5 ms·

Can confirm whatsapp is down for some friends in Brazil. However, the real reason is not for what Techcrunch is saying. The issue is that WhatsApp didn't want

by rmdoss 11y ago

Can confirm whatsapp is down for some friends in Brazil. However, the real reason is not for what Techcrunch is saying. The issue is that WhatsApp didn't want to cooperate with the federal police and release chat information from some criminals. According to some sources there, they followed all due process and WhatsApp ignored. As a retaliation, to show that WhatsApp has to comply with Brazilian local laws when storing data from Brazilians using the service in Brazil, they banned WhatsApp for 48 hrs. A lot less alarmist.

morgante 11y ago
> some criminals You mean suspected criminals, right? It still seems pretty reactionary. The solution isn't to block an entire service.
- ossreality 11y ago
  >The solution isn't to block an entire service. Oh really? What else are you supposed to do when a startup flush with cash decides to ignore the laws of your nation, exactly?
  - leshow 11y ago
    What a ridiculous thing to say. Firstly, the amount of cash the company has is irrelevant. Secondly, it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if WhatsApp has no presence in Brazil (i.e. no physical offices, the service is just 'offered' there because it is on Google Play/App Store) then why should they have to comply with local laws in a foreign country? If my website gets ruled to turn over logs by some local jurisdiction in Brazil. Why should I feel compelled to comply? I am not Brazilian and I have no Brazilian business presence. It's the Internet... to be policed by every local jurisdiction in the world is ridiculous.
- pinkrooftop 11y ago
  Better an entire nation go without WhatsApp than one guilty man go free /s
- lagadu 11y ago
  > It still seems pretty reactionary. The solution isn't to block an entire service. Why not? If they're not complying with court mandated orders, then the court is empowered to enact any legal (in Brasil) measures to coerce cooperation out of the offender. If whatsapp wants to operate there they have to follow the law; they stopped following the law, they're no longer welcome.
  - scrupulusalbion 11y ago
    Perhaps I am overstepping my bounds, but to me it seems that using coercion to get information from a witness (Whatsapp appears to be in the position of a witness) is a recipe for getting unreliable information when the witness. Whatsapp seems to be in a position that it could retaliate against this Brazilian judge by giving false testimony. Afterall, Whatsapp and the parties to the messages are probably the only people who know what was said in those messages; Whatsapp could modify the messages such that they exonerate the accused. If the judge has played his only trump card by blocking usage of Whatsapp in Brazil, then Whatsapp knows the absolute worst that can happen by lying about what was said in the messages. Worse, the Judge may not even be able to prove what the messages actually contained.
cthalupa 11y ago
>As a retaliation, to show that WhatsApp has to comply with Brazilian local laws when storing data from Brazilians using the service in Brazil, they banned WhatsApp for 48 hrs. Why must WhatsApp comply with Brazilian laws? They have no offices there. If I run, say, a porn site, hosted in the US, as a US company, is it my responsibility to prevent users in a country where pornography is illegal from using my site? Do I have any duty to comply with said country requesting the identity and viewing history of citizens living in it? Of course not. That country can certainly block my site if their laws allow them to, but the idea that whatsapp /has/ to comply is ridiculous.
- kuschku 11y ago
  The idea is that if WhatsApp doesn’t want to be blocked, they have to follow the laws. And so they are blocked for 48 hours, warning them that they might be blocked permanently. It’s the only way to deal with lawbreaking companies in a globalized world.
  - cthalupa 11y ago
    >It’s the only way to deal with lawbreaking companies in a globalized world. Fundamentally, I think it's ludicrous to think you should international companies to the laws of your own country. Fundamentally, WhatsApp is not a lawbreaking company - they are not subject to Brazilian law. You can't break a rule that isn't actually imposed on you. From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter for Brazilians. The end result is the same. Brazilian law allows for them to block the site, and that's the end of that. But the reasoning behind it is important, and that people believe they have the right to subject people in different countries with different laws to their own local laws, despite those people not being in Brazil, is fundamentally scary to me. Even if I believed in following all of these laws, I am now expected to know all of them? WhatsApp has the backing of Facebook, so it's conceivable they have the resources to figure out the laws for every place their app is accessible from. But what about a small startup, or solo developer? How can you reasonably expect them to know every law in every internet accessible location? That way lies madness.
    - 11y ago

by rmdoss 11y ago

morgante 11y ago

> some criminals You mean suspected criminals, right? It still seems pretty reactionary. The solution isn't to block an entire service.

ossreality 11y ago
>The solution isn't to block an entire service. Oh really? What else are you supposed to do when a startup flush with cash decides to ignore the laws of your nation, exactly?
- leshow 11y ago
  What a ridiculous thing to say. Firstly, the amount of cash the company has is irrelevant. Secondly, it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if WhatsApp has no presence in Brazil (i.e. no physical offices, the service is just 'offered' there because it is on Google Play/App Store) then why should they have to comply with local laws in a foreign country? If my website gets ruled to turn over logs by some local jurisdiction in Brazil. Why should I feel compelled to comply? I am not Brazilian and I have no Brazilian business presence. It's the Internet... to be policed by every local jurisdiction in the world is ridiculous.
pinkrooftop 11y ago
Better an entire nation go without WhatsApp than one guilty man go free /s
lagadu 11y ago
> It still seems pretty reactionary. The solution isn't to block an entire service. Why not? If they're not complying with court mandated orders, then the court is empowered to enact any legal (in Brasil) measures to coerce cooperation out of the offender. If whatsapp wants to operate there they have to follow the law; they stopped following the law, they're no longer welcome.
- scrupulusalbion 11y ago
  Perhaps I am overstepping my bounds, but to me it seems that using coercion to get information from a witness (Whatsapp appears to be in the position of a witness) is a recipe for getting unreliable information when the witness. Whatsapp seems to be in a position that it could retaliate against this Brazilian judge by giving false testimony. Afterall, Whatsapp and the parties to the messages are probably the only people who know what was said in those messages; Whatsapp could modify the messages such that they exonerate the accused. If the judge has played his only trump card by blocking usage of Whatsapp in Brazil, then Whatsapp knows the absolute worst that can happen by lying about what was said in the messages. Worse, the Judge may not even be able to prove what the messages actually contained.

cthalupa 11y ago

>As a retaliation, to show that WhatsApp has to comply with Brazilian local laws when storing data from Brazilians using the service in Brazil, they banned WhatsApp for 48 hrs. Why must WhatsApp comply with Brazilian laws? They have no offices there. If I run, say, a porn site, hosted in the US, as a US company, is it my responsibility to prevent users in a country where pornography is illegal from using my site? Do I have any duty to comply with said country requesting the identity and viewing history of citizens living in it? Of course not. That country can certainly block my site if their laws allow them to, but the idea that whatsapp /has/ to comply is ridiculous.

kuschku 11y ago
The idea is that if WhatsApp doesn’t want to be blocked, they have to follow the laws. And so they are blocked for 48 hours, warning them that they might be blocked permanently. It’s the only way to deal with lawbreaking companies in a globalized world.
- cthalupa 11y ago
  >It’s the only way to deal with lawbreaking companies in a globalized world. Fundamentally, I think it's ludicrous to think you should international companies to the laws of your own country. Fundamentally, WhatsApp is not a lawbreaking company - they are not subject to Brazilian law. You can't break a rule that isn't actually imposed on you. From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter for Brazilians. The end result is the same. Brazilian law allows for them to block the site, and that's the end of that. But the reasoning behind it is important, and that people believe they have the right to subject people in different countries with different laws to their own local laws, despite those people not being in Brazil, is fundamentally scary to me. Even if I believed in following all of these laws, I am now expected to know all of them? WhatsApp has the backing of Facebook, so it's conceivable they have the resources to figure out the laws for every place their app is accessible from. But what about a small startup, or solo developer? How can you reasonably expect them to know every law in every internet accessible location? That way lies madness.
  - 11y ago