clear option, vote for officials who have no problem with communication encryption. The solution is not to circumvent the parliamentary democratic process.
The Brazilian people have a clear option, vote for officials who have no problem with communication encryption. The solution is not to circumvent the parliamentary democratic process.
Nobody is going to question a law that nobody is willing to defy. And then you'll also end up with a shitty society.
> If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
I am shocked so many of you agree with this. If it is forbidden to kill people, you have done something very bad and everyone else wants to kill you, they are still not allowed. (They may change the law and kill you then but for now, they are not allowed.) This is called justice.
I am shocked so many of you agree with this. If it is forbidden to kill people, you have done something very bad and everyone else wants to kill you, they are still not allowed. (They may change the law and kill you then but for now, they are not allowed.) This is called justice.
> If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
Sir/Ma'am: you get my gratitude for voicing this. People do forget why we have laws in the first place.
Sir/Ma'am: you get my gratitude for voicing this. People do forget why we have laws in the first place.
But, as it says in the article, WhatsApp just doesn't have the data the judge wants it to turn over. How does it make sense to punish a company for not doing something that it physically cannot do?
Companies can be punished for failure to obey laws. If a company didn't bother to retain records on who bought something they are now required to recall due to safety failures I can't imagine any country would say that is ok. They would be punished.
I don't happen to think the law mentioned is a good one. And I have no idea how the law is actually worded. Depending on how it is worded maybe it is ok to just not keep records so you don't have to provide them. But it is certainly within the power of governments to demand companies operate in a manner that requires them to do certain things and you can't avoid that by for example not keeping the records you are required to.
I sure hope the USA stops the leadership of authoritarian overreaching on laws relating to technology. But it is not at all surprising that others are following the lead of the USA into horrible authoritarian and Orwellian laws given the USA's behavior. Few countries seem willing to put liberty ahead of authoritarianism. The USA is far from perfect but it is a country that has above average potential for promoting liberty.
But the last Bush and Obama administrations have been horrible and both political parties are pushing for horrible laws. A few decent advocates (such as Senator Ron Wyden) for fighting this trend exist but they are not common yet.
This promotion of authoritarian state power is a very dangerous trend that may well have incredibly bad consequences for us. Our history shows authoritarian governments abuse power and I am worried about the last two administrations strong support for increasingly powerful spying abilities of government.
I would hope countries like Brazil lead away from the path the USA is pushing the world down. Unfortunately I don't see much good happening in that way. I hope I am just not aware of good things other countries are doing but I worry that isn't the reason I don't hear about good moves to thwart the dreams of authoritarian regimes.
I don't happen to think the law mentioned is a good one. And I have no idea how the law is actually worded. Depending on how it is worded maybe it is ok to just not keep records so you don't have to provide them. But it is certainly within the power of governments to demand companies operate in a manner that requires them to do certain things and you can't avoid that by for example not keeping the records you are required to.
I sure hope the USA stops the leadership of authoritarian overreaching on laws relating to technology. But it is not at all surprising that others are following the lead of the USA into horrible authoritarian and Orwellian laws given the USA's behavior. Few countries seem willing to put liberty ahead of authoritarianism. The USA is far from perfect but it is a country that has above average potential for promoting liberty.
But the last Bush and Obama administrations have been horrible and both political parties are pushing for horrible laws. A few decent advocates (such as Senator Ron Wyden) for fighting this trend exist but they are not common yet.
This promotion of authoritarian state power is a very dangerous trend that may well have incredibly bad consequences for us. Our history shows authoritarian governments abuse power and I am worried about the last two administrations strong support for increasingly powerful spying abilities of government.
I would hope countries like Brazil lead away from the path the USA is pushing the world down. Unfortunately I don't see much good happening in that way. I hope I am just not aware of good things other countries are doing but I worry that isn't the reason I don't hear about good moves to thwart the dreams of authoritarian regimes.
So if a judge demanded a telco hand over an audio recording of any specific conversation, they must comply -- even though calls are not recorded and stored?
If a judge demanded the postal service hand over an image of every envelope processed, it must comply -- even though no such images exist?
Where does it end?
If a judge demanded the postal service hand over an image of every envelope processed, it must comply -- even though no such images exist?
Where does it end?
That's why Google doesn't operates in China at full scale. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China
They decided that was agains the company values to comply with Chinese law, so they stopped offering some services.
It's the law, and maybe I don't like it at all, but still I thing that companies should comply. I also thing that that laws should me changed.
Some services? I have not found any Google service to work over there. Which one should work?
Gmail works, in the sense that Shanghai utility is able to deliver e-mails to me when it's time to pay the electricity bill. Downloading stuff from google's android repostitories (i.e. for developing Android) also works (most of the time).
Yes the latter works (Android repos which are not on google.com), but when in Shanghai I get nothing from Gmail, ever. Not sure how that works then but at least it's not supposed to work I guess as that's officially banned. And when something works from Google it'll not work after trying it a few times. I definitely find it both hard to work there and both relaxing. Hope to be in Shanghai soon again.
[deleted]
Comply with what? What law is being broken here?
Censorship laws, mainly. China wants to block out huge portions of search results, and Google doesn't want to do that.
Look, if a judge has such a right, a corporate lawyer usually has an idea that such a request might come. Companies that do not break law must do what is needed to make sure they will not violate any laws – neither now nor in the future. Or WhatsApp may say – sorry Brazil, we do not think that complying with your laws would be appropriate for us and stop servicing Brazilian numbers until laws are changed. But it's just not right to ignore country laws as long as that country is not US.
It's not clear that they are actually violating the law, though. Judges can be wrong too.
To become a telco, in the first place you need to comply with all of the laws to be allowed to operate. In the case of the US, this is CALEA, and every phone company should be able to provide a backdoor that allows the agencies to follow court orders and tap phones. Brazil has similar laws for the phone networks.
The problem with the attitude of the Brazilian courts in regards to Whatsapp is that they are not a telco. The abomination that is the Marco Civil, which is being used as a justification to enforce the court request and says data should be retained by companies for one year, does not help.
The problem with the attitude of the Brazilian courts in regards to Whatsapp is that they are not a telco. The abomination that is the Marco Civil, which is being used as a justification to enforce the court request and says data should be retained by companies for one year, does not help.
It's not about providing a backdoor, it's about retroactively having recorded all conversations demanded by a judge.
Like I said, the Brazilian code about Internet communications (Marco Civil) establishes that all companies must retain all data for one year.
This was passed in 2014, so the main allegation from the Brazilian courts is that Whatsapp should have this data, anyway. There is nothing "retroactive" there.
This was passed in 2014, so the main allegation from the Brazilian courts is that Whatsapp should have this data, anyway. There is nothing "retroactive" there.
I shouldn't have used a metadata example with the postal service. Better case: judge demands the postal service turn over a transcript of every exchange between two people for the past year.
Actually, in the USA, USPS records an image of the front and back of all letters.
It's illegal to open the envelope, but hey - who knows?
It's illegal to open the envelope, but hey - who knows?
USPS does do that. It's considered metadata.
Apparently, it ends in Brazil when a court shuts down WhatsApp (for 72 hours).
Apparently the USPS does make an image of every envelope processed. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mai...
But the basic idea is yes, you must comply with all laws. If you can prove it violates the constitution you can have a court invalidate the law (but before that it would be illegal to violate it). There are often laws that you could argue conflict with this law and get out of it that way.
Often if you have lots of money you can influence the enforcement of laws. That doesn't exempt you from a law but often it isn't really an issue of what the law allows but what the regulator or prosecutors decide to enforce. And if you can't do that you can fight the attempts by the regulators and prosecutors (and law enforcement officials) and argue they have not legal right to do what they are seeking to do. See Apple, for a recent example.
Your rights are often not just a matter of the law but of to what extent the government and law enforcement are bound by laws. In the recent experience in the USA we have examples of the Bush and Obama administrations seeking to avoid accountability for authoritarian overreaching. They often seem to get away with it. The recent attempt to push around Apple was stopped mainly due to Apple's lawyers and leaders refusing to be pushed around.
I do not know if the Brazilian example is one where the government and/or judge are attempting to compel behavior not legal in Brazil (either not what the law requires, using a non-legal punishment or neglecting another legal requirement that would override the law being used to compel the behavior). But I do think it would be possible to have such a law and have the judges actions be legal.
Certainly laws can compel companies to do things that they are not now capable of doing. Normally if some new law were to be created the regulatory framework and notice would be publicized and companies would be aware of the requirement (say to keep records or whatever sort). And then if they failed to do so that isn't a justification to fail to comply since they failed to do what was required in order to be able to comply with a further requirement. Their lawyers may also be able to argue the law was unrealistic in expecting compliance because even though we wanted to comply it just wasn't possible to do so. And making a case that they are doing everything they can may be taken into account to say that while they are not fully compliant yet, they are taking all reasonable action and therefore to the extent the judge has leeway they could make adjustments to the consequences.
While it is sometimes annoying the reality is there are so many complications it is often a matter of judgement for whether something is or is not ok and even if it isn't ok, what is a reasonable consequence. When the legal system is working well it makes these judgement in a sensible manner even if it leaves many people unhappy. And then you have things like the Eastern district of Texas making a mockery of abuse of society by patent trolls.
I certainly do believe the legal system can be systemically broken. And those failures can be left unaddressed by our representatives for decades. Could that be similar to what is happening in this Brazil case? Yes. Could it also be that this Brazil case is just a matter of a bad law and the legal system is properly carrying out the consequences of that law? Yes.
But the basic idea is yes, you must comply with all laws. If you can prove it violates the constitution you can have a court invalidate the law (but before that it would be illegal to violate it). There are often laws that you could argue conflict with this law and get out of it that way.
Often if you have lots of money you can influence the enforcement of laws. That doesn't exempt you from a law but often it isn't really an issue of what the law allows but what the regulator or prosecutors decide to enforce. And if you can't do that you can fight the attempts by the regulators and prosecutors (and law enforcement officials) and argue they have not legal right to do what they are seeking to do. See Apple, for a recent example.
Your rights are often not just a matter of the law but of to what extent the government and law enforcement are bound by laws. In the recent experience in the USA we have examples of the Bush and Obama administrations seeking to avoid accountability for authoritarian overreaching. They often seem to get away with it. The recent attempt to push around Apple was stopped mainly due to Apple's lawyers and leaders refusing to be pushed around.
I do not know if the Brazilian example is one where the government and/or judge are attempting to compel behavior not legal in Brazil (either not what the law requires, using a non-legal punishment or neglecting another legal requirement that would override the law being used to compel the behavior). But I do think it would be possible to have such a law and have the judges actions be legal.
Certainly laws can compel companies to do things that they are not now capable of doing. Normally if some new law were to be created the regulatory framework and notice would be publicized and companies would be aware of the requirement (say to keep records or whatever sort). And then if they failed to do so that isn't a justification to fail to comply since they failed to do what was required in order to be able to comply with a further requirement. Their lawyers may also be able to argue the law was unrealistic in expecting compliance because even though we wanted to comply it just wasn't possible to do so. And making a case that they are doing everything they can may be taken into account to say that while they are not fully compliant yet, they are taking all reasonable action and therefore to the extent the judge has leeway they could make adjustments to the consequences.
While it is sometimes annoying the reality is there are so many complications it is often a matter of judgement for whether something is or is not ok and even if it isn't ok, what is a reasonable consequence. When the legal system is working well it makes these judgement in a sensible manner even if it leaves many people unhappy. And then you have things like the Eastern district of Texas making a mockery of abuse of society by patent trolls.
I certainly do believe the legal system can be systemically broken. And those failures can be left unaddressed by our representatives for decades. Could that be similar to what is happening in this Brazil case? Yes. Could it also be that this Brazil case is just a matter of a bad law and the legal system is properly carrying out the consequences of that law? Yes.
>> If a company didn't bother to retain records on who bought something they are now required to recall due to safety failures
I am not aware of any law in the US ( talk on US laws because you discuss it later in your comment) that requires by business to keep sales records for the purposes of recalls, the only businesses required to do that are business that sell regulated goods, (firearms, explosives, Drugs, certain chemicals, etc)
Normal Consumer Goods are recalled all of the time with out the Manufacturers, or Retailers having a master list of every person that bought that item.
I am not aware of any law in the US ( talk on US laws because you discuss it later in your comment) that requires by business to keep sales records for the purposes of recalls, the only businesses required to do that are business that sell regulated goods, (firearms, explosives, Drugs, certain chemicals, etc)
Normal Consumer Goods are recalled all of the time with out the Manufacturers, or Retailers having a master list of every person that bought that item.
The Law orders it to collect the data, the data is available and Watsapp does collect it, but instantly discards (or so they claim).
What is in there that can not be punished?
I don't think this specific law is a good one, but it is not in clear violation of our Constitution, and was brought up by People's representatives... We should fight for improving it, and we should stop relying on infrastructure owned by private companies. But I can't think this judge is wrong.
What is in there that can not be punished?
I don't think this specific law is a good one, but it is not in clear violation of our Constitution, and was brought up by People's representatives... We should fight for improving it, and we should stop relying on infrastructure owned by private companies. But I can't think this judge is wrong.
The Law orders it to collect the data
Which law orders them to collect the data?
Which law orders them to collect the data?
Marco Civil da Internet.
Brazilian federal Law nº 12965.
http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/_Ato2011-2014/2014/Lei/...
Brazilian federal Law nº 12965.
http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/_Ato2011-2014/2014/Lei/...
It doesn't matter it's not a Brazilian company, there are no servers in Brazil, only the users exist in Brazil. They could mandate Mark Zuckerberg run around naked and it would make no difference. Maybe Brazil should create a great wall of Brazil and cut itself off of the internet. Then it could enact whatever laws it wants to affect companies in other countries.
Facebook has at least one company in Brazil, and they are providing a service in Brazil that this judge ordered to interrupt.
It's perfectly reasonable to forbid access to Brazil for some service that does not follow a Brazilian law. This is bad because of the specific terms of this law, not because of some broad issue.
It's perfectly reasonable to forbid access to Brazil for some service that does not follow a Brazilian law. This is bad because of the specific terms of this law, not because of some broad issue.
> providing a service in Brazil
I don't know if they have servers in brazil, but if they don't then it seems quite unreasonable to say that they are "providing a service in Brazil". If you run a bookstore in the US and a German comes and buys Nazi material, are you running a store in Germany? If Brazilians are effectively leaving their country to go get stuff from US servers then it's up to the Brazilian government to make a law to stop them, if it doesn't like that. Saying that connecting to the internet is "providing service" to every country in the world is a way to simply break the entire internet.
I don't know if they have servers in brazil, but if they don't then it seems quite unreasonable to say that they are "providing a service in Brazil". If you run a bookstore in the US and a German comes and buys Nazi material, are you running a store in Germany? If Brazilians are effectively leaving their country to go get stuff from US servers then it's up to the Brazilian government to make a law to stop them, if it doesn't like that. Saying that connecting to the internet is "providing service" to every country in the world is a way to simply break the entire internet.
>If you run a bookstore in the US and a German comes and buys Nazi material, are you running a store in Germany?
No, but if she buys via mail order and the package gets confiscated at the border, don't whine about losing business.
No, but if she buys via mail order and the package gets confiscated at the border, don't whine about losing business.
Under German law you are subject to German laws about commerce if you are "addressing the German market". Some indicators include offering your site in German, probably also support German phone numbers and addresses, etc. For some services/apps this is obvious (e.g. online shopping) for others it is more debatable.
The most important part however is that of course you don't have to give a damn about what German law thinks as long as you aren't in a position in which German jurisdiction can be enforced. Likewise, even if you are a German citizen living in Germany some German laws and regulations may not apply if you are decidedly not offering your services/apps to a German audience -- though of course that's a much less safe position. Either way, it's not as simple as "it exists on the Internet, therefore it falls under German jurisdiction" although the reasoning is quite similar to that in Brazil.
The point is moot, anyway. Brazil can't enforce their laws against a US company that doesn't have a presence in Brazil, but it can ban them from Brazil -- as apparently a Brazilian court is allowed to force Internet access providers to ban specific IPs. Whether courts should be allowed to do that is a legitimate question but right now in Brazil they apparently are, so everything is fine.
This isn't an action against WhatsApp. This is an action against Brazilian WhatsApp users. It's basically enforcing a sanction against WhatsApp by preventing Brazilians from accessing the service (which they can't get at otherwise). This is more like a German court forcing an IP ban (in Germany) against a Nazi website hosted outside of Germany -- which is a thing.
The most important part however is that of course you don't have to give a damn about what German law thinks as long as you aren't in a position in which German jurisdiction can be enforced. Likewise, even if you are a German citizen living in Germany some German laws and regulations may not apply if you are decidedly not offering your services/apps to a German audience -- though of course that's a much less safe position. Either way, it's not as simple as "it exists on the Internet, therefore it falls under German jurisdiction" although the reasoning is quite similar to that in Brazil.
The point is moot, anyway. Brazil can't enforce their laws against a US company that doesn't have a presence in Brazil, but it can ban them from Brazil -- as apparently a Brazilian court is allowed to force Internet access providers to ban specific IPs. Whether courts should be allowed to do that is a legitimate question but right now in Brazil they apparently are, so everything is fine.
This isn't an action against WhatsApp. This is an action against Brazilian WhatsApp users. It's basically enforcing a sanction against WhatsApp by preventing Brazilians from accessing the service (which they can't get at otherwise). This is more like a German court forcing an IP ban (in Germany) against a Nazi website hosted outside of Germany -- which is a thing.
All that law orders them to do is to record the access logs (Registros de Acesso), not the actual messages or any other metadata. Soneca's post above said the judge "ordered Whatsapp to share a particular user conversation", which that law doesn't oblige them to record.
This investigation is under seal. Soneca is speculating just as much as I am.
That is the law Watsapp broke the last two times it was interrupted (when the news was almost a verbatim copy of what it is now). I imagine it is the same it is breaking now.
Yes, I should have made it clearer.
That is the law Watsapp broke the last two times it was interrupted (when the news was almost a verbatim copy of what it is now). I imagine it is the same it is breaking now.
Yes, I should have made it clearer.
I think this statement weird. End-to-end encryption is very recent, the data asked by the judge is for communication made before this feature roll-out. So I'm assuming Whatsapp do have the information for these two particular cases. But I could be wrong.
Anyway, maybe they are just using it for PR support on their position against the court decision, betting that all of that Telegram new users will come back to Whatsapp after the suspension (that's what happened before).
Anyway, maybe they are just using it for PR support on their position against the court decision, betting that all of that Telegram new users will come back to Whatsapp after the suspension (that's what happened before).
WhatsApp publicly stated[1] in testimony before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes in December 2015 that they do not, and have not ever, retained the content of communications—regardless of E2E or not. Apparently, WhatsApp only retains messages until they are delivered.
[1] http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co...
[1] http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co...
When I buy a new cell phone my Whatsapp conversation history is lost but my Facebook message history is not. It's likely that Whatsapp discards the messages from their servers immediately after they confirm it has arrived to destination (the two check marks).
If the communication was made a long time ago, Whatsapp may no longer have it, encrypted or not.
If the communication was made a long time ago, Whatsapp may no longer have it, encrypted or not.
End-to-end encryption for Android to Android conversations has been in place since November 2014: https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/
[deleted]
You are assuming, just like the judge. That is not correct, you should trust in the company when they say that. The hole world works as that, trust. A judge cannot assume that they have that data, because they don't. This judge just dont have any tech acknowledge, thats the problem, people that dont understand what they are doing.
BTW, its not End-to-end encryption related, is just that they dont store that data in anywhere.
Do we know for sure what cases this particular order is connected to? Because WhatsApp has been encrypting Android communications since 2014 [0].
[0] https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/
[0] https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/
Surely they are physically able to answer the court?
That's my thinking -- an inability to comply could have been addressed with the court. Instead, it appears that they had no representation in front of the court in order to make that argument, have hearings and otherwise determine that compliance is impossible.
The merits of the case are one thing, however not appearing to address those merits (or lack thereof) seems to be the failure point.
But I could be wrong.
The merits of the case are one thing, however not appearing to address those merits (or lack thereof) seems to be the failure point.
But I could be wrong.
If it is impossible for you to drive legally - say, for example, you are blind - that does not permit you to then drive illegally.
When it comes to decisions this big, I always assume there's more than meets the eye.
You're probably aware of the statement Brazilian telcos made on the intent of charging according to bandwidth usage and it's public reaction. Which to me indicates that telcos are kinda desperate on trying to find new sources of revenue. And this happened not long after one big telco company acquired a big competitor. Add the fact that Brazilian telcos have already tried to shut down whatsapp before[0].
Whatsapp makes sms and mobile phone calls a pricey redundancy to anyone with access to wifi, no wonder they're desperate.
Do I have any evidence the two cases are related? no. But the flow of events is certainly interesting.
It just doesn't seem justifiable to restrict communication for millions of people due to a single case. As in, sure, arresting a drug dealer may be a good thing to society overall, but is that worth the limitation shutting down whatsapp imposes on Brazilian citizens?
The decision may be in agreement with the law, but is it in harmony with the law's ultimate purpose? which is to protect the interest of the society as a whole?
[0]http://www.zdnet.com/article/mobile-operators-unite-against-...
You're probably aware of the statement Brazilian telcos made on the intent of charging according to bandwidth usage and it's public reaction. Which to me indicates that telcos are kinda desperate on trying to find new sources of revenue. And this happened not long after one big telco company acquired a big competitor. Add the fact that Brazilian telcos have already tried to shut down whatsapp before[0].
Whatsapp makes sms and mobile phone calls a pricey redundancy to anyone with access to wifi, no wonder they're desperate.
Do I have any evidence the two cases are related? no. But the flow of events is certainly interesting.
It just doesn't seem justifiable to restrict communication for millions of people due to a single case. As in, sure, arresting a drug dealer may be a good thing to society overall, but is that worth the limitation shutting down whatsapp imposes on Brazilian citizens?
The decision may be in agreement with the law, but is it in harmony with the law's ultimate purpose? which is to protect the interest of the society as a whole?
[0]http://www.zdnet.com/article/mobile-operators-unite-against-...
There are lots of apps that let you send free sms over wi-fi, including Cacao (not sure of spelling, I don't use it but my partner does, seems popular in Korea?) and also why would the sale of iPhones with FaceTime and Messages not be an even greater threat than WhatsApp to telecom revenue?
I don't doubt the telecom companies are trying to control their market, but I doubt they are behind some huge conspiracy. It is more likely that the govt/courts are trying to control the flow and availability of user's data and are in cahoots with the telecoms companies who have close ties to govt.
I don't doubt the telecom companies are trying to control their market, but I doubt they are behind some huge conspiracy. It is more likely that the govt/courts are trying to control the flow and availability of user's data and are in cahoots with the telecoms companies who have close ties to govt.
"why would the sale of iPhones with FaceTime and Messages not be an even greater threat than WhatsApp to telecom revenue?"
There's no "would", whatsapp is a bigger threat. Simple math: number of whatsapp users > number of iphone owners.
As I said I don't know if the cases are related, I just laid down some well known and interesting facts. Your conclusion sounds perfectly reasonable to me (:
There's no "would", whatsapp is a bigger threat. Simple math: number of whatsapp users > number of iphone owners.
As I said I don't know if the cases are related, I just laid down some well known and interesting facts. Your conclusion sounds perfectly reasonable to me (:
Besides the point that Whatsapp does not have the data, how does it make sense to stop 100 million people from communicating to prosecute one drug dealer? If you look at it from the point of view of society as a whole the judge has done a lot more damage than the alleged drug dealer. The judge has other options, such as issuing fines, that won't disrupt the lives of millions of people.
Fines have been issued over and over. FB's president in Brazil has been arrested. What else do you suggest this judge (limited by what the law prescribes) should do?
Get a grip on reality and attain an understanding of how these communication systems work, then move on to other avenues of investigation
doesn't law there mandate retaining of all communications for service providers?
if that's the case, as hinted by other people, and whatsapp has been found in violation of that requirement, then blocking it seems the correct course of action (given the judge cannot change nor ignore the law)
the big IF is what the Brazilian communication law mandates to companies providing a service on their territory.
if that's the case, as hinted by other people, and whatsapp has been found in violation of that requirement, then blocking it seems the correct course of action (given the judge cannot change nor ignore the law)
the big IF is what the Brazilian communication law mandates to companies providing a service on their territory.
doesn't law there mandate retaining of all communications for service providers?
From what I can tell (I can read Portuguese, but I'm not versed in Brazilian law), that's only for ISPs.
From what I can tell (I can read Portuguese, but I'm not versed in Brazilian law), that's only for ISPs.
ISPs have to maintain access records for an year. Application providers for six months [1]
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/... (subsection III, article 15).
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/... (subsection III, article 15).
Access records, explicitly defined in that law as IP address plus date/time, not "all communications".
This ruling makes end-to-end encryption illegal where, a service provider at no time holds the keys to decrypt messages between communicating parties. This is a protocol decision and since the Snowden revelations, a point of concern for civil libertarians. The Apple v FBI debate is a child of these exact concerns. The idea that governments want to legislate unfettered access to private communications and devices should be met with skepticism and public scrutiny that this Brazilian case will hopefully provide.
I agree with you. And I think all this should be framed "is the law right? should we change it?"; instead is always presented as "an authoritarian, out of his league, small town judge who is arrogant and clueless about tech".
He is just following the law, so fight the law, no diminish the judge.
Remembering that a "single judge" following the law with authonomy launched the biggest attack on corruption of brazilian history, and the fact that he is not a supreme court justice acted in favor of an independent investigation (search "sergio moro" and "lava-jato" police investiagiont).
He is just following the law, so fight the law, no diminish the judge.
Remembering that a "single judge" following the law with authonomy launched the biggest attack on corruption of brazilian history, and the fact that he is not a supreme court justice acted in favor of an independent investigation (search "sergio moro" and "lava-jato" police investiagiont).
No, judges need to notice when a law creates a contradiction or a stupid scenario and not make such rulings. Judges are supposed to have "wisdom". Pointing at a broken law, then breaking communications for everyone hardly seems wise. Unless he's secretly hoping this will force a big change in law and government.
Correct,that is the point of judging otherwise we could build software to do it automatically.
Contradictions are one thing, but the stupidity of a law is subjective, and the judiciary should not be empowered to rule contrary to the law based on their opinion of it.
Which is not to say they shouldn't point out that it's ridiculous when they make their ruling, and suggest that the legislature fixes it quickly.
Which is not to say they shouldn't point out that it's ridiculous when they make their ruling, and suggest that the legislature fixes it quickly.
They are being asked to provide data that does not exist, and cannot be recreated. The stupidity of that is objective.
The ruling punishes Brazilians on order(s) of magnitude more than it'll Facebook(WhatsApp). This heavy-handed approach is a power grab.
This is the "too big to fail" that the GP described. Do you really want a world where a company can evade the law just by getting enough people to depend on it? An important idea of rule of law is that it applies equally to everyone, no matter how important they are. Once you make exceptions for powerful people or powerful companies, it can become corrupt and abused. No small local messaging app will have this protection that people demand should be given to Whatsapp. Why should the dominant player in a market be exempt from complying with laws that their competitors must follow?
It also happened before end-to-end encryption be available: http://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2015/12/operadoras-sa... (portuguese-br), so it's not necessarily about end-to-end encryption.
> This ruling makes end-to-end encryption illegal where, a service provider at no time holds the keys
The Big Company (like WhatsApp, Google, Apple) is always the easy target for subpoenas, judicial orders, and National Security Letters when it comes to encrypted transmissions.
Here's an idea for a legal maneuver to take Big Company out of the picture: Suppose crypto was handled by an open source 3rd-party program that was outside of the hands of Big Company. This 3rd-party program would encrypt/decrypt all incoming and outgoing messages, and the program would be mandatory.
If you want to use WhatsApp or other Big Company apps, you must install this open source and fully vetted program. Then if Big Company gets a subpoena, they can legitimately answer that they have absolutely no control over the encryption.
I'm going light on technical details because there are many ways that this could be implemented. The main idea is to insulate Big Companies from renegade legal attacks.
The Big Company (like WhatsApp, Google, Apple) is always the easy target for subpoenas, judicial orders, and National Security Letters when it comes to encrypted transmissions.
Here's an idea for a legal maneuver to take Big Company out of the picture: Suppose crypto was handled by an open source 3rd-party program that was outside of the hands of Big Company. This 3rd-party program would encrypt/decrypt all incoming and outgoing messages, and the program would be mandatory.
If you want to use WhatsApp or other Big Company apps, you must install this open source and fully vetted program. Then if Big Company gets a subpoena, they can legitimately answer that they have absolutely no control over the encryption.
I'm going light on technical details because there are many ways that this could be implemented. The main idea is to insulate Big Companies from renegade legal attacks.
Hey soneca, could you give me a transcript of the conversation between Dilma Rousseff and Lula da Silva on January 31st, 2011? If you can't, then you'll have to go to prison.
It's an irrational, unreasonable request, which makes it highly questionable as a legal ruling.
It's an irrational, unreasonable request, which makes it highly questionable as a legal ruling.
There is no legal basis to support the judge decision. A telecommunication service must keep records, but by the very difficult to understand Brazilian regulation, WhatsApp can not be considered a telecom service.
A service like WhatsApp is an over the top service, very much like any other communication service that you can use in the internets (like email), that does not need to comply to the telecom services regulations.
The truth is that the judge does not understand the matter being ruled and a single Judge closing a service used by 100m citizens is another proof of a very authoritarian and arrogant judiciary system.
A service like WhatsApp is an over the top service, very much like any other communication service that you can use in the internets (like email), that does not need to comply to the telecom services regulations.
The truth is that the judge does not understand the matter being ruled and a single Judge closing a service used by 100m citizens is another proof of a very authoritarian and arrogant judiciary system.
I am sorry, but your argument is idiotic. It boils down to "WhatsApp wasn't there to produce something they didn't have, so a district court judge managed to order a bunch of nonparties to the lawsuit to take down WhatsApp." That's like a district judge in NY ordering all the telcos to block all iPhones because Apple refuses to hack a phone for him. What kind of judicial system are you running there in Brazil? I am glad that you are in the minority, but that's no way to run a country.
Please take a look at the HN guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't really like seeing what is very very close to a personal attack ("your argument is idiotic", "I am glad you are in the minority...") in what should be a civilized place.
I don't really like seeing what is very very close to a personal attack ("your argument is idiotic", "I am glad you are in the minority...") in what should be a civilized place.
With all respect, how is that "very very close" to a personal attack? Sure, they're passionate, and frankly I disagree with other sides of what they've said in their comment, but it's not a personal attack in the slightest: it's a strongly worded indictment of the parent comment and the opinions expressed therein. There's nothing wrong with that, that's exactly how arguing works, at least in my opinion :)
It's not exactly one, but I think the tone is excessively aggressive. The words maybe not right on the money, but someone not carefully parsing them might easily find themselves feeling that way. Riding right on the edge isn't the greatest idea when you'd like people to interpret your words charitably.
You can be civil while disagreeing strongly. For instance, instead of calling something "idiotic" you could say "I disagree in the strongest possible terms. I do not believe your facts have a basis in reality." This is still somewhat rude, but a lot better as it avoids entangling their personage.
You can be civil while disagreeing strongly. For instance, instead of calling something "idiotic" you could say "I disagree in the strongest possible terms. I do not believe your facts have a basis in reality." This is still somewhat rude, but a lot better as it avoids entangling their personage.
Since we are talking about me, I might comment as well. Even the smartest and best people can, from time to time, have idiotic ideas, I sure had a few in my time :) To say that someone has an idiotic idea isn't the same as to call them an idiot. The original comment was a well presented, though flawed, argument, clearly NOT a work of an idiot. Further, for me to say "I am glad you are in the minority..." simply indicates that I disagree vehemently with the position the original commenter is taking and I am very happy that his position is not very popular, as that means that maybe things in Brazil will change for the better as the result of this.
I also find it ironic that in a post about censorship someone pulled out the HN censorship guidelines. I totally understand the context is completely different, but it's funny.
I also find it ironic that in a post about censorship someone pulled out the HN censorship guidelines. I totally understand the context is completely different, but it's funny.
[deleted]
Therein lies the rub. What's "legal" does not always mean it's right.
To hide behind "it's legal" to me is harmful to humanity as ofttimes the law is behind the curve, we can and should be better.
To hide behind "it's legal" to me is harmful to humanity as ofttimes the law is behind the curve, we can and should be better.
> Therein lies the rub. What's "legal" does not always mean it's right.
> To hide behind "it's legal" to me is harmful to humanity as ofttimes the law is behind the curve, we can and should be better.
I'm with you - but acting on your convictions and doing what's right should also mean accepting the consequences of the current laws. I for one am freaked out by a future where Multinationals get to pick and choose which laws they would like to follow because "the law is behind the curve". Uber's actions and general attitude suggest this future is actually now.
> To hide behind "it's legal" to me is harmful to humanity as ofttimes the law is behind the curve, we can and should be better.
I'm with you - but acting on your convictions and doing what's right should also mean accepting the consequences of the current laws. I for one am freaked out by a future where Multinationals get to pick and choose which laws they would like to follow because "the law is behind the curve". Uber's actions and general attitude suggest this future is actually now.
Thank you so much for this! The way Uber cherry picks the laws in the countries or even US states just disgusts me to no end. It would indeed be a scary future if multinational corporations get to infringe on countries' sovereign rights.
> I'm here to defend the judge's ruling, a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil.
Your position is very unpopular for several, very important reasons. Not the least of it is the shutdown of a communication service that is used by most of the population, on the grounds of a single case.
There are other ways to go about this issue. Starting by the Itamaraty(Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
Don't forget that this was a single judge, from a single state. By all means block whatsapp in that state if you must. But Brazil was supposed to be a federation.
Your position is very unpopular for several, very important reasons. Not the least of it is the shutdown of a communication service that is used by most of the population, on the grounds of a single case.
There are other ways to go about this issue. Starting by the Itamaraty(Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
Don't forget that this was a single judge, from a single state. By all means block whatsapp in that state if you must. But Brazil was supposed to be a federation.
> You can disagree with the law, but the law is there.
There is something called Civil disobedience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) and surely if you analyze every law system it contradicts itself.
There is something called Civil disobedience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) and surely if you analyze every law system it contradicts itself.
So, Facebook, a participant in PRISM, is now conducting civil disobedience. Totally believable.
Yahoo is also a participant in PRISM, and fought as hard as they could against it in secret court.
https://www.wired.com/2014/09/feds-yahoo-fine-prism/
I think it's safe to assume that all companies involved in PRISM aren't happy with it and tried their hardest to fight it.
https://www.wired.com/2014/09/feds-yahoo-fine-prism/
I think it's safe to assume that all companies involved in PRISM aren't happy with it and tried their hardest to fight it.
That isn't the same thing as civil disobedience
I was not talking about Facebook but about Brazilians.
Also, following your reasoning, if Facebook was a participant in PRISM, does it mean they don't have any right to fight? Privacy is at stake here, Facebook is only one problem instance.
Also, following your reasoning, if Facebook was a participant in PRISM, does it mean they don't have any right to fight? Privacy is at stake here, Facebook is only one problem instance.
> Privacy is at stake here
Are you arguing against the use of warrants in police investigations?
Are you arguing against the use of warrants in police investigations?
WhatsApp is the most popular end-to-end encrypted chat app in the world. Shutting it down for 100 million people not suspected or charged with any crime is an incredibly disproportionate, privacy-thwarting response to not being able to access user data in one criminal investigation.
> Shutting it down for 100 million people not suspected or charged with any crime is an incredibly disproportionate, privacy-thwarting response to not being able to access user data in one criminal investigation.
What proportional recourse do you suggest when Whatsapp are effectively in contempt of court (in absentia)? In most jurisdictions, obstructing the course of justice usually has heavy penalties.
What proportional recourse do you suggest when Whatsapp are effectively in contempt of court (in absentia)? In most jurisdictions, obstructing the course of justice usually has heavy penalties.
I am against the use of warrants when there is nothing to search...
> I am against the use of warrants when there is nothing to search...
End to end encrypting doesn't magically cause metadata to disappear. IP addresses, the times messages were sent and received are still useful to law enforcement. In this instance, the court want the IP address of the accused so they can follow up with the ISP.
I prefer warrants written out for specific individuals to dragnet surveillance.
End to end encrypting doesn't magically cause metadata to disappear. IP addresses, the times messages were sent and received are still useful to law enforcement. In this instance, the court want the IP address of the accused so they can follow up with the ISP.
I prefer warrants written out for specific individuals to dragnet surveillance.
I see your point, but what is scandalous in this decision is not that WhatsUp is being shut down, but the way this is happening. You have a judge from a remote jurisdiction in Brazil who has enough power to shut down the service in the whole country. I wound't be surprised if this resulted as a process that went through several levels of justice in Brasil, but the fact that any judge can block a service in the whole country is completely crazy and a direct threat to free expression in the country.
Of course, knowing Brazil as I do (I am Brazilian) I am not surprised that this is happening. In fact, judges these days feel that they have power to block even actions of the president of the Republic.
Of course, knowing Brazil as I do (I am Brazilian) I am not surprised that this is happening. In fact, judges these days feel that they have power to block even actions of the president of the Republic.
Well, a judge just like that had authonomy to launch the biggest attack on corruption of our history, with a much welcomed independence from political influence. So this is not always for the worst! :)
That's what you think. You seem glad that this is happening because the government is unpopular. But judges can use this power to attack any government. This doesn't sounds like an advantage to me.
> You seem glad that this is happening because the government is unpopular
I, for one, am glad this is happening because this administration has practiced an incredible variety of crimes, and deeply hurt the country in their hubris.
> judges can use this power to attack any government
A government isn't perpetually in power once it is elected. A government is always legitimizing itself, and it can lose its legitimacy as time passes. (In particular, it can lose its legitimacy if it sets up the largest corruption scheme in known history; uses dirty money to finance its campaigns; and secretly maneuvers to hide fiscal problems to support their reelection). Once the legitimacy is gone, a government can and should be attacked.
It is funny how PT government supporters are pragmatic when the judiciary doesn't suit them, and suddenly become strict legalists when they become its target.
I, for one, am glad this is happening because this administration has practiced an incredible variety of crimes, and deeply hurt the country in their hubris.
> judges can use this power to attack any government
A government isn't perpetually in power once it is elected. A government is always legitimizing itself, and it can lose its legitimacy as time passes. (In particular, it can lose its legitimacy if it sets up the largest corruption scheme in known history; uses dirty money to finance its campaigns; and secretly maneuvers to hide fiscal problems to support their reelection). Once the legitimacy is gone, a government can and should be attacked.
It is funny how PT government supporters are pragmatic when the judiciary doesn't suit them, and suddenly become strict legalists when they become its target.
> I, for one, am glad this is happening because this administration has practiced an incredible variety of crimes, and deeply hurt the country in their hubris.
What you said just proves my point. You're happy because you perceive this to your advantage. But this judicial power works both ways. In the future they can use this power to do whatever they want.
> A government isn't perpetually in power once it is elected.
True, that's why it is called a democracy. The government will be legitimate only until the next election. It's not a group of judges that can determine the legitimacy of a government.
> It is funny how PT government supporters
The fact that you consider me a PT supporter shows that you just care about your political position, not about the larger point around this issue. There are people pro and anti-goverment who see the big problem that is being created by the Brazilian judicial system. It doesn't matter what government is in power for this to be a problem.
What you said just proves my point. You're happy because you perceive this to your advantage. But this judicial power works both ways. In the future they can use this power to do whatever they want.
> A government isn't perpetually in power once it is elected.
True, that's why it is called a democracy. The government will be legitimate only until the next election. It's not a group of judges that can determine the legitimacy of a government.
> It is funny how PT government supporters
The fact that you consider me a PT supporter shows that you just care about your political position, not about the larger point around this issue. There are people pro and anti-goverment who see the big problem that is being created by the Brazilian judicial system. It doesn't matter what government is in power for this to be a problem.
> What you said just proves my point. You're happy because you perceive this to your advantage.
No, I'm happy because our institutions are working. What I said doesn't support your point at all.
> But this judicial power works both ways. In the future they can use this power to do whatever they want.
If, in the future, another government does something remotely similar to what the current government did, I sure hope they (the judiciary) do.
> True, that's why it is called a democracy. The government will be legitimate only until the next election.
It will be legitimate until when it is no longer legitimate, which can happen - and did happen - before the next election.
> It's not a group of judges that can determine the legitimacy of a government.
I agree. Thankfully, it is not "a group of judges" that are leading the impeachment. It our Parliament and our civil society, including the Bar Association of Brazil.
> The fact that you consider me a PT supporter shows that you just care about your political position
No, it shows that I know how to read. How does the obvious, undeniable fact that you support the current government prove that I only care about my political position?
> not about the larger point around this issue. There are people pro and anti-goverment who see the big problem that is being created by the Brazilian judicial system. It doesn't matter what government is in power for this to be a problem.
I'm sorry, but I do not believe you. There are way more similarities than differences between this impeachment process and Collor's impeachment process. Were you as concerned back then? Nothing has happened now that wasn't scrutinized by multiple layers of the judiciary. Nothing has happened that wasn't discussed for hours, days, weeks on end by both our chambers. Everything against the government is strongly supported by evidence in a variety of formats. I don't think you are honestly concerned about our political system. You are concerned about the survival of this particular administration. Well, our democracy is maturing, our judiciary is maturing, and thankfully, though sadly, our President - who has committed "crimes de responsabilidade" - is going down.
Edit: removed harsh language.
No, I'm happy because our institutions are working. What I said doesn't support your point at all.
> But this judicial power works both ways. In the future they can use this power to do whatever they want.
If, in the future, another government does something remotely similar to what the current government did, I sure hope they (the judiciary) do.
> True, that's why it is called a democracy. The government will be legitimate only until the next election.
It will be legitimate until when it is no longer legitimate, which can happen - and did happen - before the next election.
> It's not a group of judges that can determine the legitimacy of a government.
I agree. Thankfully, it is not "a group of judges" that are leading the impeachment. It our Parliament and our civil society, including the Bar Association of Brazil.
> The fact that you consider me a PT supporter shows that you just care about your political position
No, it shows that I know how to read. How does the obvious, undeniable fact that you support the current government prove that I only care about my political position?
> not about the larger point around this issue. There are people pro and anti-goverment who see the big problem that is being created by the Brazilian judicial system. It doesn't matter what government is in power for this to be a problem.
I'm sorry, but I do not believe you. There are way more similarities than differences between this impeachment process and Collor's impeachment process. Were you as concerned back then? Nothing has happened now that wasn't scrutinized by multiple layers of the judiciary. Nothing has happened that wasn't discussed for hours, days, weeks on end by both our chambers. Everything against the government is strongly supported by evidence in a variety of formats. I don't think you are honestly concerned about our political system. You are concerned about the survival of this particular administration. Well, our democracy is maturing, our judiciary is maturing, and thankfully, though sadly, our President - who has committed "crimes de responsabilidade" - is going down.
Edit: removed harsh language.
> As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure you're downright lying
Please avoid this kind of hubris here to keep discourse civil.
Please avoid this kind of hubris here to keep discourse civil.
Ta, you have a point. I apologize and will remove the harsh language.
> You have a judge from a remote jurisdiction in Brazil
Irrelevant.
> judges these days feel that they have power to block even actions of the president of the Republic.
Thankfully so. Presidents are not above the law.
Irrelevant.
> judges these days feel that they have power to block even actions of the president of the Republic.
Thankfully so. Presidents are not above the law.
That's the problem with the mentality of Brazilians these days. There is a concept called jurisdiction for a reason. Judges make decisions that are tied to their jurisdiction, and if necessary those decisions could be disputed at higher levels up to the supreme court. If you accept that any judge can make decisions for the whole country you have just installed the chaos in the judicial system, because you have to fight judges all over the country to do anything. That's what happening here with WhatsUp, for example.
The case of the president is even scandalous. Many Brazilians are happy with these arbitrary decisions because the government is unpopular. But the same thing can happen now to any government, making Brazil practically impossible to govern properly.
The case of the president is even scandalous. Many Brazilians are happy with these arbitrary decisions because the government is unpopular. But the same thing can happen now to any government, making Brazil practically impossible to govern properly.
> if a judge order the company to share a specific user data, the company must comply.
> They would have lawyers fighting against the decision to share the user data and this would be solved by the justice system (never coming to have its activity suspended).
So what would happen? Like you said that law, if you paraphrased it correctly, is very clear - how would lawyers shouting about it actually help? Would they change the law the first time WhatsApp fight back? Presumably not - otherwise the law would be pointless wouldn't it? So how would that stop their activity being suspended?
I'm trying to avoid jumping to conclusions, but to give you a chance to just tell me I'm wrong - is this protectionism?
> They would have lawyers fighting against the decision to share the user data and this would be solved by the justice system (never coming to have its activity suspended).
So what would happen? Like you said that law, if you paraphrased it correctly, is very clear - how would lawyers shouting about it actually help? Would they change the law the first time WhatsApp fight back? Presumably not - otherwise the law would be pointless wouldn't it? So how would that stop their activity being suspended?
I'm trying to avoid jumping to conclusions, but to give you a chance to just tell me I'm wrong - is this protectionism?
"If they disobey the law, it must have consequences, no matter how big and important to brazilian society they are."
Well, law does not work this way. Execution of law MUST comply with some rules, e.g. proportionally. Lack of proportionally (execution will harm 100 m people, no less) is the sound reason to suspend the order. Note I dont agree o disagree with the law.
Well, law does not work this way. Execution of law MUST comply with some rules, e.g. proportionally. Lack of proportionally (execution will harm 100 m people, no less) is the sound reason to suspend the order. Note I dont agree o disagree with the law.
I am Brazilian as well and feel the same way. Laws are laws. We can change them if we don't like them, but defying and ignoring them is the wrong course of action.
>I am Brazilian as well and feel the same way. Laws are laws. We can change them if we don't like them, but defying and ignoring them is the wrong course of action.
This almost sounds like fundamentalist religion, to say the law is that sacrosanct. Some bad laws have historically been overcome precisely by people ignoring them, rendering them effectively unenforceable.
This almost sounds like fundamentalist religion, to say the law is that sacrosanct. Some bad laws have historically been overcome precisely by people ignoring them, rendering them effectively unenforceable.
> Some bad laws have historically been overcome precisely by people ignoring them, rendering them effectively unenforceable.
On the other hand, some good laws have also been overcome by people ignoring them. For example laws governing limitation of police power (search, detention etc.), traffic laws (speeding, jaywalking, aggressive driving against cyclists, a relevent example in Brazil is ignoring of traffic lights). If it gets to the stage where everyone is doing it, then the authorities no longer care.
I don't know whether WhatsApp has the requested data or not, but I think overall this action is a good thing: it shows that even important (in Brazilian society) companies are not above Brazilian law and if there is a problem with what this judge did, or the power he's wielding, then it should, hopefully, lead to that being fixed.
The alternative is ignoring and not enforcing the law, and ending up with bad laws, which can then be selectively enforced (see Böhmermann affair for example). This may appeal to some, but it's clearly not for everyone.
On the other hand, some good laws have also been overcome by people ignoring them. For example laws governing limitation of police power (search, detention etc.), traffic laws (speeding, jaywalking, aggressive driving against cyclists, a relevent example in Brazil is ignoring of traffic lights). If it gets to the stage where everyone is doing it, then the authorities no longer care.
I don't know whether WhatsApp has the requested data or not, but I think overall this action is a good thing: it shows that even important (in Brazilian society) companies are not above Brazilian law and if there is a problem with what this judge did, or the power he's wielding, then it should, hopefully, lead to that being fixed.
The alternative is ignoring and not enforcing the law, and ending up with bad laws, which can then be selectively enforced (see Böhmermann affair for example). This may appeal to some, but it's clearly not for everyone.
> Laws are laws.
This is horrible reasoning.
This is horrible reasoning.
Thank you for the perspective from "the other side". Whether or not one agrees with it is another thing, but it's necessary to get the missing context which your post fulfills.
> But Whatsapp simply ignored brazilian justice system as if it was above the law. For me, all of this is Whatsapp fault.
Whatsapp deletes its messages from its servers after delivery. So it can't even provide the messages even if it wanted to.
Also, since end-to-end encryption, the as-yet-undelivered messages sitting on Whatsapp servers are encrypted. Whatsapp has no way to actually read them.
Whatsapp deletes its messages from its servers after delivery. So it can't even provide the messages even if it wanted to.
Also, since end-to-end encryption, the as-yet-undelivered messages sitting on Whatsapp servers are encrypted. Whatsapp has no way to actually read them.
> Whatsapp deletes its messages from its servers after delivery. So it can't even provide the messages even if it wanted to.
That's not a valid excuse for any law I'm aware of. It's your responsibility to be aware of, and to comply with, laws in places you do business in. To be clear, this is a terrible law, and I think Whatsapp should absolutely not concede to it. But just so we're clear, "I didn't know any better" isn't an excuse for breaking the law.
That's not a valid excuse for any law I'm aware of. It's your responsibility to be aware of, and to comply with, laws in places you do business in. To be clear, this is a terrible law, and I think Whatsapp should absolutely not concede to it. But just so we're clear, "I didn't know any better" isn't an excuse for breaking the law.
I think you're confused, but I can't think of any clearer way to explain this to you. I suggest you try to read my post again.
>* Brazilian law regarding regarding privacy of users of internet services is very recent and clear: if a judge order the company to share a specific user data, the company must comply. You can disagree with the law, but the law is there.*
So? Like Jim Crow laws, merely "being there" is too little justification for a law.
So? Like Jim Crow laws, merely "being there" is too little justification for a law.
How was the justice system able to communicate the shutdown order, but not able to communicate the request for user data?
Because they ordered the shutdown to brazilian internet providers. These internet providers company block the access for Whatsapp services. And they are more than happy to comply, as they hate Whatsapp for taking their SMS revenue. But they are in fact only obeying an justice order.
They are specially pissed off by whatsapp's free voice calls.
Ah. I wondered why the ISP's seemed so happy to comply.
Can't WhatsApp set up it's communications in a way that makes blocking them break a lot of other unrelated things?
They can simply block network traffic. They don't need WhatsApp to shut itself for Brazilians.
Because the shutdown is done by ISPs, but the request for user data can be ignored by WhatsApp.
Brazil's faltering economic performance has a lot to do with this style of heavy-handed regulation.
Well, this alone will not make WhatsApp comply with the law, specially if these conversations were encrypted.
Also, there also has to be a consideration for the 100 MILLION users that might depend on this service. Imagine companies that depend on this to communicate efficiently and businesses that rely on this platform to take orders etc.
If they disobey the law, it must have consequences, but not at the cost of hurting your own people.
Taking it to an extreme, would they also take down a bank website if they didn't comply with a similar request and stop people from withdrawing money? I don't think so.
This takedown will not help in the investigation in any ways. So it seems the justice system isn't working for their main customer: the people.
Also, there also has to be a consideration for the 100 MILLION users that might depend on this service. Imagine companies that depend on this to communicate efficiently and businesses that rely on this platform to take orders etc.
If they disobey the law, it must have consequences, but not at the cost of hurting your own people.
Taking it to an extreme, would they also take down a bank website if they didn't comply with a similar request and stop people from withdrawing money? I don't think so.
This takedown will not help in the investigation in any ways. So it seems the justice system isn't working for their main customer: the people.
> Whatsapp is "too big to fail"
What a terrible analogy.
What a terrible analogy.
Do you understand that the judge is requesting something that is impossible? The data simply doesn't exist on WhatsApp's servers. Facebook cannot provide this data, because they don't have it. The chat is fully encrypted from one phone to another, and the unencrypted text doesn't ever touch their servers. Sure, the judge might order Facebook to install a backdoor and be able to grab unencrypted messages off a user's phone in the future. But apparently this is about a case that happened in the past. There is literally nothing they can do. Does the judge not understand this?
Too big to fail makes no sense here. If you're that big, it's actually easier for you to have an office in every major company where you do business and comply with regulations.
So you think the great firewall of China is also a good thing?
So 100M people have to suffer because one person mis-used a tool? That's disproportionately harsh punishment and not to defend in any case.
Unfortunately I think the Judge does not understand the context here, users of whatsapp will simply use another messaging app - the role of a messaging app is not to store users conversations but relay them.
Any messaging app that actively stores conversations, and then turns them over to anyone when requested will simply not be used by the public (or if it is, it won't be for very long).
Any messaging app that actively stores conversations, and then turns them over to anyone when requested will simply not be used by the public (or if it is, it won't be for very long).
> But the problem is: Whatsapp have no offices or operations in Brazil.
No, the problems is that with encryption, whatsapp cannot satisfy the judge's order anyways! Instead of showing such colossal ignorance, the judge needs to ask some CS/crypto experts if it's possible or not.
This is like the judge handing a company a 2048-bit number and ordering it to factor it! Now!
No, the problems is that with encryption, whatsapp cannot satisfy the judge's order anyways! Instead of showing such colossal ignorance, the judge needs to ask some CS/crypto experts if it's possible or not.
This is like the judge handing a company a 2048-bit number and ordering it to factor it! Now!
But WhatsApp doesn't have the information. It's like ordering Fedex to turn over a package that they've already delivered.
You've missed the point. The judge is in his right to punish the company, you don't have to defend that.
But to punish ONLY the company, not it's users.
He could impose heavy financial penalties, for instance. But affecting the life of 200 mm users? No way ...
But to punish ONLY the company, not it's users.
He could impose heavy financial penalties, for instance. But affecting the life of 200 mm users? No way ...
The data is simply not there. Especially with the new end to end encryption system. The best they could do, if they could do that, is give you undelivered encrypted messages.
Unless they've been lying to us all along.
Unless they've been lying to us all along.
>> "a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil"
Curious if you have an explanation of why given it appears the majority of your friends do not support this, why do you and they do not?
Curious if you have an explanation of why given it appears the majority of your friends do not support this, why do you and they do not?
Well, it is Whatsapp's fault if they're that easy to block! Brazil is a pretty big user base. Maybe they ought to come up with a workaround?
Whatsapp is end to end encrypted and won't have the data.
Why can't the judge order the ISP to turn over the contents of the conversation, then shut the ISP down for failing to comply?
> But Whatsapp simply ignored brazilian justice system as if it was above the law.
Ignoring and evading broken justice systems and immoral laws is exactly what people who believe in freedom should do, whether it's in Brazil, the US, or any other fucked up political system.
Ignoring and evading broken justice systems and immoral laws is exactly what people who believe in freedom should do, whether it's in Brazil, the US, or any other fucked up political system.
My favorite answer to justice requests from American companies (Google, Facebook etc) is that their servers are in other country so they don't have to obey Brazilian laws. BTW, it is easy prove wrong issuing a "ping" and knowing the speed of light.
If you had a server set up in Brazil that did something perfectly legal in Brazil, but flaunted US law, would you want to be beholden to US law?
It's not a flip answer. I operate a business on the App Store in part knowing that I'm bound by US law, not the laws of random countries. My app is available in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, and so on. They are more than welcome to block the traffic from our servers based on their local laws, but I am not bound by the laws of Saudi Arabia - and neither should you be.
It's not a flip answer. I operate a business on the App Store in part knowing that I'm bound by US law, not the laws of random countries. My app is available in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, and so on. They are more than welcome to block the traffic from our servers based on their local laws, but I am not bound by the laws of Saudi Arabia - and neither should you be.
If you sell your services to American individuals and companies, paying American taxes for it, announce in USA, target American market -- like they all do in Brazil -- then the answer is yes.
while (true) {
printf("There are unjust laws. The law can't be above the people. Laws are not a moral absolute.");
}
Whatsapp is literally unable to comply with the order. It's like the judge ordered a submarine to invade Lesotho - it's not something the submarine can do, it's not within their technical capabilities.
It is ok - you won't understand.
It is still punishing millions of innocent users and of my executives were being arrested for technicalities I wouldn't have anybody in the country either.
It is a stupid law, a retard of a judge who should have applied proportional harm based on how many innocents this hurts.
At 100 million, somebody will likely due because they couldn't get a ride and end up with a stranger.
At 100 million, somebody will likely due because they couldn't get a ride and end up with a stranger.
Unlike in N. America, in Brazil a lot of businesses depend on WhatsApp. You can talk with your doctor, call a plumber, claim insurance.
On billboards no one puts a website address or an email, just phone number and WhatsUp.
That's an economy cripling move and it's shocking how one judge can do it.
More important. Why aren't congressmen creating rules to prevent these monopolies ?
?? Can't tell if serious.
Unless whatsapp did something to wreck their competition in Brazil, any effective monopoly they possess is by virtue of people choosing to use their system over other systems.
This sort of effective monopoly cannot and ought not be stopped unless the monopoly power is abusing their position. And how would you when it's a choice people have made? Mandate that every 5th person mustn't use WhatsApp?
Unless whatsapp did something to wreck their competition in Brazil, any effective monopoly they possess is by virtue of people choosing to use their system over other systems.
This sort of effective monopoly cannot and ought not be stopped unless the monopoly power is abusing their position. And how would you when it's a choice people have made? Mandate that every 5th person mustn't use WhatsApp?
Monopoly isn't even about market size it's about companies exploiting their market position using anti-competitive practices. There is no indication WhatsApp has done any of this except being the most popular product in a highly competitive and open market.
Principally, a monopoly is precisely about market share. Anti-trust and monopoly laws exist for situations where such monopolies are created by unethical or illegal means or when they abuse their monopoly position (directly with ability to charge customers for products and services, or indirectly by somehow shutting down competition).
And that's where, as you point out, WhatsApp hasn't done anything wrong. Even if they have a de facto monopoly in Brazil, unless they've done something other than what I've seen in the US, it's almost certainly the result of network effects and nothing to do with illicit practices.
And that's where, as you point out, WhatsApp hasn't done anything wrong. Even if they have a de facto monopoly in Brazil, unless they've done something other than what I've seen in the US, it's almost certainly the result of network effects and nothing to do with illicit practices.
Indeed, most monopoly rulings have happened in markets with competing oligopolies.
With at least Claro whatsapp is free there[1], not sure about the other telcos. And yes, people use it. I just spent a few weeks there and for every call there were like 50 whatsapp-messages.
[1] http://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/telecommunications/claro-b...
[1] http://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/telecommunications/claro-b...
The fact a simple messaging service outperforms giant, monopolistic telecoms should speak volumes to the level of kleptocracy present in Brazil.
This judicial ruling is a political power grab. Ask yourself this, who does banning WhatsApp actually punish more? Facebook or the people of Brazil? It's the latter by a mile. Standing behind the "law is the law" is a cop out when the law was clearly written by and for the domestic telecom industry. WhatsApp will set a dangerous precedent if they change their internal operations at the demand of any regulation.
This judicial ruling is a political power grab. Ask yourself this, who does banning WhatsApp actually punish more? Facebook or the people of Brazil? It's the latter by a mile. Standing behind the "law is the law" is a cop out when the law was clearly written by and for the domestic telecom industry. WhatsApp will set a dangerous precedent if they change their internal operations at the demand of any regulation.
I'm not sure what law you can make to change people's favorite choice of Instant Messenger.
Do we need more proof? The Internet is broken. A few months back there were protests against government in my country (also in South America). That day I witnessed how Twitter images were selectively blocked. (I remember reporting it here on HN). What was really scary is how they could select the pictures/videos to block, almost in realtime. Here we have about 5 ISPs serving 95% of the market (counting both mobile and landline) and all hook to a couple of bigger pipes to move ALL Internet traffic in/out of the country.
Try as I might but can't understand why we do not break free from centralized communications, given that we already have both the hardware and software technology to do so.
I like an old saying: when banging your head against a stonewall, you will always break the head and never the wall. So, what do we gain from discusing politics? What do we gain with laws written on paper but bent for the best bidder? Let's be pragmatic, in particular on a site like HN. We shouldn't be talking about the law, whether it is right or wrong, we should be discusing how many nodes do we need on a mesh network to solve communications for a city like Sao Paulo. Is the tech there yet? Can it get there? Who's advancing on these subjects? How can we help? (like really help not writting useless letters to congressmen)
Don't bang your head on the stonewall...
Try as I might but can't understand why we do not break free from centralized communications, given that we already have both the hardware and software technology to do so.
I like an old saying: when banging your head against a stonewall, you will always break the head and never the wall. So, what do we gain from discusing politics? What do we gain with laws written on paper but bent for the best bidder? Let's be pragmatic, in particular on a site like HN. We shouldn't be talking about the law, whether it is right or wrong, we should be discusing how many nodes do we need on a mesh network to solve communications for a city like Sao Paulo. Is the tech there yet? Can it get there? Who's advancing on these subjects? How can we help? (like really help not writting useless letters to congressmen)
Don't bang your head on the stonewall...
Apps exist that route around censorship. People need to inform themselves. We are in an era where encryption and self-sustenance are deemed scary and suspicious.
If all of these 100m users were on FireChat, this headline wouldn't exist.
If all of these 100m users were on FireChat, this headline wouldn't exist.
Not sure, we tried Firechat among friends and family on the last aftermath of an earthquake and some had problems installing or activating it. Also, it just drains the battery. However, I agree with you, the technology to circumvent centralized and censored communications is already there, it just needs adoption and improvement. But we need to think bigger, not only chats, we need a free Internet.
I am so tired of these “takedowns” and other brute-force methods that are used to essentially squash ants. It always seems way, way too easy to do, and the collateral damage is way too high.
The Internet needs to start acting like a series of dumb pipes again: so dumb that you have no idea where information really is, and so huge so as to be impractical for anyone to control.
Consider highway systems. For roads, the only way to “shut down” somebody’s access without controlling every road, everywhere is to have some idea where your target is. And even then, you probably have to control several access points to really keep that target from moving. And unless they live at the end of a single country road that you control, being draconian about road control is usually going to be very hard and probably impossible. And that is a good thing, because if shutting down highways made any sense then a hell of a lot of people would be inconvenienced on a regular basis (or worse than inconvenienced, if they were in an ambulance or something).
Blocking Internet tools is arguably far worse than blocking highways because networks transport an almost incomprehensibly-large amount of information and the effects are vast. By the same token, seizure of a device is arguably far worse than seizure of something like a truck because a device can effectively provide access to someone’s entire life and not just the little bit of information that an authority is seeking.
Enough paranoid blocking and seizure, let’s try to focus on world progress.
The Internet needs to start acting like a series of dumb pipes again: so dumb that you have no idea where information really is, and so huge so as to be impractical for anyone to control.
Consider highway systems. For roads, the only way to “shut down” somebody’s access without controlling every road, everywhere is to have some idea where your target is. And even then, you probably have to control several access points to really keep that target from moving. And unless they live at the end of a single country road that you control, being draconian about road control is usually going to be very hard and probably impossible. And that is a good thing, because if shutting down highways made any sense then a hell of a lot of people would be inconvenienced on a regular basis (or worse than inconvenienced, if they were in an ambulance or something).
Blocking Internet tools is arguably far worse than blocking highways because networks transport an almost incomprehensibly-large amount of information and the effects are vast. By the same token, seizure of a device is arguably far worse than seizure of something like a truck because a device can effectively provide access to someone’s entire life and not just the little bit of information that an authority is seeking.
Enough paranoid blocking and seizure, let’s try to focus on world progress.
The reality is still a few big telcos/ISPs operating the infrastructure, so government has zero problems mandating filtering/wiretapping/blocking.
And since laying fiber is expensive, and putting up sats is even more expensive, and running a mesh through the continent is pretty unfeasible, we're stuck with these economically optimal big targets (the ISPs/telcos).
As long as there is a network operator with access to core and edge routers, blocking is easy. And by the nature of BGP and the Internet you'll always know who to ask next to filter something.
Or you can use Tor and-or a VPN. Multi-homing for times like this should be set up by default in operating systems.
And since laying fiber is expensive, and putting up sats is even more expensive, and running a mesh through the continent is pretty unfeasible, we're stuck with these economically optimal big targets (the ISPs/telcos).
As long as there is a network operator with access to core and edge routers, blocking is easy. And by the nature of BGP and the Internet you'll always know who to ask next to filter something.
Or you can use Tor and-or a VPN. Multi-homing for times like this should be set up by default in operating systems.
Telex? https://telex.cc/software.html
As long as you can connect to an ISP implementing the protocol, which is outside of the targeted jurisdiction, you should be able to access the destination site.
As long as you can connect to an ISP implementing the protocol, which is outside of the targeted jurisdiction, you should be able to access the destination site.
This is exactly why operating many small Murmur and/or XMPP servers is a better approach than relying on a single big-co's proprietary service with which you no signed SLA. Just like game servers, it's easy to operate a community Murmur server and it's also possible to set up one on your home router given the low bandwidth and hardwre requirements.
Yet, if I suggest that I prefer Mumble over closed source voice chat or centrally provided WebRTC service like appear.in, people downvote me or treat me a like a luddite.
But I do understand that given the comfort of a centrally managed WhatsApp, it's hard to resist.
The only reason there are no fancy mobile clients is that those who would build them are doing it for the silo'd Vibers, Skypes, and WhatsApps.
Comfort seems to trump reliability.
Yet, if I suggest that I prefer Mumble over closed source voice chat or centrally provided WebRTC service like appear.in, people downvote me or treat me a like a luddite.
But I do understand that given the comfort of a centrally managed WhatsApp, it's hard to resist.
The only reason there are no fancy mobile clients is that those who would build them are doing it for the silo'd Vibers, Skypes, and WhatsApps.
Comfort seems to trump reliability.
> Comfort seems to trump reliability.
Everything is centralized because of one simple reason: you can't monetize distributed.
So, as a developer, if I want paid, I'm going to make a centralized system. The fact that the centralized system is way easier to develop/debug is just a bonus.
As a user, I'm going to use the system that has the easiest installability/usability cross section. That app is likely to be the one that gets the most developer time. The one that gets the most developer time is likely to be the one that lets the developers get paid.
And thus, the circle is closed, and the feedback loop begins.
Everything is centralized because of one simple reason: you can't monetize distributed.
So, as a developer, if I want paid, I'm going to make a centralized system. The fact that the centralized system is way easier to develop/debug is just a bonus.
As a user, I'm going to use the system that has the easiest installability/usability cross section. That app is likely to be the one that gets the most developer time. The one that gets the most developer time is likely to be the one that lets the developers get paid.
And thus, the circle is closed, and the feedback loop begins.
You can monetize a fancy client that's commercial.
You can monetize hosting Mumble servers.
Decentralized services are much harder, but at some point we have to prefer them and use federation as a means to have something like a global network of continents of servers (or realms in MMO lingo).
My point is that as long as we don't pursue decentralized services, we won't get them. There are efforts for people to host everything privately, and with ipv6 I like to think it's only a matter of time until all IoT devices can be repurposed as servers.
You can monetize hosting Mumble servers.
Decentralized services are much harder, but at some point we have to prefer them and use federation as a means to have something like a global network of continents of servers (or realms in MMO lingo).
My point is that as long as we don't pursue decentralized services, we won't get them. There are efforts for people to host everything privately, and with ipv6 I like to think it's only a matter of time until all IoT devices can be repurposed as servers.
Distributed means spam. That's not a solved issue. Email sorta gets around it with tons of filtering. On IM, spam is much more annoying (it's assumed you'll get lots of junk email even if not spam).
In what way does a centralized server prevent spam? You'll only receive messages after you've accepted the contact request, so the worst that can happen is contact request spam.
How would this prevent Telco/mobile operators from blocking XMPP traffic with Murmur headers?
The technical details of the court orders has nothing to do with shutting down WhatsApp servers or coercing them into doing a MITM on their own customers...
Not that I disagree that decentralization helps add resiliency against state intervention but this particular threat model requires a different solution. Such as preventing ISPs from being able to block your traffic.
The technical details of the court orders has nothing to do with shutting down WhatsApp servers or coercing them into doing a MITM on their own customers...
Not that I disagree that decentralization helps add resiliency against state intervention but this particular threat model requires a different solution. Such as preventing ISPs from being able to block your traffic.
It's easier to force a company to block access in a certain country, but if you run the servers or there are various parties hosting it for you, you have a higher chance of still using it.
But, that might of course require disobedience until the laws are declared invalid in front of the supreme court. I'm no activist, but the way politics has been meddling with the Internet convinced me that we have to fight to keep existing freedoms.
But, that might of course require disobedience until the laws are declared invalid in front of the supreme court. I'm no activist, but the way politics has been meddling with the Internet convinced me that we have to fight to keep existing freedoms.
The same holds for Telegram and Signal.
> The Telephone, Used by 300M Americans, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge
Try rationalizing this headline. All communication services, whether they are "apps", "networks", "utilities", etc... should fall in some category of protection where such things cannot happen.
Try rationalizing this headline. All communication services, whether they are "apps", "networks", "utilities", etc... should fall in some category of protection where such things cannot happen.
2nd time in less than 12 months.
probably, we are going to see a surge in telegram downloads/usage today.
A true shame since Telegram is just as centralized as WhatsApp, minus the strong end-to-end encryption. Should it become the de facto messaging app for Brazilians, the next judge will just block Telegram instead.
But decentralized communication networks that work mobile first are hard, we all know it, so there's room for improvement, randomizing server addresses on a daily rotation, or whatever may render pointless these blockades.
But decentralized communication networks that work mobile first are hard, we all know it, so there's room for improvement, randomizing server addresses on a daily rotation, or whatever may render pointless these blockades.
WhatsApp could incorporate obfuscation proxies if they wanted to. Like the Tor connection bridges that exist to help get around a Tor block.
Maybe only activated once they detect a threat or something.
Maybe only activated once they detect a threat or something.
Yes, it's happening, more than 1M accounts* created by brazilians today.
[1]: https://twitter.com/telegram_br/status/727201106166689792
[1]: https://twitter.com/telegram_br/status/727201106166689792
Too bad they're switching to a messenger that can easily be subverted by governments and doesn't come with E2E encryption by default. Might as well use Hangouts or Skype.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2016/04/30/russia-telegram-h...
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2016/04/30/russia-telegram-h...
I prefer open source software that lacks features (e.g. E2E, which could be implemented by someone), than proprietary software that "supposedly" has some features (like E2E) which you cannot verify (that is, Whatsapp says they have that feature, but their software not being opensource cannot guarantee anyone that they are stating the truth).
The solution to this isn't a legal one, unfortunately. We can no longer trust the government, of what ever nation, period. In US we have Clinton and Trump as the presumptive nominees, both will be terrible for privacy and liberty. The solution is for WhatsApp (and others) to design a protocol that runs over common ports and encrypts end to end the communication and the protocol. Make it impossible to block without costly deep packet inspections and banning of thousands and thousands random relays, and it will not be blocked.
Would a p2p architecture thwart this kinda blocking?
Probably yes, my concern is that this can be exactly what judges, telcos and its lobbyists want.
They could use this in the future to justify blocking client-to-client connections, implement deep packet inspection, maybe even transform internet in Brazil in a deny-by-default network, where only allowed content would be accessed.
Too much of a conspiracy theory? Maybe yes, but given the current political turmoil in Brazil, I wouldn't be surprised.
Not if the App Store is still in the mix. It's a centralized distribution failure point for the app.
This is only really a problem for unjailbroken iOS devices. On every other platform decentralized distribution is a solved problem with many different solutions.
Next law will make it illegal to have whatsapp installed on your phone. Your turn?
You can't fix social problems with technology. The issue here is Brazilian law and the failure to understand the implications of encryption by the courts, not WhatApp's connection architecture.
I assert, and I think many of us here are moved by the notion that, as time moves forward, technological solutions tend to be confounding for entrenched power structures and empowering for social liberation.
I don't really know how to parse "you can't fix social problems with technology," but I have much more confidence in the growing power of, for example, uncensorable media than I do in any fantasy of change in the nature of government.
My sense is that government will be co-opted by the rich to excuse violence against the poor, and that this rule will apply in proportion to the size of the government and the size of the landmass over which it claims dominion. Technology seems to be the cultural foil to this trend.
I think that "you can't fix social problems with technology" is too oversimple and too absolute to have real meaning in the current techno-political environment.
I don't really know how to parse "you can't fix social problems with technology," but I have much more confidence in the growing power of, for example, uncensorable media than I do in any fantasy of change in the nature of government.
My sense is that government will be co-opted by the rich to excuse violence against the poor, and that this rule will apply in proportion to the size of the government and the size of the landmass over which it claims dominion. Technology seems to be the cultural foil to this trend.
I think that "you can't fix social problems with technology" is too oversimple and too absolute to have real meaning in the current techno-political environment.
Then let me be more clear; you can't get around laws with technology. You have to change the laws. Proposing to make something peer to peer doesn't address the actual problem, the law.
As there are countries where laws cannot be changed, technological solutions can fix the problems once and for all.
Even in "democratic" country, you would still have to fight the lobbyists, corporate controlled media and so on.
Even in "democratic" country, you would still have to fight the lobbyists, corporate controlled media and so on.
> As there are countries where laws cannot be changed
No, there aren't.
> technological solutions can fix the problems once and for all
No, they can't. Oppression can't be fixed by circumventing the law as it just leaves the government more power to enable selective enforcement which is the ideal way to scare people into compliance.
No, there aren't.
> technological solutions can fix the problems once and for all
No, they can't. Oppression can't be fixed by circumventing the law as it just leaves the government more power to enable selective enforcement which is the ideal way to scare people into compliance.
There's no such thing as a country whose laws can't be changed. Only countries where the people don't care enough to do what's necessary to change them.
[deleted]
Oh, now I understand North Korea's problems!
Actually, thinking about it, North Koreans can at least argue that China will intercede in their political and economic affairs to the extent necessary to keep them subjugated. So I'll give you that.
But what's Brazil's excuse?
But what's Brazil's excuse?
Do you have an actual argument? People get the government they deserve.
Really? Because Uber and AirBnB seem to be doing a pretty good job of using technology to get around laws.
edit: Actually here is a REALLY easy answer. What about Pirating and Torrenting. Do you really believe that this peer to peer technology hasn't massively helped people get around copyright laws?
edit: Actually here is a REALLY easy answer. What about Pirating and Torrenting. Do you really believe that this peer to peer technology hasn't massively helped people get around copyright laws?
Or Sci-Hub and Libgen.
>You can't fix social problems with technology
This is an increasingly popular meme, and I have some sympathy for the sentiment that we shouldn't ignore the political process, but ultimately it's twaddle - a backlash against the staggering impact that technology has had and will continue to have. Exhibit A: the printing press.
In this case it's even pragmatically untrue. Make a communications platform that's technically impossible to block, and government will not make itself look foolish attempting to block it. Even the US government, who dearly wanted to kill encryption for the masses before it got off the ground in the 90s, was forced to back off after the tide of encryption technology proved un-stemmable.
This is an increasingly popular meme, and I have some sympathy for the sentiment that we shouldn't ignore the political process, but ultimately it's twaddle - a backlash against the staggering impact that technology has had and will continue to have. Exhibit A: the printing press.
In this case it's even pragmatically untrue. Make a communications platform that's technically impossible to block, and government will not make itself look foolish attempting to block it. Even the US government, who dearly wanted to kill encryption for the masses before it got off the ground in the 90s, was forced to back off after the tide of encryption technology proved un-stemmable.
> Make a communications platform that's technically impossible to block, and government will not make itself look foolish attempting to block it.
Actually that's exactly what they'll do just as they continue to try with DRM. Governments don't care about looking foolish, they care about maintaining power and they will do so even if it requires outlawing said technology.
Actually that's exactly what they'll do just as they continue to try with DRM. Governments don't care about looking foolish, they care about maintaining power and they will do so even if it requires outlawing said technology.
Sure you can!
Imagine if Brazil tried to ban Bitcoin. How successful do you think they would be?
Imagine if Brazil tried to ban Bitcoin. How successful do you think they would be?
Very. For the moment, you have to take your salary in your local currency. Therefore, you need an exchange to get Bitcoins, and the exchanges can be shut down.
People said The Great Firewall would never work. They were wrong about that, too.
The real world CAN infringe on the networked world--quite strongly.
People said The Great Firewall would never work. They were wrong about that, too.
The real world CAN infringe on the networked world--quite strongly.
Drugs are (highly) illegal but most people I know are at most two phone calls away from scoring whatever they want whenever they want.
I imagine if some third-world countries with capital controls banned Bitcoin, it would look similar (having to call your Bitcoin dealer and pay a markup to move money out of the country but otherwise easily accessible to those in-the-know).
I imagine if some third-world countries with capital controls banned Bitcoin, it would look similar (having to call your Bitcoin dealer and pay a markup to move money out of the country but otherwise easily accessible to those in-the-know).
> Drugs are (highly) illegal but most people I know are at most two phone calls away from scoring whatever they want whenever they want.
And yet most people don't. Knowing you can do something illegal, and doing it, are vastly different things.
And yet most people don't. Knowing you can do something illegal, and doing it, are vastly different things.
> And yet most people don't.
If people's life savings depended on circumventing capital controls, they would find a way. It's already a reality in China [1] and (until recently) Argentina [2].
Hell, where I'm from (Canada) 43% of people admit to having smoked marijuana in their lifetimes. And that's just breaking the law for fun, not serious practical reasons like saving $xx,xxx when your crappy central bank decides to inflate away your bank account.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/china-s-sm...
[2] http://www.buenostours.com/getting-the-best-exchange-rate-fo...
If people's life savings depended on circumventing capital controls, they would find a way. It's already a reality in China [1] and (until recently) Argentina [2].
Hell, where I'm from (Canada) 43% of people admit to having smoked marijuana in their lifetimes. And that's just breaking the law for fun, not serious practical reasons like saving $xx,xxx when your crappy central bank decides to inflate away your bank account.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/china-s-sm...
[2] http://www.buenostours.com/getting-the-best-exchange-rate-fo...
You're looking at the actions of a very few people and making unjustified sweeping conclusions about what everyone is willing to do. A very small minority of the populations in both those countries are breaking the law to get their money around capital controls, that doesn't in any way challenge the point that most people won't.
Most people break drug laws at some point in their lives just for fun, still not relevant to the fact that most don't most of the time.
Most people obey most laws most of the time, especially ones that can get them into serious trouble. No amount of anecdotes of some people this or some people that changes that fact. Laws matter.
Most people break drug laws at some point in their lives just for fun, still not relevant to the fact that most don't most of the time.
Most people obey most laws most of the time, especially ones that can get them into serious trouble. No amount of anecdotes of some people this or some people that changes that fact. Laws matter.
> Most people obey most laws most of the time
I think you're inverting the causation. Of course things that most people do most of the time would not be illegal, those laws would be very difficult to introduce and sustain politically.
> especially ones that can get them into serious trouble
It's not enough for a law to carry a heavy penalty, people have to believe they can/will get caught and the penalty will apply to them. Which is true for robbery and capital murder but not so with drug use, capital controls, porn bans (click here if you're 18), copyright, etc.
> Laws matter.
Only if someone has the ability, will, and the resources to consistently enforce them. Which is to say, they would not matter in third-world countries with mismanaged economies where people need to break the law to buy BTC/USD.
I think you're inverting the causation. Of course things that most people do most of the time would not be illegal, those laws would be very difficult to introduce and sustain politically.
> especially ones that can get them into serious trouble
It's not enough for a law to carry a heavy penalty, people have to believe they can/will get caught and the penalty will apply to them. Which is true for robbery and capital murder but not so with drug use, capital controls, porn bans (click here if you're 18), copyright, etc.
> Laws matter.
Only if someone has the ability, will, and the resources to consistently enforce them. Which is to say, they would not matter in third-world countries with mismanaged economies where people need to break the law to buy BTC/USD.
It's true for drug use as well, but that's not the point. The point is laws do deter, they don't prevent everyone, but they can easily kill mass adoption of anything. You can try to skirt around that all you like, but it's true none the less. Bitcoin is not special in this regard, if the US outlawed it, mass adoption would not be an option. And no, you don't need consistent enforcement of laws to make them intimidating, selective enforcement does that too.
At the rate bitcoin is being used to circumvent capital exports restrictions, there's no need for imagination. Just wait a bit for government to figure it out.
Extremely, believe it or not, most people aren't willing to break the law to use new technology. If the government says something is illegal, that'll kill most usage of it.
The court doesn’t care about encryption – they only want the IP address of the user, so they can identify them.
The judge – which has experience with E2E encryption – says he knows he can’t get the messages.
The judge – which has experience with E2E encryption – says he knows he can’t get the messages.
Sure, E2E is not enough. One would need plausible deniability from technologies like mixnet etc.
I agree, but it's still important to try.
Nations seem to care alot about "cyberattacks".
Yet a single well-positioned person has the power to disrupt a mass communication service for 72 hours.
Without a single keystroke.
Impressive.
My sister worked closely with many of the parties involved in the "Marco Civil", Brazil's brilliant Internet Bill of Rights. Two years later, I feel much of her work was in vain. No significant legislation was enacted from it and lately judges are trying to circumvent common sense by brute force. Now over 100M people are unable to use their communication platform of choice for 72h. In the meanwhile, congressmen are busy impeaching the president and calling it an act of god, probably as a device to expiate their own sins. It would make a good argument for a Game of Thrones clone series, some would say. And my sister, she's been out of the job since last January. She was let go when local NGOs ran out of money for fighting for an open internet. It seems freedom is the first thing that runs out in a recession. Scarcity is a bitch.
Seems like a hint that we should design our means of communication to resist single points of failure.
For the record, WhatsApp has had end-to-end encryption enabled for Android<>Android since 2014. And 92.4% of smartphones in Brazil use Android: http://www.statista.com/statistics/245189/market-share-of-mo...
So it is very unlikely they have any plaintext data for the users in question. Especially if the investigation happened recently since the roll-out of E2E on all devices.
Additionally, it's possible WhatsApp did not even store old messages for non-encrypted devices beyond a certain timeframe.
So it is very unlikely they have any plaintext data for the users in question. Especially if the investigation happened recently since the roll-out of E2E on all devices.
Additionally, it's possible WhatsApp did not even store old messages for non-encrypted devices beyond a certain timeframe.
WhatsApp have said they don't store the messages anyway, whether they were sent in plain text or not.
Also any such records would be stored on servers in the US, not Brazil, so would be subject to US law. The Brazillian judge should be entering a request with the US DOJ but is either too much of an idiot or too busy doing political grandstanding with stupid futile gestures like this.
Also any such records would be stored on servers in the US, not Brazil, so would be subject to US law. The Brazillian judge should be entering a request with the US DOJ but is either too much of an idiot or too busy doing political grandstanding with stupid futile gestures like this.
They should shut down access to the whole internet in Brazil, then. It happens to be full of companies, forums, services and data networks which probably don't give a rat's sit-upon about what the law in Brazil or any other country says but just keep on transmitting messages and bits from user to user.
I don't think being a messenger should come with obligations to divulge private persons' conversations or, more generally, bits to anyone. Local laws can force local companies to do so but it has nothing much to do with internet: a letter remailing company (or, the post office, as we used to say in the 1900's) could provide similar service.
To generalise, all private communications reduce down to talking in private. If you really had to, you could talk to your friend in private and there's nothing any government could do to retrieve those conversations back after the fact. Technological means just make the communication more flexible but it should not mean the conversation should become less private just because it happens on the internet instead of the local backwoods.
In fact, when governments (across the globe) do that it will only motivate creating solutions which make it impossible for the company to hand over their customer's data, with end-to-end and client-side encryption. Yet all governments do see that it's their right to make demands because it's always the easy thing to do.
I don't think being a messenger should come with obligations to divulge private persons' conversations or, more generally, bits to anyone. Local laws can force local companies to do so but it has nothing much to do with internet: a letter remailing company (or, the post office, as we used to say in the 1900's) could provide similar service.
To generalise, all private communications reduce down to talking in private. If you really had to, you could talk to your friend in private and there's nothing any government could do to retrieve those conversations back after the fact. Technological means just make the communication more flexible but it should not mean the conversation should become less private just because it happens on the internet instead of the local backwoods.
In fact, when governments (across the globe) do that it will only motivate creating solutions which make it impossible for the company to hand over their customer's data, with end-to-end and client-side encryption. Yet all governments do see that it's their right to make demands because it's always the easy thing to do.
This has nothing to do with massive surveillance, dragnets, etc. It's a simple and very specific criminal investigation where people have been found to be using WhatsApp to coordinate drug trafficking activities. The judge is just following the law and asking Facebook/WhatsApp to cooperate in identifying these people (and is being met with resistance).
Tech giants in this area are just facing their own karma for having allowed dragnets schemes to be used in their networks. If they had denounced those activities and continued to only allow targeted surveillance with a court order, we wouldn't have this trust crisis that prompts them to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's technically possible for these companies to come up with ways to identify specific people targeted by court orders so criminals can be identified and punished by their respective country's laws. They simply won't because it will be their word against the vast evidence that they have allowed dragnet activities in the past, which will cause a backslash everywhere.
Tech giants in this area are just facing their own karma for having allowed dragnets schemes to be used in their networks. If they had denounced those activities and continued to only allow targeted surveillance with a court order, we wouldn't have this trust crisis that prompts them to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's technically possible for these companies to come up with ways to identify specific people targeted by court orders so criminals can be identified and punished by their respective country's laws. They simply won't because it will be their word against the vast evidence that they have allowed dragnet activities in the past, which will cause a backslash everywhere.
Umm, but the issue is that WhatsApp CAN'T comply with the order, because they do not have access to the communications (because they are using end to end encryption).
I have no idea what you mean by "come up with ways to identify specific people targeted by court orders"... they aren't being asked to identify anyone, they are being asked to hand over unencrypted communication, which they do not have access to.
I have no idea what you mean by "come up with ways to identify specific people targeted by court orders"... they aren't being asked to identify anyone, they are being asked to hand over unencrypted communication, which they do not have access to.
Maybe this isn't in the international news, but one of the prosecutors in this case specifically said they understand e2e encryption prevents FB/WhatsApp from handing out the messages but they want at least the IP addresses so those can be followed up with the local telco companies to identify who is the subscriber. It's business as usual and, AFAIK, FB/WhatsApp has been denying all requests equally. There was specific mention of "no cooperation at all" which would be a subjective statement saying the company is not willing to find ways to help this criminal case in good faith.
I think the term "in contempt of court" is what is happening here, although my vocabulary for law terms is limited.
I think the term "in contempt of court" is what is happening here, although my vocabulary for law terms is limited.
The details are under seal, you simply can not know that.
Brazil has no law ordering companies to collect communication contents (and it would be against our Constitution). Instead, there is a law requiring them to collect IP addresses of sender and receiver of messages, and storing them for 6 months in case a court requests them.
This is information Facebook has, and this is the law they broke last time the service was blocked.
Brazil has no law ordering companies to collect communication contents (and it would be against our Constitution). Instead, there is a law requiring them to collect IP addresses of sender and receiver of messages, and storing them for 6 months in case a court requests them.
This is information Facebook has, and this is the law they broke last time the service was blocked.
Ah ok. I guess I am misinformed.
End to end encryption in Whatsapp is extremely recent, I doubt the information the judge is after falls under that.
https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/
"The most recent WhatsApp Android client release includes support for the TextSecure encryption protocol, and billions of encrypted messages are being exchanged daily. The WhatsApp Android client does not yet support encrypted messaging for group chat or media messages, but we'll be rolling out support for those next, in addition to support for more client platforms. We'll also be surfacing options for key verification in clients as the protocol integrations are completed."
This was in 18 Nov 2014. The latest announcement from last month was:
"Over the past year, we've been progressively rolling out Signal Protocol support for all WhatsApp communication across all WhatsApp clients. This includes chats, group chats, attachments, voice notes, and voice calls across Android, iPhone, Windows Phone, Nokia S40, Nokia S60, Blackberry, and BB10.
As of today, the integration is fully complete. "
"The most recent WhatsApp Android client release includes support for the TextSecure encryption protocol, and billions of encrypted messages are being exchanged daily. The WhatsApp Android client does not yet support encrypted messaging for group chat or media messages, but we'll be rolling out support for those next, in addition to support for more client platforms. We'll also be surfacing options for key verification in clients as the protocol integrations are completed."
This was in 18 Nov 2014. The latest announcement from last month was:
"Over the past year, we've been progressively rolling out Signal Protocol support for all WhatsApp communication across all WhatsApp clients. This includes chats, group chats, attachments, voice notes, and voice calls across Android, iPhone, Windows Phone, Nokia S40, Nokia S60, Blackberry, and BB10.
As of today, the integration is fully complete. "
[deleted]
Brazilian here.
I've always used Telegram for privacy purposes.
It was amazing to watch the flood of friends "just signing up".
I've always used Telegram for privacy purposes.
It was amazing to watch the flood of friends "just signing up".
Although it has to be said that Telegram does not offer true end-to-end encryption by default. For general-purpose usage, WhatsApp may actually be considered more secure than Telegram.
Indeed Telegram is not more secure than WhatsApp, but I usually take into account the position of each company and how that affects my particular use case.
Telegram secure chats are more secure than Whatsapp's recent encryption because the code is open source.
Whatapp's uses the Signal Protocol Java, which is open source.
https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepap...
https://github.com/WhisperSystems/libsignal-protocol-java
https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepap...
https://github.com/WhisperSystems/libsignal-protocol-java
Oh ffs, here we go again.
Yes, the signal protocol and signal's implementation are both open source, but you have no way to actually verify that WA has actually implemented the protocol correctly and securely. Sure you could do some basic packet analysis but this wouldn't tell you about the presence of any remotely triggered backdoors.
The only way for you as a user to actually verify the security is by reading the source and compiling the software yourself, or reading the source and verifying the signature via reproducible builds.
I really don't understand the business decision process here. If they just copied Signal with OSS/FOSS code and reproducible builds they would just win outright and tech people wouldn't have anything to complain about. The value of the service is the network anyway -- why care so much about the client?
Yes, the signal protocol and signal's implementation are both open source, but you have no way to actually verify that WA has actually implemented the protocol correctly and securely. Sure you could do some basic packet analysis but this wouldn't tell you about the presence of any remotely triggered backdoors.
The only way for you as a user to actually verify the security is by reading the source and compiling the software yourself, or reading the source and verifying the signature via reproducible builds.
I really don't understand the business decision process here. If they just copied Signal with OSS/FOSS code and reproducible builds they would just win outright and tech people wouldn't have anything to complain about. The value of the service is the network anyway -- why care so much about the client?
There are many ways that both WA and Telegram can be subverted/backdoored/messed up. What it really comes down to, is who do you trust? Do you trust WA or Telegram? Personally, I trust WA a lot more than Telegram since WA has Moxie on their team and Telegram says, "Trust us" and a very unreasonable security challenge. I naturally don't trust people that say "Trust us" and put up unreasonable security challenges.
WhatsApp are owned by a company that is known to cooperate with PRISM. For that reason, I can't trust them.
You can just decompile the program. Binaries aren't a magic black box. Given how much FB stands to lose by lying, is imminent l unlikely they think they can get away with hiding stuff in an Android app. As much as I despise FB, this isn't one of the reasons. (Using WhatsApp still gives them metadata and contact info.)
This.
While it is true that Telegram's clients are open-sourced, their server-side code is not. So we don't know how information is stored on the server (I do not think that it is encrypted).
Closed source servers are no problem in verifying E2E encryption if the client is open source. Whatsapp's issue is that the clients are closed source. Telegram's issue is that it's optional to encrypt your messages. That's the long and short of this whole Whatsapp versus Telegram discussion.
But... Telegram isn't E2E encrypted so is less private..?
I mean, it's not blocked so I guess it's better than nothing but it's not a plus for privacy: it's a net negative.
I mean, it's not blocked so I guess it's better than nothing but it's not a plus for privacy: it's a net negative.
Telegram's secret chats are E2E encrypted.
Using an unexamined and unpublished encryption algorithm. Encryption is hard and when someone says "trust us", you know they are implementing poor encryption.
If you think everything has to be "published" in the sense of a publication in a scientific paper, hacker news is probably a disappointing place. As for unexamined, the bounty for actually cracking the encryption is still open last I heard, and I know people have been trying.
As someone professionally involved in cyber security, I fully understand and agree with the criticism that the protocol is non-standard and does not follow several best practices. On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that it hasn't been cracked yet, despite Telegram being one of the bigger messaging services in the world (especially one attracting a tech-savvy audience) and receiving a lot of attention.
The very least Telegram-haters could do is acknowledge Whatsapp's equally big problem: we cannot verify a thing. Facebok could have either open sourced the clients or published the outer shell of the wire protocol so we can verify the E2E encryption. They chose to do neither.
As someone professionally involved in cyber security, I fully understand and agree with the criticism that the protocol is non-standard and does not follow several best practices. On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that it hasn't been cracked yet, despite Telegram being one of the bigger messaging services in the world (especially one attracting a tech-savvy audience) and receiving a lot of attention.
The very least Telegram-haters could do is acknowledge Whatsapp's equally big problem: we cannot verify a thing. Facebok could have either open sourced the clients or published the outer shell of the wire protocol so we can verify the E2E encryption. They chose to do neither.
The title makes it sound much worse than it is -- it's actually only a 72-hour shutdown. From the beginning of the article:
> A BRAZILIAN STATE JUDGE ordered mobile phone operators to block nationwide the extremely popular WhatsApp chat service for 72 hours...
> A BRAZILIAN STATE JUDGE ordered mobile phone operators to block nationwide the extremely popular WhatsApp chat service for 72 hours...
It is as bad as they make it sound. WhatsApp is the biggest form of communication in Brazil. It would be effectively the same as SMS and phone calls being disabled in the U.S. (or maybe just like the effect of blocking StackOverflow for all programmers ;))
[deleted]
Anyone know how WhatsApp is being blocked?
The judge ordered mobile operators to block it. It's on them to set up the firewall rules / null routes / etc.
IP blocking at the carrier level.
[deleted]
I feel a bit silly for asking, but do you have a source? There is loads of misinformation going around in this thread. Are you from Brazil and do you observe this, or did you read it somewhere?
Please, don't feel silly for asking anything! Yes, I'm brazillian and in Brazil, work with telcos and follow the surveillance/censorship subject very closely. I can point you to some legal documents if you want but they're all in portuguese (and in baroque legalese to boot!).
Okay, thanks for the response!
That should be fairly easy to circumvent. Just setup clouds of proxies. As with Tor and China. In AWS etc.
Good. Now they can all switch to Signal.
Why should that be any different? Signal and WhatsApp are functionally equivalent from this perspective. Both are end-to-end encrypted and therefore targets, and both are dependent on centralized, blockable servers and therefore vulnerable.
1) If people were to switch, it would bring more people onto a platform that is not tied to Facebook, a company that loathes privacy.
2) Signal is free software, including the messaging server (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Server). This makes it less sensitive to take-downs (anyone could set up an alternate server), and makes third-party security code audits possible.
2) Signal is free software, including the messaging server (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure-Server). This makes it less sensitive to take-downs (anyone could set up an alternate server), and makes third-party security code audits possible.
Those are nice to have, but neither would change anything about this current situation.
Servers are nice but questionably useful when each one would be living in its own universe, in need of its own app, given Signal architecture.
Servers are nice but questionably useful when each one would be living in its own universe, in need of its own app, given Signal architecture.
I'm going to guess that this isn't only affecting consumers. Governments and businesses gradually (sometimes informally) adopt tools their employees use outside work. Tools that are convenient, consistent and prevalent are especially valuable.
If this becomes the "new normal", I'd expect to see criminals launching more burglaries and terrorists launching more attacks during the service shut-downs. If you know your target is in a weakened state, you're going to take advantage of it.
If this becomes the "new normal", I'd expect to see criminals launching more burglaries and terrorists launching more attacks during the service shut-downs. If you know your target is in a weakened state, you're going to take advantage of it.
This is why we need decentralization.
And I'm sure we'll not grab the opportunity to use a descentralized messaging protocol. It's like people want somebody to exploit them.
I hope that someday someone smarter than me figures out how to make a truly free internet that isn't bound to be undermined by laws, ISPs, and hosting providers. Of course you would still be free to program censorship into your own walled garden, but the substrate would not be controllable by anyone. I used to think that the Internet was that, but it's proven not to be almost daily.
The only way is for every home to have its own node in a web so it is entirely private, but one still needs to cross the oceans and deserts.
Is telegram also blocked, I think it sounds like a good alternative that people can use now, if it's not already blocked.
A better alternative would be Signal https://whispersystems.org/
Telegram is a terrible alternative. Messages aren't even end to end encrypted by default and they're kept accessible on Telegrams servers. See the recent news on how a russian activists Telegram account got hacked giving them access to all stored messages: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2016/04/30/russia-telegram-h...
Also this:
Thomas H. Ptacek: By default Telegram stores the PLAINTEXT of EVERY MESSAGE every user has ever sent or received on THEIR SERVER.
Edward Snowden: I respect @durov, but Ptacek is right: @telegram's defaults are dangerous. Without a major update, it's unsafe.
https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/678065993587945472
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/678271881242374144
https://twitter.com/moxie/status/678219238394298372
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/678274362609426432
And the response from Pavel where he admits that security isn't a priority
https://twitter.com/durov/status/678305311921410048
Telegram is a terrible alternative. Messages aren't even end to end encrypted by default and they're kept accessible on Telegrams servers. See the recent news on how a russian activists Telegram account got hacked giving them access to all stored messages: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2016/04/30/russia-telegram-h...
Also this:
Thomas H. Ptacek: By default Telegram stores the PLAINTEXT of EVERY MESSAGE every user has ever sent or received on THEIR SERVER.
Edward Snowden: I respect @durov, but Ptacek is right: @telegram's defaults are dangerous. Without a major update, it's unsafe.
https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/678065993587945472
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/678271881242374144
https://twitter.com/moxie/status/678219238394298372
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/678274362609426432
And the response from Pavel where he admits that security isn't a priority
https://twitter.com/durov/status/678305311921410048
Sounds Telegram is the type of messaging system that the judge would like Brazil to use.
I agree that Signal would be a better alternative, I've been trying to convince my family to use it over WhatsApp.
But wouldn't Signal be vulnerable to this type of block too, as they are centralized?
But wouldn't Signal be vulnerable to this type of block too, as they are centralized?
"Sorry, Brazil! Your mobile networks can't process as many verification SMS as we're sending them. Over a million users joined, more waiting"
https://twitter.com/telegram/status/727200237308227585
https://twitter.com/telegram/status/727200237308227585
Some brazil users started to - Actor (actor.im)
Disclaimer: CEO of Actor and Ex-Telegram employee.
Disclaimer: CEO of Actor and Ex-Telegram employee.
That app looks really cool!
I was looking at the Actor Developer Hub, there is a guide explaining how to install an Actor Server. Does that mean that Actor is decentralized? How does that work?
I was looking at the Actor Developer Hub, there is a guide explaining how to install an Actor Server. Does that mean that Actor is decentralized? How does that work?
We are working on it, right now servers are not connected together. We are planning to integrate with Matrix.org.
Any ETA on that? I would be huge.
Sorry, but not ETA yet :( If you know good scala developers that wish to join us to implement this then it will be faster.
Telegram gets hit hard every time WhatsApp gets blocked in Brazil. It's happened 2x before (at least).
How exactly are they shutting it down? Are all ISPs ordered to block it?
"Politics is the art by which politicians get money from the rich and votes from the poor on the pretext of protecting each from the other" -- Oscar
Simple solution (just 4 steps).
Instal Orbot (tor proxy), run it, setup Settings->Select apps->What's up and give the finger to your censors.
Instal Orbot (tor proxy), run it, setup Settings->Select apps->What's up and give the finger to your censors.
I'm not saying the judge did the wrong thing but I think one could avoid this kind of problems by using decentralized services.
What I find interesting the most is that they have 100M users in Brazil, yet they don't have an office there.
Maybe this is a great opportunity for whatsapp competitors? Especially brazilian?
Makes me wonder why people aren't making a self-hostable IM system that govt can host and ask it's citizens to use. There can be a setting to switch end to end enable/disable encryption.
I am not being entirely facetious. It's after all how Cisco made a lot of money by selling IDS equipment.
I am not being entirely facetious. It's after all how Cisco made a lot of money by selling IDS equipment.
I suspect that most (neoliberalist) governments do not feel that it is their job if the market is handling it. Also, people seem to trust megacorporations like Facebook more than their own government for private communication, although I am profoundly troubled by this naive majority view on privacy — I'd rather have my communications end-to-end encrypted without some huge corporation or any government harvesting my (meta)data; it's just too easy to abuse.
just a passing thought, would this happen to have anything to do with privacy and surveillance concerns? seems oddly suspicious this comes after WhatsApp announces end to end encryption
Google, Used by 1B+ Chinese, Blocked Nationwide for Years by GFW.
First its iPhone/Apple. Now its WhatsApp/Facebook.
Someone needs to create sane international e-commerce laws.
I guess the question is "Who?"
and I thought only India had technically laid back judges.
this is my shitty country and his shitty law.
What most people outside of Brazil don't realize is that WhatsApp is almost universally used by Brazillians to communicate about EVERYTHING, even your doctor [0][1]. My wife is Brazillian and uses it to communicate with her family in Brazil every day. This will have disastrous consequences for Brazilians domestically and internationally. This policy is being put in place by unelected judges and cartel of monopolistic telcos - all at the expense of the people.
[0]http://www.cityam.com/230372/digital-health-wearables-and-ap... [1]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-brazilians-use...
[0]http://www.cityam.com/230372/digital-health-wearables-and-ap... [1]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-brazilians-use...
That sounds incredibly dystopian. A proprietary communication protocol made by a foreign company dominating all communications without recourse sounds like something out of 1984.
I mean, if your doctor is using it, you know you are screwed the day Facebook does anything you disagree with, because you are wholly dependent on them at that point. That was why we even developed interoperable federated messaging protocols over 15 years ago, apparently the world forgot about how bad the 90s were.
I mean, if your doctor is using it, you know you are screwed the day Facebook does anything you disagree with, because you are wholly dependent on them at that point. That was why we even developed interoperable federated messaging protocols over 15 years ago, apparently the world forgot about how bad the 90s were.
Dystopian only in the mind of a sci-fi fan. In practice it's a free communication service that helped millions to connect. No one forced people to use WhatsApp like something from 1984, people chose it from the various alternatives.
In fact, a lot of people prefer Telegram, and a lot use neither, preferring good old cellphone conversations. Oh wait, isn't that a closed protocol that dominates all offline communications? How dystopian...
In fact, a lot of people prefer Telegram, and a lot use neither, preferring good old cellphone conversations. Oh wait, isn't that a closed protocol that dominates all offline communications? How dystopian...
You are under the impression that people in 1984 are forced into that position. These situations don't happen by force, it's gradual change over time, like the frog you slowly boil.
What is dystopian is the amount of control corporations have on our day to day lives, as well as the freedom to study and follow our every moves and thoughts and do so for profit or other ends. That is dystopian, not the technology itself, the usage that they make of it and the obliviousness of the vast majority of its users as to what they are up to with it.
What is dystopian is the amount of control corporations have on our day to day lives, as well as the freedom to study and follow our every moves and thoughts and do so for profit or other ends. That is dystopian, not the technology itself, the usage that they make of it and the obliviousness of the vast majority of its users as to what they are up to with it.
The whole point is being forced to do it or not. I do not use Facebook, any Google service or anything that could track me, because I care. There's no control here, I'm not being forced to use those services and even if I were to use them - like most people who do not care for their privacy - it's just information being voluntarily shared. It makes no difference for them, and they can stop using those services/use an alternative any time they want.
GSM (assuming that's what is used in Brazil) isn't free of patents, but at least everyone could (in theory) start their own telecom company and compete with the another ones. And I assume in reality (even in Brazil) customer could switch from a telecom operator to another if they are not happy with the service provided by the first one.
If I want to communicate to some another WhatsApp user, I need to use WhatsApp.
If I want to communicate to some another WhatsApp user, I need to use WhatsApp.
What does one thing have to do with another? If I want to communicate with you on HN I need a HN account. How is that dystopian or what does it have to do with protocols?
If you want to communicate with another person you can use Telegram or whatever you want.
If you want to communicate with another person you can use Telegram or whatever you want.
Some people will never be happy with proprietary software
It's not without recourse. It's just a system that became a defacto standard. If WhatsApp goes away for good, surely everyone will move on to something else, maybe even considering the "centralizedness" of it, but the transition costs are there, especially on a case with such short notice.
> A proprietary communication protocol made by a foreign company dominating all communications without recourse sounds like something out of 1984.
Yes but still better than orkut, I guess...
Yes but still better than orkut, I guess...
Don't forget, a lot of diseases are hereditary, so your children are screwed as well.
That's quite an overstatement. People know how to adapt. On the first court order, people were posting on Facebook about how to connect using VPN providers. Millions others downloaded Telegram.
I, for one, think that this kind of thing is a very good example on why we should NEVER rely on closed services. Whatsapp may be doing all of the right things (creating new features, improving privacy, keeping the product free and separate from FB), but it is still closed.
I, for one, think that this kind of thing is a very good example on why we should NEVER rely on closed services. Whatsapp may be doing all of the right things (creating new features, improving privacy, keeping the product free and separate from FB), but it is still closed.
What's your definition of 'closed'?
I cannot interact with WhatsApp users without registering an account with WhatsApp and running proprietary code published by WhatsApp. Compare with email, where I can email friends at whatever provider without registering with them or having to run their code.
Additionally, you can't even use WhatsApp without a mobile phone number, and effectively you need a smartphone with a supported mobile operating system of their choosing. That's pretty closed.
No, it won't have disastrous consequences. It happened last year as well
Typical authoritarian act by a lower court judge that will be reversed in 1 or 2 days
Nothing to see here
Typical authoritarian act by a lower court judge that will be reversed in 1 or 2 days
Nothing to see here
> Nothing to see here
I feel like this is an overly dismissive attitude to have, even, or especially if, everything you said is true and this is some common behavior.
I feel like this is an overly dismissive attitude to have, even, or especially if, everything you said is true and this is some common behavior.
Unfortunately this became common for Brazilians in the last few years. Judges are perceived as having extraordinary powers over everyone's lives. In the last few months, lower court judges have blocked actions of the president of the republic. They have also put in jail some of the richest people in the country, supposedly for corruption, but also for political reasons.
> They have also put in jail some of the richest people in the country, supposedly for corruption, but also for political reasons.
Yes, the owner of the biggest construction company in Brazil, that had a sector dedicated for paying bribes, was "supposedly" arrested for corruption.
What a joke
Yes, the owner of the biggest construction company in Brazil, that had a sector dedicated for paying bribes, was "supposedly" arrested for corruption.
What a joke
Depends on how you define disastrous. As pointed out several other times in the comments, several commercial activities rely on WhatsApp on several levels.
Even blocking for a few hours causes several man-hours to be spent in setting up alternatives. And lots of telephone costs, as well, since many companies - including those with technicians on the field, sometimes in another state - use that to communicate instead.
Even blocking for a few hours causes several man-hours to be spent in setting up alternatives. And lots of telephone costs, as well, since many companies - including those with technicians on the field, sometimes in another state - use that to communicate instead.
Or maybe WhatsApp could comply with the law?
Others have said they don't have the data. How can they comply, then?
Well sounds like they basically ignored the court[1]. If you don't bother turning up to defend yourself in court, you'll almost certainly lose.
WhatsApp should decide how much they care about Brazil. If they care, they could have bothered to send a lawyer. If they don't care, then they shouldn't complain about their service being cut off.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11615056
WhatsApp should decide how much they care about Brazil. If they care, they could have bothered to send a lawyer. If they don't care, then they shouldn't complain about their service being cut off.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11615056
"disastrous consequences"? Perhaps Brazilians should engage in some technological risk management.
It's almost like Brazil is the most technologically advanced poor-3rd-world-nation
I know from my brief time at Facebook, they use Brazil user-searches in their intro classes to tableau reporting on users' graphs - "show me everyone in Brazil who is 18 years old and posted about subject-X"
I know from my brief time at Facebook, they use Brazil user-searches in their intro classes to tableau reporting on users' graphs - "show me everyone in Brazil who is 18 years old and posted about subject-X"
Samstave,
Just a bit of nitpick to save you some trouble in the future. Brazil is not poor. Brazil is the seventh world economy, if you count the number of nations in north america and europe, being the seventh world economy is a great deal.
Also the division in 1st world and 3rd world is schewed upon today. Its akin to saying the N-word. There are much better, non-pejorative terms to be used.
Brazil is a part of the BRICS or the world emerging countries. Right now it is in a huge political crisis and on the verge of a coup but it is not a poor-3rd-world-nation, it is a the world seventh economy and also dictating tendency for many emerging countries and a continental power in the south.
That being said, you are completely correct that Brazilians love technology. Our smartphone revolution and expansion is awesome and we're keen to adopt new tech. Still more than half of the country doesn't have access to net infrastructure at their home and depends on cybercafes.
If you want some real data on the technology adoption and usage in the country you can use the metrics and indicators from CETIC[0] which is the Brazilian Institute for the study of information technology usage and adoption. Their reports are awesome and will give you a much greater insight on internet usage in the country.
[0]: http://cetic.br/
PS: Sorry for the long rant, I work with digital inclusion and web literacy programs here in Brazil, unlocking new digital skills in low-income neighborhoods so I've been immersed in this type of thing for too long.
Just a bit of nitpick to save you some trouble in the future. Brazil is not poor. Brazil is the seventh world economy, if you count the number of nations in north america and europe, being the seventh world economy is a great deal.
Also the division in 1st world and 3rd world is schewed upon today. Its akin to saying the N-word. There are much better, non-pejorative terms to be used.
Brazil is a part of the BRICS or the world emerging countries. Right now it is in a huge political crisis and on the verge of a coup but it is not a poor-3rd-world-nation, it is a the world seventh economy and also dictating tendency for many emerging countries and a continental power in the south.
That being said, you are completely correct that Brazilians love technology. Our smartphone revolution and expansion is awesome and we're keen to adopt new tech. Still more than half of the country doesn't have access to net infrastructure at their home and depends on cybercafes.
If you want some real data on the technology adoption and usage in the country you can use the metrics and indicators from CETIC[0] which is the Brazilian Institute for the study of information technology usage and adoption. Their reports are awesome and will give you a much greater insight on internet usage in the country.
[0]: http://cetic.br/
PS: Sorry for the long rant, I work with digital inclusion and web literacy programs here in Brazil, unlocking new digital skills in low-income neighborhoods so I've been immersed in this type of thing for too long.
Total GDP (that is, not per capita) is completely irrelevant in determining whether a country is poor. The GDP of Africa is higher than that of Brazil. Does that mean if all the countries in Africa decided to merge into one country tomorrow, it would suddenly not be considered poor? Of course not.
HDI (Human Development Index) and GDP per capita are both much better measurements of how "rich" a country is than raw GDP. Brazil's HDI is 0.755, just below Mexico (0.756)[1]. That's good by global standards, but still "poor" by U.S. standards. Its GDP per capita (PPP adjusted, so being kind to Brazil) is $15,615. The U.S.'s is $55,805[2]
[1]: http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
HDI (Human Development Index) and GDP per capita are both much better measurements of how "rich" a country is than raw GDP. Brazil's HDI is 0.755, just below Mexico (0.756)[1]. That's good by global standards, but still "poor" by U.S. standards. Its GDP per capita (PPP adjusted, so being kind to Brazil) is $15,615. The U.S.'s is $55,805[2]
[1]: http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
I completely agree with you. HDI is a much better index and measurement. This is actually what we use in social programs here.
The GDP comment I made is that this is not a "poor country", it is instead a country full of wealth inequality and self-perpetuating bad distribution of opportunities where poor people are being kept poor due to having no access to infrastructure and opportunities.
It is a very complex situation and all expressions such as "poor-3rd-world" or "seventh gdp economy" are all reductionist and shallow compared to what is really happening.
The GDP comment I made is that this is not a "poor country", it is instead a country full of wealth inequality and self-perpetuating bad distribution of opportunities where poor people are being kept poor due to having no access to infrastructure and opportunities.
It is a very complex situation and all expressions such as "poor-3rd-world" or "seventh gdp economy" are all reductionist and shallow compared to what is really happening.
I agree with your comment, particularly with the fact that HDI is a good index for monitoring the "richness" of a country.
However, the parent comment was about Brazil being a 3rd world country, not only "poor" by US standards. There are 113 countries that score lower than Brazil: countries like Ukraine or China. I don't think they are the 3rd world.
However, the parent comment was about Brazil being a 3rd world country, not only "poor" by US standards. There are 113 countries that score lower than Brazil: countries like Ukraine or China. I don't think they are the 3rd world.
>Brazil is the seventh world economy, if you count the number of nations in north america and europe, being the seventh world economy is a great deal.
GDP per capita is what matters here. And GDP per capita in Brazil is a joke. I think a country full of poor people can be called a poor country.
GDP per capita is what matters here. And GDP per capita in Brazil is a joke. I think a country full of poor people can be called a poor country.
I think it will be very hard for Brazil and India to shake being labeled as third world countries, with the amount of citizens below the poverty line, and the poor infrastructure of the areas those citizens inhabit. The United States itself is labeled as a third world country when talking about areas of Detroit for example, and the wealth inequality starting to resemble that of Brazil and India. You might take exception to the term "Third World Country" because it is primarily used pejoratively in public discourse, but I think it is fully warranted, since Brazil, India, and the United States have a lot they can be criticized about. The elite of these countries are not afraid of practicing unbridled greed, unbridled because they removed the bridle through corrupt practices, using their wealth to accumulate power over government. I say all of this as an American.
Of course countries can be criticized. There are so many wrong things here that I wouldn't even learn where to begin prioritizing the list of criticisms.
Things are getting better, we've managed to get ourselves out of the U.N. Hunger and Misery map. This is a victory, and not a small one. The past 12 years it has been the very first time in 500 years where there are no people starving to death.
Still, the problem of Brazil is not that "it is a poor country" or "it has poor areas" like others portray in a simplistic view. As you said, it brews out of a self-perpetuating wealth inequality where the gap keeps enlarging as rich get richer.
We'll always find things to criticize and still advances are made by focusing efforts on solving the very problems we surface with our criticisms.
Things are getting better, we've managed to get ourselves out of the U.N. Hunger and Misery map. This is a victory, and not a small one. The past 12 years it has been the very first time in 500 years where there are no people starving to death.
Still, the problem of Brazil is not that "it is a poor country" or "it has poor areas" like others portray in a simplistic view. As you said, it brews out of a self-perpetuating wealth inequality where the gap keeps enlarging as rich get richer.
We'll always find things to criticize and still advances are made by focusing efforts on solving the very problems we surface with our criticisms.
[deleted]
Why would anybody pretend Brazil isn't poor?
Ok, we are not terribly poor people are starving around the streets, but salaries are very low, prices are very hard, wealth is very concentrated, and a huge share of the people live from government handouts.
That is not being rich.
Ok, we are not terribly poor people are starving around the streets, but salaries are very low, prices are very hard, wealth is very concentrated, and a huge share of the people live from government handouts.
That is not being rich.
Well, that way there is nothing to confront or solve because they are not poor and by inference there is no injustice.
It's like us saying, no, there is no racism in the US (or practically any place).
It's like us saying, no, there is no racism in the US (or practically any place).
Your analogy between the terms 1st/3rd world country and that particular racial epithet is beyond absurd. To confirm this just try saying one or the other at work to test the reactions you get.
I am saying this because people do take offense on the 3rd world monicker. In many fields that term is considered offensive when used in public discourse. This is not a joke. What a group perceives as normal speech may be a term that in other circles is considered bad and better terms and classifications might be in place
I think only citizens of third-world countries are offended by the third-world monicker.
It is englightening to note that a false insult is usually shrugged off, and a true insult usually taken to heart.
The trick is to notice when the insult is true and modify your behaviour so that the insult is no longer applicable.
It is englightening to note that a false insult is usually shrugged off, and a true insult usually taken to heart.
The trick is to notice when the insult is true and modify your behaviour so that the insult is no longer applicable.
You can't just declare a common word to be offensive and get offended when people use it in a normal context and expect to have a reasonable conversation.
You don't know many 21st century identity-politics leftists, I guess. Try visiting Seattle :)
" if you count the number of nations in north america and europe, being the seventh world economy is a great deal."
This is a weird attitude.
China is the #2 world economy but indisputably has a top 5 ranking for most impoverished people with hundreds of millions of impoverished people.
This is a weird attitude.
China is the #2 world economy but indisputably has a top 5 ranking for most impoverished people with hundreds of millions of impoverished people.
It is a great deal because it shows that the money is there and the problem lies elsewhere in society. A poor country with poor GDP and HDI is in a very hard situation. A country with high GDP and poor HDI has a chance of solving its problems and rising up if it can solve its wealth inequality.
Brazil in the past decade made huge advances in that. We are a recent democracy, we've been a military dictatorship for a long time. In our couple decades as a democratic country we've managed to get lots of good things done but of course there are millions impoverished and we're not even close to solving anything. Still the new social programs, the fact that millions moved our of the misery level, this is great.
If we could solve wealth distribution and opportunity, this could be a really great place. Our problem is not the lack of money but the concentration of it and the concentration of access to infrastructure and opportunities as well.
Brazil in the past decade made huge advances in that. We are a recent democracy, we've been a military dictatorship for a long time. In our couple decades as a democratic country we've managed to get lots of good things done but of course there are millions impoverished and we're not even close to solving anything. Still the new social programs, the fact that millions moved our of the misery level, this is great.
If we could solve wealth distribution and opportunity, this could be a really great place. Our problem is not the lack of money but the concentration of it and the concentration of access to infrastructure and opportunities as well.
You are continuing to confuse GDP and GDP per capita
> Brazil is not poor. Brazil is the seventh world economy
In terms of GDP per capita Brazil is 76th, bellow the world average.
Also bellow places like Uruguay, Argentina and say Botswana.
It's a poor country.
In terms of GDP per capita Brazil is 76th, bellow the world average.
Also bellow places like Uruguay, Argentina and say Botswana.
It's a poor country.
> division in 1st world and 3rd world is schewed upon today
> Its akin to saying the N-word
I'm sorry, what?
How can you even compare these two things, I can't imagine anyone finding "3rd world" offensive (After all, you don't use it to refer to people... do you?) . Especially when it's objectively true.
> Its akin to saying the N-word
I'm sorry, what?
How can you even compare these two things, I can't imagine anyone finding "3rd world" offensive (After all, you don't use it to refer to people... do you?) . Especially when it's objectively true.
In many political science contexts and academies the "3rd world" monicker is considered offensive and obsolete. I am not joking, people do take offense on this term and classification scheme...
'Third world country' is an ambiguous term and a bit of a misnomer, because it originally meant 'a country aligned with neither West or East' (during the Cold War). Its use has become conflated with that of 'developing country', because the two meanings overlapped in practice. It is also considered derogatory due to its ambiguity and general connotation of colonial superiority.
It helps to be aware of those connotations if you choose to use a term like that (which can be a conscious choice to express your position). Although I agree that comparing it with racial slurs like 'nigger' is not really appropriate, there is some similarity in that these are words that are slowly moving out of the modern vocabulary appropriate for civilised discourse.
Just use 'developing country'.
It helps to be aware of those connotations if you choose to use a term like that (which can be a conscious choice to express your position). Although I agree that comparing it with racial slurs like 'nigger' is not really appropriate, there is some similarity in that these are words that are slowly moving out of the modern vocabulary appropriate for civilised discourse.
Just use 'developing country'.
Not a "coup", you know that.
> Also the division in 1st world and 3rd world is schewed upon today. Its akin to saying the N-word.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Great response! (Y)
Nice to see people like you here.
>> on the verge of a coup
I was with you up until this line.
I was with you up until this line.
there is no coup in place in brazil, stop spreading fud
The only people that say there is no coup going on are people supporting the coup. Please get informed about this discussion.
The impeachment process is strictly following the Constitution and being closely monitored by the Supreme Court. The majority of the Brazilian population, the majority of deputies and the majority of senators support it. The majority of foreign watchers consider it a legitimate process. It is not a coup by any stretch of the imagination.
A valid impeachment needs to follow from legitimate charges of wrongdoing according to the constitution. The charges against the president have not been ruled as crimes, unlike what happened for example to Mr. Collor de Mello in the 90s. The charges are merely accusations, which need to be proved beyond doubt. Therefore, the whole process is illegal. The congress and the majority of the country are betting on the fact that the charges will be considered as real crimes by the supreme court, but there is a lot of questions if this will eventually happen (contrary to what the media is promoting). The government, on the other hand, is pretty sure that there is no crime involved. Because of the shaky ground of the whole process, a large number of jurists consider the whole thing to be a coup.
Se voce gosta tanto assim da Dilma, por que nao volta a morar la? Deve ser muito comodo para voce defender o governo do PT sentadinho ai em Nova York, ne? Queria ver se voce fosse um dos mais de 11 milhoes de desempregados!
Quando eu morava la e trabalhava para uma grande empresa de telecom, antes mesmo do escandalo do mensalao, eu vi o Lula roubando bem na minha frente, recebendo 150 mil reais por mes de propina disfarcados de "prestacao de servicos de consultoria" (a forma preferida de agir da quadrilha do PT) atraves da empresa do filho dele. Servicos que obviamente nunca foram prestados: a epoca, a G4 sequer tinha funcionarios!
Sinceramente, eu nao ligo se a Dilma vai ser impichada porque jogou papel de bala no chao. Ela fraudou as eleicoes, jogando a economia no lixo no processo. O PT esta transformando o Brasil na nova Venezuela. Independentemente de qual argumento formal pelo qual efetivamente consiga justificar-se, ela merece ser deposta.
Quem deveria se informar sobre tudo o que realmente esta acontecendo por la e voce. Voce fica so nas superficialidades.
Trouxa.
Quando eu morava la e trabalhava para uma grande empresa de telecom, antes mesmo do escandalo do mensalao, eu vi o Lula roubando bem na minha frente, recebendo 150 mil reais por mes de propina disfarcados de "prestacao de servicos de consultoria" (a forma preferida de agir da quadrilha do PT) atraves da empresa do filho dele. Servicos que obviamente nunca foram prestados: a epoca, a G4 sequer tinha funcionarios!
Sinceramente, eu nao ligo se a Dilma vai ser impichada porque jogou papel de bala no chao. Ela fraudou as eleicoes, jogando a economia no lixo no processo. O PT esta transformando o Brasil na nova Venezuela. Independentemente de qual argumento formal pelo qual efetivamente consiga justificar-se, ela merece ser deposta.
Quem deveria se informar sobre tudo o que realmente esta acontecendo por la e voce. Voce fica so nas superficialidades.
Trouxa.
Tinha que ser golpista mesmo pra entrar em baixaria... procura tua turma.
Defensor de bandido. Continue assistindo tudo de longe sem se importar com as pessoas que sofrem nas maos do governo mais corrupto da historia do Brasil.
Falta uma semana so para acabar a farsa petista, para sempre.
Falta uma semana so para acabar a farsa petista, para sempre.
Ask the supreme court then: http://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/ministros-do-stf-dizem-que-im...
Whenever they're not making official rulings, what judges of the STF say is just a matter of personal opinion. To validate the impeachment these judges need to rule on the validity of the charges raised against president Rousseff.
And they will rule in favor when it comes to the senate, just as they expressed in the link that they would.
Saying "there's a coup!" is cheap government propaganda. The impeachment is proceeding according to the law and the charges are serious.
Saying "there's a coup!" is cheap government propaganda. The impeachment is proceeding according to the law and the charges are serious.
By force of law, judges are not allowed to pre-judge, i.e., to express to the public what they will decide on the bench. Suggesting the opposite is the exact definition of propaganda. This impeachment will only be legal if the supreme decides so, and that can only happen when they sit to judge this issue. Until then, the whole process is proceeding in judicial limbo. It can quite rightfully be termed as a coup.
No, it's not a political limbo. It got voted in the congress just as the law requires and is awaiting the voting in the senate just as the law requires it. The president of the STF presides the hearing on the senate where testimonies are gathered, and the STF votes for the impeachment. It's not "a coup" just because it hasn't reached that state yet. Stop spreading misinformation.
You are the one not well informed. The STF allowed the process to continue because it doesn't want to interfere with the prerogatives of the congress. But in the STF hearing of 4/14, they decided that the accusations need to be analyzed by the judges for the process to be valid. This means that the supreme court can stop this process to decide on the criminal charges that have been made against president Rousseff when they see fit, and this will certainly happen before the end of the process. Without criminal charges, the impeachment is invalid according to the constitution, it doesn't matter how many votes it had.
>The STF allowed the process to continue because it doesn't want to interfere with the prerogatives of the congress. But in the STF hearing of 4/14, they decided that the accusations need to be analyzed by the judges for the process to be valid.
This is the case for EVERY IMPEACHMENT proceeding. It's called separation of powers.
>Without criminal charges, the impeachment is invalid according to the constitution, it doesn't matter how many votes it had.
Except there are criminal charges, in this request and in the dozen other requests that are awaiting. Stop spreading misinformation.
This is the case for EVERY IMPEACHMENT proceeding. It's called separation of powers.
>Without criminal charges, the impeachment is invalid according to the constitution, it doesn't matter how many votes it had.
Except there are criminal charges, in this request and in the dozen other requests that are awaiting. Stop spreading misinformation.
A Dilma deveria ter sido presa em flagrante por obstrucao de justica ao nomear Lula ministro as vesperas da prisao preventiva dele ser decretada.
There's no coup, stop spreading misinformation.
Thank you very much for the information. I stated something without the whole picture, and a lot of people replied.
I will stand by my comment that Brazil is rather technologically advanced with respect to how net-savvy their population is. I wrongly stated that Brazil is 3rd-world... And as another user points out, Brazil "meerly" suffers from deep corruption.
However, in my defense, I shall contend that the simple existence of "favelas" in Brazil is perceived to be a very 3rd world to me, an isolated, white American.
I will stand by my comment that Brazil is rather technologically advanced with respect to how net-savvy their population is. I wrongly stated that Brazil is 3rd-world... And as another user points out, Brazil "meerly" suffers from deep corruption.
However, in my defense, I shall contend that the simple existence of "favelas" in Brazil is perceived to be a very 3rd world to me, an isolated, white American.
Favelas are a world fenomenon. We call them by various names, chantytowns, slums, whenever there is a long-term concentration of low-income classes without access to infrastructure but requiring living quarters near middle and upper income classes due to work reasons these tend to appear.
Check out recent documentaries on Favelas, it will probably surprise you in both positive notes and also on horrible notes as well. Favelas are a cultural part of Rio in a way that most slums elsewhere are not. Favelas are intertwined with higher-income classes in the urban areas where they occupy the many hill areas of Rio. They dictate music and trends for millions of people and are a huge part of what makes Rio into Rio.
Still our corrupt governments, crimelords, militias, and consumerist culture makes those places prone to crime and violence.
Talking to you and taking you as an "isolated white american", pick some violence-prone neighborhood in your state and imagine if you could break it up into small areas and sprinkle that on top of your most prized real state area. This is Rio, where poor and rich live couple streets away from each other. In many places in the U.S. such neighborhoods occur away from higher-income regions in suburbs or far away districts, here, it is all mixed and that leads to a lot of confusion for foreigners.
Favelas are also a sympton of the lack of infrastructure. Mass transit in Rio is a joke and living/real state is very expensive. Favelas are the only solution for millions that need to work in the city but can't afford to live anywhere better. It is a self-perpetuating problem where people are born to these neighborhood and lack the access to education and opportunities that would enable life changing events that would move them and their families into better conditions.
Long story short: our governments (federal, state and city) sucks. People keep electing corrupt people. No one knows a way out of this mess.
Check out recent documentaries on Favelas, it will probably surprise you in both positive notes and also on horrible notes as well. Favelas are a cultural part of Rio in a way that most slums elsewhere are not. Favelas are intertwined with higher-income classes in the urban areas where they occupy the many hill areas of Rio. They dictate music and trends for millions of people and are a huge part of what makes Rio into Rio.
Still our corrupt governments, crimelords, militias, and consumerist culture makes those places prone to crime and violence.
Talking to you and taking you as an "isolated white american", pick some violence-prone neighborhood in your state and imagine if you could break it up into small areas and sprinkle that on top of your most prized real state area. This is Rio, where poor and rich live couple streets away from each other. In many places in the U.S. such neighborhoods occur away from higher-income regions in suburbs or far away districts, here, it is all mixed and that leads to a lot of confusion for foreigners.
Favelas are also a sympton of the lack of infrastructure. Mass transit in Rio is a joke and living/real state is very expensive. Favelas are the only solution for millions that need to work in the city but can't afford to live anywhere better. It is a self-perpetuating problem where people are born to these neighborhood and lack the access to education and opportunities that would enable life changing events that would move them and their families into better conditions.
Long story short: our governments (federal, state and city) sucks. People keep electing corrupt people. No one knows a way out of this mess.
> "No one knows a way out of this mess."
Create and promote news outlets that represent the interests of the people. This also gives a platform for non-corrupt people to run for office. That's one potential solution I've found for the problems in my own country. Do you think it would help in Brazil?
Create and promote news outlets that represent the interests of the people. This also gives a platform for non-corrupt people to run for office. That's one potential solution I've found for the problems in my own country. Do you think it would help in Brazil?
If "favelas" are sign of being 3rd world, what about homeless people, or does your "isolation" prevent you from seeing them?
The 1st world and 3rd world country can often be a strange one. South Korea is technically considered a 3rd world country, even though it has quite a global influence in industries such as consumer electronics, automotive, semiconductors, and steel.
edit: Apologies, looks like I was completely wrong since the source online I looked at incorrectly defined SK as economically undeveloped (I looked further and SK is in the G20, which would clearly make it a developed nation), and I was unaware of the Cold War era designation that commenters have pointed out to me.
I was always confused why SK would be considered a 3rd world country when my own impression from its industrial strength was that it should be a 1st world country, so I'm glad that I've been corrected.
edit: Apologies, looks like I was completely wrong since the source online I looked at incorrectly defined SK as economically undeveloped (I looked further and SK is in the G20, which would clearly make it a developed nation), and I was unaware of the Cold War era designation that commenters have pointed out to me.
I was always confused why SK would be considered a 3rd world country when my own impression from its industrial strength was that it should be a 1st world country, so I'm glad that I've been corrected.
> The 1st world and 3rd world country can often be a strange one. South Korea is technically considered a 3rd world country
By both the common current common informal usage (of relatively developed economies) and the original definition (nations allied with the US in the Cold War), South Korea is a first world country.
By both the common current common informal usage (of relatively developed economies) and the original definition (nations allied with the US in the Cold War), South Korea is a first world country.
South Korea isn't, but Switzerland and Sweden, by virtue of being neutral is a third world country in the original defintion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
Because it wasn't an economic criteria, you've also got countries like Angola in the First World by the original defintion.
Because it wasn't an economic criteria, you've also got countries like Angola in the First World by the original defintion.
> Because it wasn't an economic criteria, you've also got countries like Angola in the First World by the original defintion.
No, you didn't. Angola was never both a country and part of the First World (Portugal was part of the First World when the term was coined, and Angola was part of Portugal then; when Angola became independent, the regime was Cuban-backed and Soviet-allied, and thus it was part of the Second World.)
No, you didn't. Angola was never both a country and part of the First World (Portugal was part of the First World when the term was coined, and Angola was part of Portugal then; when Angola became independent, the regime was Cuban-backed and Soviet-allied, and thus it was part of the Second World.)
SK is absolutely first world
He's probably using the technical term from international relations, according to which "third world" meant neither aligned with the United States nor the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Not only is that wrong (the Republic of Korea was and is about as closely aligned with the U.S. as a country can possibly be), but it's confusing, since what was clearly meant in the context of this thread was the different, colloquial meaning of "1st world" meaning "developed" and "3rd world" meaning poor.
Regardless, SK is unambiguously 1st world according to either definition.
Not only is that wrong (the Republic of Korea was and is about as closely aligned with the U.S. as a country can possibly be), but it's confusing, since what was clearly meant in the context of this thread was the different, colloquial meaning of "1st world" meaning "developed" and "3rd world" meaning poor.
Regardless, SK is unambiguously 1st world according to either definition.
Calling Brazil a "poor-3rd-world-nation" is really ignorant, as it has a development index similar to Mexico, Turkey, Iran, Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
São Paulo alone manages to rival New York City in scale, so it's absurd to call it "third world".
Significant parts of Brazil lag behind in terms of development, but this is true in the US as well.
Significant parts of Brazil lag behind in terms of development, but this is true in the US as well.
Sure but all the countries you mentioned are rife with corruption. Fuck those countries. I stand by my statement then: they are 3Rd world with respect to how they treat humans.
Turkey is a corruption horror show. Mexicos death rate due to cartels is astronomical compared to every other country on earth. Cuba is still driving cars from the fifties and doesn't even have Internet, yet it houses our worst torture center that we know of (yes, all that is the fault of the US CIA) and Iran was an overthrown democracy (CIA again, thanks George) - but you cannot argue that they are not "3rd world" - we fucking kept them that way to exploit them.
Turkey is a corruption horror show. Mexicos death rate due to cartels is astronomical compared to every other country on earth. Cuba is still driving cars from the fifties and doesn't even have Internet, yet it houses our worst torture center that we know of (yes, all that is the fault of the US CIA) and Iran was an overthrown democracy (CIA again, thanks George) - but you cannot argue that they are not "3rd world" - we fucking kept them that way to exploit them.
Brazil is a poor third world nation. It might be developing fast but still far from reaching middle income levels.
Your comment was filled with the typical Valley arrogance and ignorance with anything outside of SoMa.
Not only is Brazil not a poor-3rd-world-nation, but other similar developing nations are by far more "technologically advanced" (e.g. China, India).
Not only is Brazil not a poor-3rd-world-nation, but other similar developing nations are by far more "technologically advanced" (e.g. China, India).
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you think China, Brazil, and India are all at similar levels of development.
Brasil is the 8th economy in the world.
GDP per capita is the relevant metric here, as it's a much better gauge of how much money each person has. Using that metric, Brazil ranks 76th [0].
Ranking countries by nominal GDP [1] gives a lopsided view of the world's economy as you can have countries with very large populations of poor people that rank highly, such as China (#2) or India (#9).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
Ranking countries by nominal GDP [1] gives a lopsided view of the world's economy as you can have countries with very large populations of poor people that rank highly, such as China (#2) or India (#9).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
> GDP per capita is the relevant metric here
Yeah, I was going to make a similar comment. Listing the wealth of nations based on nominal GDP will result in a list that's similar to ordering them by population size.
Yeah, I was going to make a similar comment. Listing the wealth of nations based on nominal GDP will result in a list that's similar to ordering them by population size.
>as it's a much better gauge of how much money each person has
You've got to be kidding me.
The US has a massive GDP per capita but there are 30 million people struggling to survive without even healthcare.
GDP per capita tells you nothing about how much each person has, it just tells you how much there is and how many people. How's it's split among them is another story.
You've got to be kidding me.
The US has a massive GDP per capita but there are 30 million people struggling to survive without even healthcare.
GDP per capita tells you nothing about how much each person has, it just tells you how much there is and how many people. How's it's split among them is another story.
The U.S. is one of the most developed countries in the world, by any reasonable metric.
It's true that it's not doing the best in the world, or that it has no problems -- especially when you compare it to a narrowly cherry-picked set of countries in Western and Northern Europe[1], or island/pseudo-island megalopolises in East Asia like Japan and South Korea. But its massive GDP per capita lines up well with other measures of development, like its HDI.
[1]: As an aside, it's probably more fair to compare Europe as a whole to the US as a whole, and places like Norway and England to places like California and Washington.
It's true that it's not doing the best in the world, or that it has no problems -- especially when you compare it to a narrowly cherry-picked set of countries in Western and Northern Europe[1], or island/pseudo-island megalopolises in East Asia like Japan and South Korea. But its massive GDP per capita lines up well with other measures of development, like its HDI.
[1]: As an aside, it's probably more fair to compare Europe as a whole to the US as a whole, and places like Norway and England to places like California and Washington.
> The US has a massive GDP per capita but there are 30 million people struggling to survive without even healthcare.
Relatively few people personally need healthcare at any given time.
In comparison to, say, clean water, food, shelter, education, and physical security, which actual third world countries seem to still have serious problems with.
Relatively few people personally need healthcare at any given time.
In comparison to, say, clean water, food, shelter, education, and physical security, which actual third world countries seem to still have serious problems with.
> which actual third world countries seem to still have serious problems with.
If you're comparing the US to actual third world countries, you've already lost.
If you're comparing the US to actual third world countries, you've already lost.
Perhaps the country has a large economy, but its people are being left behind. In the list of countries by average wage, they are 47th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...
And for the median household income, they aren't in the top 35, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
And for the median household income, they aren't in the top 35, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
The first wiki link data is weird. How is that even possible ?
25 Israel $1,804 26 Russia $1,800
25 Israel $1,804 26 Russia $1,800
I'm not sure I understand what you're pointing out here. How is what possible, the Israel's average wage is $4 more than Russia's?
Brasil is not poor, is F*n corrupt.
Thanks, this is the main comment I shall reply to: yes my comment was made in ignorance. Ignorance is the lacking of knowledge of the situation.
I was not having the information I needed to make a fully informed comment, and thus I offended people, apologies.
I was not having the information I needed to make a fully informed comment, and thus I offended people, apologies.
Not unsympathetic to the brasileros affected, but this is not the first time this happened over there - surely at this point the fragility of centralised platforms, and becoming reliant on them, is well known by now?
It also points to the fragility of Brazilian institutions.
If the institutions were fragile, the Internet companies would just refuse to comply and block WhatsApp. The fact that they complied shows how strong the institutions are.
It's in the telcos interest to block WhatsApp, they're selling the SMS and phone calls that are used as backup.
I see telcos choosing to comply with the order instead of fighting back (like Apple) as a sign of fragility.
In countries with fragile democracies (or that have recently come out of a dictatorship, like Brazil since 1985), when people say "institutions are strong/weak" they are talking about Congress, the Legal system, Law Enforcement, etc. They are often trying to say that "the law means something" as opposed to elites/politicians/etc ruling the country as they wish, according to personal interests.
Telcos and App providers can contribute to make a democracy strong. And so do all citizens. But they aren't what is referred to by "institutions".
There is no widespread fragility in Brazilian institutions today. Recent events have shown they are strong as ever. Telcos and App providers have all their rights within the legal system to appeal the recent decision against WhatsApp and get their arguments heard. WhatsApp has already appealed to this judge's decision and this will be heard by an appeals court. This is business as usual in a legal system that is working.
Telcos and App providers can contribute to make a democracy strong. And so do all citizens. But they aren't what is referred to by "institutions".
There is no widespread fragility in Brazilian institutions today. Recent events have shown they are strong as ever. Telcos and App providers have all their rights within the legal system to appeal the recent decision against WhatsApp and get their arguments heard. WhatsApp has already appealed to this judge's decision and this will be heard by an appeals court. This is business as usual in a legal system that is working.
I'm talking about the institutions that defend Brazilians' access to basic communications infrastructure in the face of any random judge trying to rule against mathematics.
Check the US for example, Apple was able to fight the government's request and prevail _before_ the government did anything about it, not after. In Brazil, Tim Cook would have been arrested right away.
Check the US for example, Apple was able to fight the government's request and prevail _before_ the government did anything about it, not after. In Brazil, Tim Cook would have been arrested right away.
If Brazil had an Apple equivalent, the situation would have been handled the same way. I wonder how many smaller companies in the US had to comply or die? See Lavabit [1]. I'm sure there are have been many other similar occurrences.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
Skype back in the day went to great lengths to be unblockable (mostly for commercial reason, there was a time before smartphones that people actually payed lots of money for international and domestic calls). It was pre MS.
Why are not the other messengers doing the same?
Why are not the other messengers doing the same?
I was never a big Skype user, but my understanding is that Skype relied on individual users serving as "supernodes" in a peer-to-peer distribution network for messages and calls. The Skype client's default configuration opted you into serving as a supernode, and this was a supremely unpopular move.
It was more than that- there were antidebugger measures. The node list was encrypted. Protocol obfuscated. Also people in skype network were nodes. The supernodes were dedicated servers.
Keep electing terrible politicians Brazil
In this case the decision maker wasn't even elected.
America's track record is often just as bad. The difference is people don't care and the politicians don't end up in jail.
This has nothing to do with the state of democracy of Brazil.
You are full of crap. The seventh world economy in the terms you are refering to is meaningless. By your logic, is Brazil welthier than Switzerland or Netherlands? NOT even close.
GDP is MEANINGLESS if you really want to know how the average citizen lives in a country.
The fact is that in Brazil the prices/inflation are through the roof, housing and goods are extremly expensive and their salaries are ridicusly low. Let alone the rampant and systemic corruption.
So no, maybe Brazil as a whole concept is not poor. But the Brazilians? Yes, most of them are.
EDIT: BTW, this is a forum to discuss. If you think I'm wrong say why, don't just downvote. And no, saying "crap" in the internet is not a reason to be wrong.
EDIT: BTW, this is a forum to discuss. If you think I'm wrong say why, don't just downvote. And no, saying "crap" in the internet is not a reason to be wrong.
> You are full of crap.
Comments like this break HN's civility rule. Please (re-)read the site guidelines and eliminate this kind of thing from your posts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11614911 and marked it off-topic.
Comments like this break HN's civility rule. Please (re-)read the site guidelines and eliminate this kind of thing from your posts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11614911 and marked it off-topic.
I didn't downvoted you, actually, I agree with you. GDP is not the best way to measure or have this type of discussion.
GDP proves to us that the "country is rich", HDI tells us that "this richness is not distributed" which means that we have an endemic and self-perpetuating problem with wealth distribution and access to infrastructure, which I believe you'd agree.
I completely agree with your statement that we have a rampant and systemic corruption scheme in place here and that makes solving all of this mess an extremely complex problem.
Being the seventh world economy is not meaningless, it proves that with the correct measures in place, we have the economic power to move economy/jobs and wealth forward. If we could pair that with proper access to education and opportunities then we'd have a really marvelous place.
All the criticisms you made there are true and still, we're in a better place than 20 or 25 years ago, specially when we're talking about the low-income classes and impoverished. Lots of advancements there but nowhere close to solving the problem...
GDP proves to us that the "country is rich", HDI tells us that "this richness is not distributed" which means that we have an endemic and self-perpetuating problem with wealth distribution and access to infrastructure, which I believe you'd agree.
I completely agree with your statement that we have a rampant and systemic corruption scheme in place here and that makes solving all of this mess an extremely complex problem.
Being the seventh world economy is not meaningless, it proves that with the correct measures in place, we have the economic power to move economy/jobs and wealth forward. If we could pair that with proper access to education and opportunities then we'd have a really marvelous place.
All the criticisms you made there are true and still, we're in a better place than 20 or 25 years ago, specially when we're talking about the low-income classes and impoverished. Lots of advancements there but nowhere close to solving the problem...
Oh, the EDIT wasn't targeted to you especifically, more of a general thing.
I agree with you, but I found the first comment misleading, thus my heated response. By meaningless I meant regarding the "feel" that you get as a citizen, or as a turist, or even as an outsider watching the news, which is that the country and its people are in trouble (also relative, compared to UE or US, not to central Africa for example). I completely agree that the country has a lot of potencial, resources, and great people. It has vast amounts of petroleum, the Amazonas etc etc. And I also agree that one of the problems is the distribution of the wealth. And sure, you are improving the situation.
I think a somehow similar "rich" country in a bad situation is Argentina, with lots of resources and also oil reserves. So is Russia. Bad management, corruption, education etc are some causes of it. It is indeed a very complex problem.
I agree with you, but I found the first comment misleading, thus my heated response. By meaningless I meant regarding the "feel" that you get as a citizen, or as a turist, or even as an outsider watching the news, which is that the country and its people are in trouble (also relative, compared to UE or US, not to central Africa for example). I completely agree that the country has a lot of potencial, resources, and great people. It has vast amounts of petroleum, the Amazonas etc etc. And I also agree that one of the problems is the distribution of the wealth. And sure, you are improving the situation.
I think a somehow similar "rich" country in a bad situation is Argentina, with lots of resources and also oil reserves. So is Russia. Bad management, corruption, education etc are some causes of it. It is indeed a very complex problem.
"saying "crap" in the internet is not a reason to be wrong"
But saying "you are full of crap" on HN is a reason to be downvoted.
But saying "you are full of crap" on HN is a reason to be downvoted.
I suspect you are being down voted for your tone, not for the accuracy of your comment.
Yeah ... Personally, I don't find a bit of emotion in the discussion bad as long as you provide arguments.
True, but emotion can be expressed in a civil manner, which in my opinion is more effective as well.
A lot of people simply stop reading when confronted by rudeness or profanity and just downvote and move on, because experience has proven that such comments usuaully lack proper arguments. Use civil language to prevent being classified as noise.
A lot of people simply stop reading when confronted by rudeness or profanity and just downvote and move on, because experience has proven that such comments usuaully lack proper arguments. Use civil language to prevent being classified as noise.
Again?
I'm here to defend my rights, put the service back now! Fine WhatsApp or Facebook or whatever, but don't block the service nation-wide!
I don't know about Brazil but these sort of things happen routinely in third world countries like India all the time because some judge could not understand what the new technology is. The decision will be reversed in one or two days.
Brazilian law regarding regarding privacy of users of internet services is very recent and clear: if a judge order the company to share a specific user data, the company must comply. You can disagree with the law, but the law is there.
Now, the judge ordered Whatsapp to share a particular user conversation (a suspect murderer - edit: drug dealer). But the problem is: Whatsapp have no offices or operations in Brazil. The order was sent to Facebook, who ignore as Whatsapp is another company. So, without any executives in Brazil that could be held responsible for disobeying the law, the judge fine the company. They continue to disobey the order (for months). The judge suspends Whatsapp activity (for 24h a few months ago, but that order was suspended itself after a few hours). Now Whatsapp continue to disobey the judge's order until this day. The judge suspend the company again.
All arguments I hear against the judge is in the line that Whatsapp is "too big to fail". That's not a valid point in my opinion. If they disobey the law, it must have consequences, no matter how big and important to brazilian society they are. If they had operations and executives in Brazil this would never had happened at the first place. They would have lawyers fighting against the decision to share the user data and this would be solved by the justice system (never coming to have its activity suspended). But Whatsapp simply ignored brazilian justice system as if it was above the law.
It is very unfortunate that it came to this point, but it is not like a judge decided yesterday that Whatsapp should sufer for whatever reason. They got a lot of months of warning for this. And he is acting completely according to the law. For me, all of this is Whatsapp fault.