Brazil court blocks Facebook funds over WhatsApp dispute(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Brazil court blocks Facebook funds over WhatsApp dispute
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-facebook-whatsapp-idUSKCN0ZH3EX
65 comments
Does anyone think if it might have second background related to this:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/116806/20160226/brazils-ns...
and it could be just a nasty attack on US corporation that cooperates with NSA?
and it could be just a nasty attack on US corporation that cooperates with NSA?
I might as well be that, NSA is so unethical that it will be always polemic and a pain for any US company. In the end apart from trillions of cost it might as well have the same economic impact on top of that.
I hope so
> Facebook said WhatsApp does not store client messages and could not read them if they did because they are encrypted.
I wonder if the response would be the same if this request was coming from the US authorities.
I wonder if the response would be the same if this request was coming from the US authorities.
One would hope so. If WhatsApp isn't lying horribly, it would be. But I suppose we'll never know.
As a Brazilian I say sorry for all the brainless judges and law makers that we have.
As a software Engineer and tech founder (and Brazillian), I say sorry for all the brainless sh*t people from silicon valley think is right to do to other countries systems, laws and regulations to get more rich and make you all more poor.
How has whatsapp/fb made you more poor?
collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech industry. Big money flowing straight to uncle sam's pocket. The worst part of it is that FB/WPP uses the same technology to maintain an huge army of brainless evangelists of their (and us govt) interests, making FB users think they get more from using facebook than would receive in a local social network. But Baidu and WeChat proves that this way of thinking is wrong: with millions of users, is not that difficult to compete with FB, WPP or Google.
> collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech industry.
Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault.
Also, maybe people are not really interested in a "local" social network? I have friends from all over the world. Should we now push for local social networks and federate them? This has worked so well in the past.
Disclaimer: I am brazilian.
Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault.
Also, maybe people are not really interested in a "local" social network? I have friends from all over the world. Should we now push for local social networks and federate them? This has worked so well in the past.
Disclaimer: I am brazilian.
> Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault.
This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries, and that's is why, in the first place, how they got in the top of the industry.
Here in Brazil, unfortunately, we have the only other type of people that thinks this "philosophy" is good: the brazilians "vira-latas" (mutts), the ones who think that the best economic theories that works is the ones imposed by "developed" economies. Most of these guys (like the one I'm replying) don't know about history and how these economies got developed to begin with. And it has nothing to do with "liberalism" or free market. Much the opposite.
This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries, and that's is why, in the first place, how they got in the top of the industry.
Here in Brazil, unfortunately, we have the only other type of people that thinks this "philosophy" is good: the brazilians "vira-latas" (mutts), the ones who think that the best economic theories that works is the ones imposed by "developed" economies. Most of these guys (like the one I'm replying) don't know about history and how these economies got developed to begin with. And it has nothing to do with "liberalism" or free market. Much the opposite.
> This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries
And Brazil isn't? I have lived during the "reserva de mercado" times, where imports from "competitors" where not allowed at all. This has created a enormous technological deficit, which I think we haven't recovered from yet.
Protectionism is still going strong, with ~60% import tax on foreign products. And guess what, even with all the protection, the industry is still in shambles. Politicians are still trying to erect more walls, such as trying to require internet companies to have datacenters in Brazil in order to be able to operate. Do you think this is the right way to go?
I'll try to ignore your ad-hominen. I have lived through a bunch of the history you are claiming I don't know anything about.
And Brazil isn't? I have lived during the "reserva de mercado" times, where imports from "competitors" where not allowed at all. This has created a enormous technological deficit, which I think we haven't recovered from yet.
Protectionism is still going strong, with ~60% import tax on foreign products. And guess what, even with all the protection, the industry is still in shambles. Politicians are still trying to erect more walls, such as trying to require internet companies to have datacenters in Brazil in order to be able to operate. Do you think this is the right way to go?
I'll try to ignore your ad-hominen. I have lived through a bunch of the history you are claiming I don't know anything about.
> I'll try to ignore your ad-hominen. I have lived through a bunch of the history you are claiming I don't know anything about.
Why do you believe that your alleged personal experience is a good economy theory?
Let's first put some names in your "explanations". The "reserva de mercado" was a economic strategy used by the Militares in the Dictactorship time. So of course, this was not a good strategy, mainly because it was focused on industries belonging to the bourgeoisie and elite, not in things like food and familiar agriculture. After the end of the military dictatorship, anoter right-wing party took power, beginning with Fernando Collor and finishing with Fernando Henrique Cardoso, they lowered all taxes, spent ALL our reserves buying US goodies and the last one, FHC, requested 3 IMF bailouts. Lefting all national industry broken. This only started to change in recent times.
But now explain to me how the "end of protectionism" (that never protected brazilians, only the elite) and the sequential neoliberalism made Brazil a great country?
Why do you believe that your alleged personal experience is a good economy theory?
Let's first put some names in your "explanations". The "reserva de mercado" was a economic strategy used by the Militares in the Dictactorship time. So of course, this was not a good strategy, mainly because it was focused on industries belonging to the bourgeoisie and elite, not in things like food and familiar agriculture. After the end of the military dictatorship, anoter right-wing party took power, beginning with Fernando Collor and finishing with Fernando Henrique Cardoso, they lowered all taxes, spent ALL our reserves buying US goodies and the last one, FHC, requested 3 IMF bailouts. Lefting all national industry broken. This only started to change in recent times.
But now explain to me how the "end of protectionism" (that never protected brazilians, only the elite) and the sequential neoliberalism made Brazil a great country?
You have to decide which side of the argument you want to be on: just on another thread you are actually defending the protectionist Chinese policies which, guess what?, are exactly about "protecting the industries belonging to the bourgeoisie and the elite".
Also, you are factually wrong about taxes during Collor and FHC. Precisely because of the austerity policies (which were "imposed" by the IMF), the effective tax burden went from ~25% to ~36% of the GDP.
Would you like to have an honest conversation, opening yourself to new ideas, striving to teaching and learning? Or are you just trying to "win" an online argument? If it is the former, please let me know, so I can find something more useful to do with my time.
Also, you are factually wrong about taxes during Collor and FHC. Precisely because of the austerity policies (which were "imposed" by the IMF), the effective tax burden went from ~25% to ~36% of the GDP.
Would you like to have an honest conversation, opening yourself to new ideas, striving to teaching and learning? Or are you just trying to "win" an online argument? If it is the former, please let me know, so I can find something more useful to do with my time.
rglullis, you have to calm down yourself and decide in which thread we are talking. Don't mix things up :)
No matter the thread, you keep evading responding to the most fundamental of the questions. Stop with the bullshitting, and take it like a man: you are wrong about the basics, so it would mean a lot if you could just acknowledge that this PT-fed narrative is bad revisionism.
>But Baidu and WeChat proves that this way of thinking is wrong: with millions of users, is not that difficult to compete with FB, WPP or Google.
Kinda helps if you're the only option because your foreign competitors are blocked with the help of the government.
Kinda helps if you're the only option because your foreign competitors are blocked with the help of the government.
I'm not sure if a total hegemony is preferable, even if it were incredibly efficient at doing what it was meant to do. Government is one of the few human factors capable of resisting a multinational corporation. I am somewhat sympathetic to their objectives, and I can't blame them for blocking foreign competition if they feel it is in the social interest.
States tacitly support corporations that operate within them. And as we see with the embedding of the US surveillance apparatus inside of companies like Facebook and Google, they can also become dependent on these systems for their security. Security is not only related to external factors, and China apparently regards the internal dominance of WeChat as vital to its security.
Countries should be allowed to promote local media companies. They have the right. These companies are extremely powerful, and are certainly a mechanism through which propaganda flow. In fact, I'm disturbed that essential communication services may be co-opted as they have been, and I wish my government would actively support utility-like alternatives or work to suppress the negative aspects of omniscient platforms like Facebook.
Why should the whole world's communication flow through one company? This seems like an invitation to be abused by whoever has control.
States tacitly support corporations that operate within them. And as we see with the embedding of the US surveillance apparatus inside of companies like Facebook and Google, they can also become dependent on these systems for their security. Security is not only related to external factors, and China apparently regards the internal dominance of WeChat as vital to its security.
Countries should be allowed to promote local media companies. They have the right. These companies are extremely powerful, and are certainly a mechanism through which propaganda flow. In fact, I'm disturbed that essential communication services may be co-opted as they have been, and I wish my government would actively support utility-like alternatives or work to suppress the negative aspects of omniscient platforms like Facebook.
Why should the whole world's communication flow through one company? This seems like an invitation to be abused by whoever has control.
Kinda helps if this is the option that benefits most if not all population of the country.
How does it benefit "most if not all"?
Does the service provided is better than any other just by the nature of being closed?
Do the profits get shared to the users? Is the data free from surveillance or abuse by the government?
You are starting from your value system and reaching conclusions that are simply not there. To me it looks like WeChat is even worse for the people that FB ot whatsapp.
Does the service provided is better than any other just by the nature of being closed?
Do the profits get shared to the users? Is the data free from surveillance or abuse by the government?
You are starting from your value system and reaching conclusions that are simply not there. To me it looks like WeChat is even worse for the people that FB ot whatsapp.
For you and for a lot of people, rglullis. This is the mainstream West media thinking. But I missed your arguments proving that WeChat could be worse to China than is FB to Brazil.
Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values themselves.
Also, you are moving the goal posts. I could go on for a while and give examples on how the Big Chinese Companies are actually bad for the people - e.g, one simple case: censorship in WeChat is worse than in FB and it is demanded by the Government - but my question was actually "How do they benefit 'most if not all' of the population?" I mean, how any of these "benefits" are any different that a FB user from any part of the world can't get on Facebook. Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
Also, you are moving the goal posts. I could go on for a while and give examples on how the Big Chinese Companies are actually bad for the people - e.g, one simple case: censorship in WeChat is worse than in FB and it is demanded by the Government - but my question was actually "How do they benefit 'most if not all' of the population?" I mean, how any of these "benefits" are any different that a FB user from any part of the world can't get on Facebook. Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
> Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values themselves.
Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights to who? Do people from Africa, South Asia and Latin America fit on it?
> Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
Because they generate chinese high tech jobs and an extraordinary supply chain. If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better.
Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights to who? Do people from Africa, South Asia and Latin America fit on it?
> Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
Because they generate chinese high tech jobs and an extraordinary supply chain. If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better.
You still haven't showed any convincing argument why Facebook "hurts freedom", at least systemically.
The bubbles of these gigantic social networks and the closed walled-gardens are bad for sure, but Zuckerberg isn't the one that gets to decide what can or not be said, and surely he is not the one persecuting anyone with dissenting views, and much less he has a monopoly on how information can be shared, which would allow him to control people that could spread any kind of information that doesn't align with "Uncle Sam's interests".
> "If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better."
That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same), and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any other competitor in case China had an open economy.
The bubbles of these gigantic social networks and the closed walled-gardens are bad for sure, but Zuckerberg isn't the one that gets to decide what can or not be said, and surely he is not the one persecuting anyone with dissenting views, and much less he has a monopoly on how information can be shared, which would allow him to control people that could spread any kind of information that doesn't align with "Uncle Sam's interests".
> "If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better."
That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same), and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any other competitor in case China had an open economy.
> That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same), and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any other competitor in case China had an open economy.
I don't have to show anything, dude, are you insane? Do you have any point proving that WeChat, a national player, is not better for China than Facebook? If so, tell me why because this is the beginning of the discussion.
I don't have to show anything, dude, are you insane? Do you have any point proving that WeChat, a national player, is not better for China than Facebook? If so, tell me why because this is the beginning of the discussion.
What do you think can be done about this attitude?
Some general thoughts.
I would guess that the first step is acknowledging that the problem exists and is not made up by a few disgruntled people.
The next step is understanding, for which there are plenty of resources on the web as a start. I believe that living in another country for at least a year is helpful. Note that it is very easy to fall into the trap of insulating oneself from the local culture by simply trying to copy over one's main country of residence. I have seen it happen all too often with many NRI's in India.
Then comes the really hard part, which is creating solutions based on such understanding.
I would guess that the first step is acknowledging that the problem exists and is not made up by a few disgruntled people.
The next step is understanding, for which there are plenty of resources on the web as a start. I believe that living in another country for at least a year is helpful. Note that it is very easy to fall into the trap of insulating oneself from the local culture by simply trying to copy over one's main country of residence. I have seen it happen all too often with many NRI's in India.
Then comes the really hard part, which is creating solutions based on such understanding.
>> I would guess that the first step is acknowledging that the problem exists and is not made up by a few disgruntled people.
Good luck with this one.
This is how the US has become so polarized and there is no end in sight. Nobody wants to admit there's a problem and take responsibility. It's always someone else's problem and how come they can see/understand/comprehend it??
- too much political correctness - too much worrying about upsetting someone's feelings - too much technology - Too much selfishness
It's incredibly depressing.
Good luck with this one.
This is how the US has become so polarized and there is no end in sight. Nobody wants to admit there's a problem and take responsibility. It's always someone else's problem and how come they can see/understand/comprehend it??
- too much political correctness - too much worrying about upsetting someone's feelings - too much technology - Too much selfishness
It's incredibly depressing.
[deleted]
Ym... you're sorry for this and I which judges in my country had enough courage to do such thing.
We don't have elected judges so that might help. Our judges need to be approved in a incredible hard Civil service entrance examination.
Also, they have several constitutional protections that protect them from political or public subordination as they have jobs for life, they can't be moved to another city without their consent, etc.
Also, they have several constitutional protections that protect them from political or public subordination as they have jobs for life, they can't be moved to another city without their consent, etc.
You're not talking about Brazil, right?
I'm talking about Brazil. Sorry if it was not clear enough.
Do you realise those companies regularly cooperate with USA police in similar cases? Why should you be ashamed of your country acting as the sovereign nation it is?
Don't apologize. The judiciary and the federal police are the only institutions we have that kind of work. I agree judges have usually been wrong on this subject, but not because "it's Whatsapp" - Whatsapp shouldn't be treated a special entity.
> As a Brazilian I say sorry for all the brainless judges and law makers that we have.
Do you want them to act like Brazil is the USA's lackay (and end up like Mexico)?
Do you want them to act like Brazil is the USA's lackay (and end up like Mexico)?
How is that related to what is happening here? To fine a company for not getting that a company can't provide data it does not have is incompetence, not an act of sovereignty.
the case was in 2015 before whatsupp implemented encryption.
+ they failed to even reply.
I hope they go much further if they continue to not obey other countries' laws.
+ they failed to even reply.
I hope they go much further if they continue to not obey other countries' laws.
WhatsApp claims they never stored the messages. So it'd be akin to asking them to write a backdoor. Right?
The US courts tend to dislike willful ignorance. Why do you expect Brazilian ones to be different?
To fine a company (and some variants, like Google) in a strike of years and receive the same answer always is indeed an act against brazillian sovereignty.
And now Brazil is going to find out how little the rest of the internet cares about their sovereignty claims in this particular case. This is pure win for Whatsapp; Brazilian revenue is less for FB/WA than in most countries given the lingering zombie corpse of Orkut, so it does not cost as much to tell the Brazilian courts to piss off and gain street cred in markets they actually do care about.
Orkut is a non-factor in Brazil currently and has been for years now.
Facebook and whatsapp is used by basically everyone who has internet access [1][2]
Edit: Of course number of users does not imply in revenue, but the Facebook office in Brazil is also a gateway to other Latin American countries. So I would argue that the country might not be as unimportant as you seem to imply.
[1]http://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-b...
[2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/03/whatsapp-sh...
Facebook and whatsapp is used by basically everyone who has internet access [1][2]
Edit: Of course number of users does not imply in revenue, but the Facebook office in Brazil is also a gateway to other Latin American countries. So I would argue that the country might not be as unimportant as you seem to imply.
[1]http://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-b...
[2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/03/whatsapp-sh...
I second this . Was visiting Brazil for the new year and was kind of astonished to see whatsApp logos on store fronts along with store phone number.
Apart from (and maybe due to) its declining popularity in Brazil, Orkut was ultimately shut down by Google:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkut
So difficult to a judge understand what is encryption.
So difficult for a tech company to understand what government jurisdiction is.
The crime will happen no matter what tool they use. If there is no privacy on WhatsApp, they will send messages with any other software.
Encrypted messengers apps will be always available, because they are need for legal purposes.
If we follow the logic of this judge, all car and beer companies should be accountable for the drivers that kill driving drunk.
Please, tell me that I am wrong.
Encrypted messengers apps will be always available, because they are need for legal purposes.
If we follow the logic of this judge, all car and beer companies should be accountable for the drivers that kill driving drunk.
Please, tell me that I am wrong.
I do not disagree that encryption will always exist.
I'm stating that a commercial organization can be held liable and have action taken against it for running a messenger that violates the law of where it operates.
People torrent, but you would not expect a commercial torrent service to last very long if the law prohibits it. The technology can exist, but an entity formed within the framework of a government's regulations (in this case, a company) cannot run it.
Am I wrong?
I'm stating that a commercial organization can be held liable and have action taken against it for running a messenger that violates the law of where it operates.
People torrent, but you would not expect a commercial torrent service to last very long if the law prohibits it. The technology can exist, but an entity formed within the framework of a government's regulations (in this case, a company) cannot run it.
Am I wrong?
I respect your opinion my friend, you are not wrong, you are on your way.
Privacy is very important, millions of individuals can't loose it just because some criminals, that's is why I agree that this kind of companies shouldn't save the messages. This is my opinion.
Criminals could use other kind of encrypted messages, like email, or their own code. So it's in vain every body lose his privacy because some individuals, we must fight for other ways to combat crime.
Privacy is very important, millions of individuals can't loose it just because some criminals, that's is why I agree that this kind of companies shouldn't save the messages. This is my opinion.
Criminals could use other kind of encrypted messages, like email, or their own code. So it's in vain every body lose his privacy because some individuals, we must fight for other ways to combat crime.
The question is whether a media sharing service that operates in a country with no IP laws is required to either obey laws of countries that do or take reasonable measures to prevent citizens of such countries from accessing the service.
[deleted]
The important question is whether a country has jurisdiction over services rendered remotely. Is every website accessed by a Brazilian person required to follow Brazilian law?
If a Brazilian uses GPG is the author required to provide the Brazilian government a method of decryption? Are they required to take measures preventing Brazilians from acquiring the software?
If a Brazilian uses GPG is the author required to provide the Brazilian government a method of decryption? Are they required to take measures preventing Brazilians from acquiring the software?
But when you use that jurisdiction to order something that is literally impossible, you don't sound powerful, just stupid.
But its not impossible. If you make decryption impossible, the law can require you to not make it so. If you're a commercial entity, and you don't follow the law, you can be dissolved.
This is XKCD 101: https://xkcd.com/538/
This is XKCD 101: https://xkcd.com/538/
Except that Facebook is not a Brazilian company. They would just leave the country instead.
And that's entirely possible.
1) The investigation that led to these fines (and now to freezing Facebook's funds) begun in January 2015, way before widespread encryption was implemented in Whatsapp. Whatsapp received several requests to cooperate from the first month, apparently without reply. So the argument that E2E encryption is the reason why they do not cooperate doesn't really hold. [1]
2) On the other hand, our judges and the police have flirted with the ridiculous notion that Whatsapp should "disable encryption for some users" or "find a technological solution to get around encryption" (meaning: a backdoor). [2] While this is obviously possible, it is also clearly unethical and a judge shouldn't punish the company over this possibility without there being a large discussion - possibly laws - on the subject.
People have been quick to blame the judges because of extreme court actions, but the truth is Whatsapp is no saint; some of these investigations could hit high profile criminals and obviously getting to their communications would have been a lot of help to the police, and this was possible at some point. It isn't possible anymore, so I think what we're seeing now is a backlash from those early requests.
[1] http://paranaportal.uol.com.br/geral/justica-de-londrina-blo...
[2] http://m.convergenciadigital.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start...