3 ms·

There's some subtle and fundamental differences here that I think are important. People are saying WhatsApp are lawbreakers, etc. That heavily implies that the

There's some subtle and fundamental differences here that I think are important. People are saying WhatsApp are lawbreakers, etc. That heavily implies that they've done something wrong - which would mean that they are indeed subject to these laws in some shape or fashion. I would argue that this is a dangerous thought process to have. It's a scary precedent - blocking WhatsApp is relatively mild, but what about if they wanted extradition? It's also encouraging a world where anyone with an internet accessible site or business is now having to somehow keep track of every applicable law in every internet accessible location. WhatsApp is a US based business that has not broken any US laws. They've done nothing wrong from that perspective. They can't be breaking laws they're not subject to. Brazil can control what is and isn't allowed in their country, and you can say that the service did not comply with their laws, and thus the ban - but WhatsApp still isn't a lawbreaking company. I think the distinction between the two is vital.

sangnoir 11y ago
My foundational statements, I think most people would agree to the follwing: 1. Sovereign countries have a right to formulate laws and uphold them to protect their citizens. 2. Companies can choose where they do business. In most cases, the relationship with host countries is symbiotic (benefits include skilled employees/employment, taxes). No one is suggesting that WhatsApp is breaking the law, however, Brazil requires WhatApps cooperation in a criminal investigation (criminal, by Brazilian law). WhatApp chose not to cooperate. Brazil's judiciary have come up with leverage to gain that cooperation, in the absence of more effective means (arresting WhatApp officers if they had an office in Brazil, as a US would in a Contempt of Court charge) IMO, legally this is similar to the UK using ISPs to block the Pirate Bay - it's perfectly legal in Sweden. Extreme example: the US would be entirely within their rights to block an Italian porn sites that has videos of 15 year-olds. The company won't be "lawbreakers", but they are not welcome on US's cyperspace

sangnoir 11y ago

My foundational statements, I think most people would agree to the follwing: 1. Sovereign countries have a right to formulate laws and uphold them to protect their citizens. 2. Companies can choose where they do business. In most cases, the relationship with host countries is symbiotic (benefits include skilled employees/employment, taxes). No one is suggesting that WhatsApp is breaking the law, however, Brazil requires WhatApps cooperation in a criminal investigation (criminal, by Brazilian law). WhatApp chose not to cooperate. Brazil's judiciary have come up with leverage to gain that cooperation, in the absence of more effective means (arresting WhatApp officers if they had an office in Brazil, as a US would in a Contempt of Court charge) IMO, legally this is similar to the UK using ISPs to block the Pirate Bay - it's perfectly legal in Sweden. Extreme example: the US would be entirely within their rights to block an Italian porn sites that has videos of 15 year-olds. The company won't be "lawbreakers", but they are not welcome on US's cyperspace