8 ms·

The news is misrepresenting what is actually happening. A judge ruled for a 48 hour ban of WhatsApp from telcos to try to coerce WhatsApp into releasing privat

The news is misrepresenting what is actually happening. A judge ruled for a 48 hour ban of WhatsApp from telcos to try to coerce WhatsApp into releasing private chat information for an ongoing criminal investigation (wild guess: they want information from politically exposed actors due to the recent corruption investigations). There are precedents, and that's a tactic local judges are using to try to get cooperation from international private companies. This is the actual fact, but the article is conflating that with Marco Civil and other regulatory attempts that have nothing to do with this particular court ruling. TL;DR TechCrunch publishes unchecked, alarmist news.

ank_the_elder 11y ago
That sounds like a more interesting story - do you have any links to learn more about it? (even if they are in Portuguese) Thanks!
- hcarvalhoalves 11y ago
  It's linked in the article: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2015/12/1719934-justica-determina-bloqueio-do-whatsapp-em-todo-brasil-por-48-horas.shtml http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2015/12/1719934-justica...
  - ank_the_elder 11y ago
    (automatic translation, highlight mine) "[...] Folha learned that justice in São Bernardo do Campo wants WhatsApp stay out of air in the country due to a criminal investigation. The authorities investigating the case obtained legal authorization for the WhatsApp broke the confidentiality of data exchanged via investigated by the application, but the company did not release the requested information. The blockade would be a reprisal. In February, a similar case occurred in Piauí, when a judge also ruled WhatsApp lock in Brazil. The aim was to force the company that owns the application to cooperate with state police investigations related to cases of pedophilia. The decision was suspended by a judge of Piaui Court after analyzing writ of mandamus filed by the telcos. [...]"
rbanffy 11y ago
It seems it's related to a narcotraffic investigation, unrelated to corruption scandals, at least for now.
eduardordm 11y ago
My wife is a judge and she is not alarmed. She is terrified. We are green card holders and came back to the country 16 years ago. Tonight was the first time we had a conversation about leaving this place for good.
- adenot 11y ago
  I thought if you leave US for more than 3 (?) months you loose your green card status.
  - eduardordm 11y ago
    6 months + extensions. A minor effort is required to keep the visa.
    - ghshephard 11y ago
      Be cautious, I had a close friend have their Green Card seized while crossing the border back from Canada into the United States, even though he had documented evidence that he had spent 95% of the previous three years in the United States. He was a consultant, and traveled a lot, but thought he would hang out in Vancouver, BC for a while. Even though he only returned to Vancouver for a few days at a time, before going on the next engagement, and all engagements were in the United States, with a US employer, (And he was a Stanford Graduate) - they seized his GreenCard because his household goods (Mattress/clothing), had left the country more than a couple years ago, and used that as evidence of being away from the United States. Lesson learned - Sometimes the border staff gets caught up on stupid technicalities. Be aware of them, and don't use common sense.
  - Shank 11y ago
    The article is about Brazil. He's probably a Brazilian green card holder.
    - jzwinck 11y ago
      There is no such thing as a Brazilian green card. Green card is a figure of speech that is mostly used to refer to US permanent residency. Other countries often just call it PR.
NN88 11y ago
I'm not understanding your clarification. It still seems like a ridiculous reason to shut down whatsapp
- x0x0 11y ago
  Not at all. When companies decline to obey local law, it's reasonable for them to be cut off from operating in that country. Which is what the judge is proposing, temporarily. Probably with longer cutoffs to follow if this doesn't inspire obedience of judicial orders.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > When companies decline to obey local law, it's reasonable for them to be cut off from operating in that country. It's possible. It's only reasonable if the local law is itself reasonable.
    - x0x0 11y ago
      Obeying duly authorized warrants or subpoenas is very reasonable. It's really not WhatsApp's job or right to pass judgement on the political system of a country. If WhatsApp doesn't like that, they should withdraw their business from Brazil. And let's be serious; while Brazil may have problems, it's definitely not a dictatorship.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        > Obeying duly authorized warrants or subpoenas is very reasonable. Depends on the warrant or subpoena and the technology in question. If they have plaintext messages sitting around on a server somewhere, then perhaps they can supply the messages they've irresponsibly given themselves access to. However, WhatsApp claims to provide end-to-end encryption in some (though not all) cases, so they may not have the data in question; if so, a subpoena expecting them to supply it anyway wouldn't be reasonable. A subpoena expecting them to backdoor their client (in general or for a specific user) would not be reasonable. And that's before getting into the "why" of the individual case, such as whether this has any more merit than the "take down this YouTube video because it embarrasses us" cases that caused Brazil to attempt to block YouTube previously. Apart from that, a subpoena from a country only has legal meaning to a business with a legal nexus in that country. Providing a service via the Internet does not create a legal nexus in every country in the world. > If WhatsApp doesn't like that, they should withdraw their business from Brazil. What business in Brazil? I haven't seen anything in the stories or comments thus far to suggest that they have any legal nexus in Brazil. They have customers all over the world.
lucasnemeth 11y ago
It's a confidencial investigation, you have no reason to believe it is a politically exposed actor. It can be any sort of investigation, this is highly manipulative. The people who actually created this block wants to make you think it's related to the Lava-Jato, but they are probably doing it due to lobbists from telecom industries. They could fine facebook, the owner of whatsapp and that have offices in Brazil. It is unrelated to close the service. Has the Brazilian government ever closed Vivo or Tim because it had legal problems? No. They charge fines. There are precedents, and they were absurd. All the information on the article regarding Cunha is correct.

ank_the_elder 11y ago

That sounds like a more interesting story - do you have any links to learn more about it? (even if they are in Portuguese) Thanks!

hcarvalhoalves 11y ago
It's linked in the article: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2015/12/1719934-justica-determina-bloqueio-do-whatsapp-em-todo-brasil-por-48-horas.shtml http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2015/12/1719934-justica...
- ank_the_elder 11y ago
  (automatic translation, highlight mine) "[...] Folha learned that justice in São Bernardo do Campo wants WhatsApp stay out of air in the country due to a criminal investigation. The authorities investigating the case obtained legal authorization for the WhatsApp broke the confidentiality of data exchanged via investigated by the application, but the company did not release the requested information. The blockade would be a reprisal. In February, a similar case occurred in Piauí, when a judge also ruled WhatsApp lock in Brazil. The aim was to force the company that owns the application to cooperate with state police investigations related to cases of pedophilia. The decision was suspended by a judge of Piaui Court after analyzing writ of mandamus filed by the telcos. [...]"

rbanffy 11y ago

It seems it's related to a narcotraffic investigation, unrelated to corruption scandals, at least for now.

eduardordm 11y ago

My wife is a judge and she is not alarmed. She is terrified. We are green card holders and came back to the country 16 years ago. Tonight was the first time we had a conversation about leaving this place for good.

adenot 11y ago
I thought if you leave US for more than 3 (?) months you loose your green card status.
- eduardordm 11y ago
  6 months + extensions. A minor effort is required to keep the visa.
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    Be cautious, I had a close friend have their Green Card seized while crossing the border back from Canada into the United States, even though he had documented evidence that he had spent 95% of the previous three years in the United States. He was a consultant, and traveled a lot, but thought he would hang out in Vancouver, BC for a while. Even though he only returned to Vancouver for a few days at a time, before going on the next engagement, and all engagements were in the United States, with a US employer, (And he was a Stanford Graduate) - they seized his GreenCard because his household goods (Mattress/clothing), had left the country more than a couple years ago, and used that as evidence of being away from the United States. Lesson learned - Sometimes the border staff gets caught up on stupid technicalities. Be aware of them, and don't use common sense.
- Shank 11y ago
  The article is about Brazil. He's probably a Brazilian green card holder.
  - jzwinck 11y ago
    There is no such thing as a Brazilian green card. Green card is a figure of speech that is mostly used to refer to US permanent residency. Other countries often just call it PR.

NN88 11y ago

I'm not understanding your clarification. It still seems like a ridiculous reason to shut down whatsapp

x0x0 11y ago
Not at all. When companies decline to obey local law, it's reasonable for them to be cut off from operating in that country. Which is what the judge is proposing, temporarily. Probably with longer cutoffs to follow if this doesn't inspire obedience of judicial orders.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > When companies decline to obey local law, it's reasonable for them to be cut off from operating in that country. It's possible. It's only reasonable if the local law is itself reasonable.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    Obeying duly authorized warrants or subpoenas is very reasonable. It's really not WhatsApp's job or right to pass judgement on the political system of a country. If WhatsApp doesn't like that, they should withdraw their business from Brazil. And let's be serious; while Brazil may have problems, it's definitely not a dictatorship.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      > Obeying duly authorized warrants or subpoenas is very reasonable. Depends on the warrant or subpoena and the technology in question. If they have plaintext messages sitting around on a server somewhere, then perhaps they can supply the messages they've irresponsibly given themselves access to. However, WhatsApp claims to provide end-to-end encryption in some (though not all) cases, so they may not have the data in question; if so, a subpoena expecting them to supply it anyway wouldn't be reasonable. A subpoena expecting them to backdoor their client (in general or for a specific user) would not be reasonable. And that's before getting into the "why" of the individual case, such as whether this has any more merit than the "take down this YouTube video because it embarrasses us" cases that caused Brazil to attempt to block YouTube previously. Apart from that, a subpoena from a country only has legal meaning to a business with a legal nexus in that country. Providing a service via the Internet does not create a legal nexus in every country in the world. > If WhatsApp doesn't like that, they should withdraw their business from Brazil. What business in Brazil? I haven't seen anything in the stories or comments thus far to suggest that they have any legal nexus in Brazil. They have customers all over the world.

lucasnemeth 11y ago

It's a confidencial investigation, you have no reason to believe it is a politically exposed actor. It can be any sort of investigation, this is highly manipulative. The people who actually created this block wants to make you think it's related to the Lava-Jato, but they are probably doing it due to lobbists from telecom industries. They could fine facebook, the owner of whatsapp and that have offices in Brazil. It is unrelated to close the service. Has the Brazilian government ever closed Vivo or Tim because it had legal problems? No. They charge fines. There are precedents, and they were absurd. All the information on the article regarding Cunha is correct.