26 ms·

I'm here to defend the judge's ruling, a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil. Brazilian law regarding regarding privacy of users of int

by soneca 11y ago

I'm here to defend the judge's ruling, a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil. 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.

hughes 11y ago
How was the justice system able to communicate the shutdown order, but not able to communicate the request for user data?
- soneca 11y ago
  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.
  - bsder 11y ago
    Ah. I wondered why the ISP's seemed so happy to comply.
  - emp_zealoth 11y ago
    Can't WhatsApp set up it's communications in a way that makes blocking them break a lot of other unrelated things?
  - kawera 11y ago
    They are specially pissed off by whatsapp's free voice calls.
- grenoire 11y ago
  They can simply block network traffic. They don't need WhatsApp to shut itself for Brazilians.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Because the shutdown is done by ISPs, but the request for user data can be ignored by WhatsApp.
Others 11y ago
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?
- soneca 11y ago
  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).
  - chukye 11y ago
    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.
  - neerdowell 11y ago
    End-to-end encryption for Android to Android conversations has been in place since November 2014: https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    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.
latj 11y ago
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.
- 794CD01 11y ago
  "It's impossible for me to follow the law" is not a valid defense.
- ww520 11y ago
  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?
  - CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
    That would require a backdoor that didn't exist at the time and that WhatsApp doesn't want to create.
    - TearsInTheRain 11y ago
      It would require more than a backdoor but dozens of data centers as well as the software and personnel to manage them all
  - whatever_dude 11y ago
    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.
    - boobsbr 11y ago
      > 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'.
marvel_boy 11y ago
"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.
wslh 11y ago
> You can disagree with the law, but the law is there. There is something called Civil disobedience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) and surely if you analyze every law system it contradicts itself.
- return0 11y ago
  So, Facebook, a participant in PRISM, is now conducting civil disobedience. Totally believable.
  - wslh 11y ago
    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.
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      > Privacy is at stake here Are you arguing against the use of warrants in police investigations?
      - MajesticHobo 11y ago
        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.
        sangnoir 11y ago
        > 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.
newman314 11y ago
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.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > 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.
  - fx85ms 11y ago
    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.
btreesOfSpring 11y ago
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.
- cantrevealname 11y ago
  > 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.
  - batbomb 11y ago
    Supposedly Whatsapp has less than 100 employees.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Such as Tor?
- soneca 11y ago
  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).
product50 11y ago
It is ok - you won't understand.
mcintyre1994 11y ago
> 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?
coliveira 11y ago
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.
- soneca 11y ago
  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! :)
  - coliveira 11y ago
    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.
    - rmsaksida 11y ago
      > 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.
guelo 11y ago
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.
- gtirloni 11y ago
  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?
  - easytiger 11y ago
    Get a grip on reality and attain an understanding of how these communication systems work, then move on to other avenues of investigation
    - LoSboccacc 11y ago
      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.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        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.
        gtirloni 11y ago
acchow 11y ago
> 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.
- Touche 11y ago
  > 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.
  - acchow 11y ago
    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.
TallGuyShort 11y ago
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.
envy2 11y ago
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-tremendous-opportunity/ https://www.justsecurity.org/29203/british-searches-america-... [2] http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-temporarias/parlamentar-de-inquerito/55a-legislatura/cpi-crimes-ciberneticos/videoArquivo?codSessao=55221&codReuniao=42467#videoTitulo http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co...
- joshvm 11y ago
  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.
  - spdustin 11y ago
jgreen10 11y ago
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.
lucaspottersky 11y ago
while (true) { printf("There are unjust laws. The law can't be above the people. Laws are not a moral absolute."); }
outworlder 11y ago
> 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.
Netcob 11y ago
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.
- fredguth 11y ago
  > 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.
  - Barrin92 11y ago
    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.
fredguth 11y ago
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.
brazildewhatsap 11y ago
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.
- noarchy 11y ago
  >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.
  - powercf 11y ago
    > 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.
- beedogs 11y ago
  > Laws are laws. This is horrible reasoning.
smegel 11y ago
> Whatsapp is "too big to fail" What a terrible analogy.
neves 11y ago
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.
- themartorana 11y ago
  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.
  - neves 11y ago
    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.
erik14th 11y ago
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-whatsapp-in-brazil/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/mobile-operators-unite-against-...
- kagamine 11y ago
  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.
  - erik14th 11y ago
    "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 (:
i2shar 11y ago
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.
nxzero 11y ago
>> "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?
robbiemitchell 11y ago
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?
HappyTypist 11y ago
Whatsapp is end to end encrypted and won't have the data.
rkapsoro 11y ago
Brazil's faltering economic performance has a lot to do with this style of heavy-handed regulation.
marcofloriano 11y ago
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 ...
x0054 11y ago
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.
- SapphireSun 11y ago
  Please take a look at the HN guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html 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.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - girvo 11y ago
    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 :)
    - SapphireSun 11y ago
      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.
coldtea 11y ago
>* 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.
frostymarvelous 11y ago
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.
davesque 11y ago
But WhatsApp doesn't have the information. It's like ordering Fedex to turn over a package that they've already delivered.
programmarchy 11y ago
> 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.
msh 11y ago
So you think the great firewall of China is also a good thing?
tomjen3 11y ago
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.
mirimir 11y ago
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?
- Dolores12 11y ago
  You suggest to break the law and should be punished just for that.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." Aleister Crowley
kybernetyk 11y ago
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.
Loque 11y ago
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).
thiagoperes 11y ago
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.
AlgorithmicTime 11y ago
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.
nathan_f77 11y ago
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?
discardorama 11y ago
> 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!

by soneca 11y ago

hughes 11y ago

How was the justice system able to communicate the shutdown order, but not able to communicate the request for user data?

soneca 11y ago
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.
- bsder 11y ago
  Ah. I wondered why the ISP's seemed so happy to comply.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  Can't WhatsApp set up it's communications in a way that makes blocking them break a lot of other unrelated things?
- kawera 11y ago
  They are specially pissed off by whatsapp's free voice calls.
grenoire 11y ago
They can simply block network traffic. They don't need WhatsApp to shut itself for Brazilians.
kuschku 11y ago
Because the shutdown is done by ISPs, but the request for user data can be ignored by WhatsApp.

Others 11y ago

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?

soneca 11y ago
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).
- chukye 11y ago
  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.
- neerdowell 11y ago
  End-to-end encryption for Android to Android conversations has been in place since November 2014: https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  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.

latj 11y ago

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.

794CD01 11y ago
"It's impossible for me to follow the law" is not a valid defense.
ww520 11y ago
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?
- CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
  That would require a backdoor that didn't exist at the time and that WhatsApp doesn't want to create.
  - TearsInTheRain 11y ago
    It would require more than a backdoor but dozens of data centers as well as the software and personnel to manage them all
- whatever_dude 11y ago
  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.
  - boobsbr 11y ago
    > 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'.

marvel_boy 11y ago

"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.

wslh 11y ago

> You can disagree with the law, but the law is there. There is something called Civil disobedience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) and surely if you analyze every law system it contradicts itself.

return0 11y ago
So, Facebook, a participant in PRISM, is now conducting civil disobedience. Totally believable.
- wslh 11y ago
  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.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > Privacy is at stake here Are you arguing against the use of warrants in police investigations?
    - MajesticHobo 11y ago
      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.
      - sangnoir 11y ago
        > 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.

newman314 11y ago

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.

sangnoir 11y ago
> 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.
- fx85ms 11y ago
  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.

btreesOfSpring 11y ago

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.

cantrevealname 11y ago
> 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.
- batbomb 11y ago
  Supposedly Whatsapp has less than 100 employees.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Such as Tor?
soneca 11y ago
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).

product50 11y ago

It is ok - you won't understand.

mcintyre1994 11y ago

> 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?

coliveira 11y ago

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.

soneca 11y ago
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! :)
- coliveira 11y ago
  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.
  - rmsaksida 11y ago
    > 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.

guelo 11y ago

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.

gtirloni 11y ago
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?
- easytiger 11y ago
  Get a grip on reality and attain an understanding of how these communication systems work, then move on to other avenues of investigation
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    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.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      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.
      - gtirloni 11y ago

acchow 11y ago

> 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.

Touche 11y ago
> 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.
- acchow 11y ago
  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.

TallGuyShort 11y ago

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.

envy2 11y ago

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-tremendous-opportunity/ https://www.justsecurity.org/29203/british-searches-america-... [2] http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-temporarias/parlamentar-de-inquerito/55a-legislatura/cpi-crimes-ciberneticos/videoArquivo?codSessao=55221&codReuniao=42467#videoTitulo http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co...

joshvm 11y ago
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.
- spdustin 11y ago

jgreen10 11y ago

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.

lucaspottersky 11y ago

while (true) { printf("There are unjust laws. The law can't be above the people. Laws are not a moral absolute."); }

outworlder 11y ago

> 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.

Netcob 11y ago

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.

fredguth 11y ago
> 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.
- Barrin92 11y ago
  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.

fredguth 11y ago

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.

brazildewhatsap 11y ago

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.

noarchy 11y ago
>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.
- powercf 11y ago
  > 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.
beedogs 11y ago
> Laws are laws. This is horrible reasoning.

smegel 11y ago

> Whatsapp is "too big to fail" What a terrible analogy.

neves 11y ago

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.

themartorana 11y ago
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.
- neves 11y ago
  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.

erik14th 11y ago

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-whatsapp-in-brazil/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/mobile-operators-unite-against-...

kagamine 11y ago
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.
- erik14th 11y ago
  "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 (:

i2shar 11y ago

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.

nxzero 11y ago

>> "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?

robbiemitchell 11y ago

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?

HappyTypist 11y ago

Whatsapp is end to end encrypted and won't have the data.

rkapsoro 11y ago

Brazil's faltering economic performance has a lot to do with this style of heavy-handed regulation.

marcofloriano 11y ago

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 ...

x0054 11y ago

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.

SapphireSun 11y ago
Please take a look at the HN guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html 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.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- girvo 11y ago
  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 :)
  - SapphireSun 11y ago
    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.

coldtea 11y ago

>* 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.

frostymarvelous 11y ago

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.

davesque 11y ago

But WhatsApp doesn't have the information. It's like ordering Fedex to turn over a package that they've already delivered.

programmarchy 11y ago

> 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.

msh 11y ago

So you think the great firewall of China is also a good thing?

tomjen3 11y ago

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.

mirimir 11y ago

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?

Dolores12 11y ago
You suggest to break the law and should be punished just for that.
- mirimir 11y ago
  "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." Aleister Crowley

kybernetyk 11y ago

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.

Loque 11y ago

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).

thiagoperes 11y ago

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.

AlgorithmicTime 11y ago

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.

nathan_f77 11y ago

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?

discardorama 11y ago

> 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!