6 ms·

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 so

by Others 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
    [deleted]
- saint_fiasco 10y 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.
- envy2 10y ago
  WhatsApp publicly stated[1] in testimony before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes in December 2015 that they do not, and have not ever, retained the content of communications—regardless of E2E or not. Apparently, WhatsApp only retains messages until they are delivered. [1] 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...
- ovis 10y ago
  Do we know for sure what cases this particular order is connected to? Because WhatsApp has been encrypting Android communications since 2014 [0]. [0] https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/
794CD01 10y ago
If it is impossible for you to drive legally - say, for example, you are blind - that does not permit you to then drive illegally.
bybjorn 10y ago
Surely they are physically able to answer the court?
- briandear 10y ago
  That's my thinking -- an inability to comply could have been addressed with the court. Instead, it appears that they had no representation in front of the court in order to make that argument, have hearings and otherwise determine that compliance is impossible. The merits of the case are one thing, however not appearing to address those merits (or lack thereof) seems to be the failure point. But I could be wrong.
marcosdumay 10y ago
The Law orders it to collect the data, the data is available and Watsapp does collect it, but instantly discards (or so they claim). What is in there that can not be punished? I don't think this specific law is a good one, but it is not in clear violation of our Constitution, and was brought up by People's representatives... We should fight for improving it, and we should stop relying on infrastructure owned by private companies. But I can't think this judge is wrong.
- icebraining 10y ago
  The Law orders it to collect the data Which law orders them to collect the data?
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    Marco Civil da Internet. Brazilian federal Law nº 12965. http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/_Ato2011-2014/2014/Lei/L12965.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/_Ato2011-2014/2014/Lei/...
    - coldcode 10y ago
      It doesn't matter it's not a Brazilian company, there are no servers in Brazil, only the users exist in Brazil. They could mandate Mark Zuckerberg run around naked and it would make no difference. Maybe Brazil should create a great wall of Brazil and cut itself off of the internet. Then it could enact whatever laws it wants to affect companies in other countries.
      - marcosdumay 10y ago
        Facebook has at least one company in Brazil, and they are providing a service in Brazil that this judge ordered to interrupt. It's perfectly reasonable to forbid access to Brazil for some service that does not follow a Brazilian law. This is bad because of the specific terms of this law, not because of some broad issue.
curiouscats 10y ago
Companies can be punished for failure to obey laws. If a company didn't bother to retain records on who bought something they are now required to recall due to safety failures I can't imagine any country would say that is ok. They would be punished. I don't happen to think the law mentioned is a good one. And I have no idea how the law is actually worded. Depending on how it is worded maybe it is ok to just not keep records so you don't have to provide them. But it is certainly within the power of governments to demand companies operate in a manner that requires them to do certain things and you can't avoid that by for example not keeping the records you are required to. I sure hope the USA stops the leadership of authoritarian overreaching on laws relating to technology. But it is not at all surprising that others are following the lead of the USA into horrible authoritarian and Orwellian laws given the USA's behavior. Few countries seem willing to put liberty ahead of authoritarianism. The USA is far from perfect but it is a country that has above average potential for promoting liberty. But the last Bush and Obama administrations have been horrible and both political parties are pushing for horrible laws. A few decent advocates (such as Senator Ron Wyden) for fighting this trend exist but they are not common yet. This promotion of authoritarian state power is a very dangerous trend that may well have incredibly bad consequences for us. Our history shows authoritarian governments abuse power and I am worried about the last two administrations strong support for increasingly powerful spying abilities of government. I would hope countries like Brazil lead away from the path the USA is pushing the world down. Unfortunately I don't see much good happening in that way. I hope I am just not aware of good things other countries are doing but I worry that isn't the reason I don't hear about good moves to thwart the dreams of authoritarian regimes.
- robbiemitchell 10y ago
  So if a judge demanded a telco hand over an audio recording of any specific conversation, they must comply -- even though calls are not recorded and stored? If a judge demanded the postal service hand over an image of every envelope processed, it must comply -- even though no such images exist? Where does it end?
  - curiouscats 10y ago

by Others 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
  [deleted]
saint_fiasco 10y 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.
envy2 10y ago
WhatsApp publicly stated[1] in testimony before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes in December 2015 that they do not, and have not ever, retained the content of communications—regardless of E2E or not. Apparently, WhatsApp only retains messages until they are delivered. [1] 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...
ovis 10y ago
Do we know for sure what cases this particular order is connected to? Because WhatsApp has been encrypting Android communications since 2014 [0]. [0] https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/ https://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-messaging/

794CD01 10y ago

If it is impossible for you to drive legally - say, for example, you are blind - that does not permit you to then drive illegally.

bybjorn 10y ago

Surely they are physically able to answer the court?

briandear 10y ago
That's my thinking -- an inability to comply could have been addressed with the court. Instead, it appears that they had no representation in front of the court in order to make that argument, have hearings and otherwise determine that compliance is impossible. The merits of the case are one thing, however not appearing to address those merits (or lack thereof) seems to be the failure point. But I could be wrong.

marcosdumay 10y ago

The Law orders it to collect the data, the data is available and Watsapp does collect it, but instantly discards (or so they claim). What is in there that can not be punished? I don't think this specific law is a good one, but it is not in clear violation of our Constitution, and was brought up by People's representatives... We should fight for improving it, and we should stop relying on infrastructure owned by private companies. But I can't think this judge is wrong.

icebraining 10y ago
The Law orders it to collect the data Which law orders them to collect the data?
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Marco Civil da Internet. Brazilian federal Law nº 12965. http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/_Ato2011-2014/2014/Lei/L12965.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/_Ato2011-2014/2014/Lei/...
  - coldcode 10y ago
    It doesn't matter it's not a Brazilian company, there are no servers in Brazil, only the users exist in Brazil. They could mandate Mark Zuckerberg run around naked and it would make no difference. Maybe Brazil should create a great wall of Brazil and cut itself off of the internet. Then it could enact whatever laws it wants to affect companies in other countries.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      Facebook has at least one company in Brazil, and they are providing a service in Brazil that this judge ordered to interrupt. It's perfectly reasonable to forbid access to Brazil for some service that does not follow a Brazilian law. This is bad because of the specific terms of this law, not because of some broad issue.

curiouscats 10y ago

Companies can be punished for failure to obey laws. If a company didn't bother to retain records on who bought something they are now required to recall due to safety failures I can't imagine any country would say that is ok. They would be punished. I don't happen to think the law mentioned is a good one. And I have no idea how the law is actually worded. Depending on how it is worded maybe it is ok to just not keep records so you don't have to provide them. But it is certainly within the power of governments to demand companies operate in a manner that requires them to do certain things and you can't avoid that by for example not keeping the records you are required to. I sure hope the USA stops the leadership of authoritarian overreaching on laws relating to technology. But it is not at all surprising that others are following the lead of the USA into horrible authoritarian and Orwellian laws given the USA's behavior. Few countries seem willing to put liberty ahead of authoritarianism. The USA is far from perfect but it is a country that has above average potential for promoting liberty. But the last Bush and Obama administrations have been horrible and both political parties are pushing for horrible laws. A few decent advocates (such as Senator Ron Wyden) for fighting this trend exist but they are not common yet. This promotion of authoritarian state power is a very dangerous trend that may well have incredibly bad consequences for us. Our history shows authoritarian governments abuse power and I am worried about the last two administrations strong support for increasingly powerful spying abilities of government. I would hope countries like Brazil lead away from the path the USA is pushing the world down. Unfortunately I don't see much good happening in that way. I hope I am just not aware of good things other countries are doing but I worry that isn't the reason I don't hear about good moves to thwart the dreams of authoritarian regimes.

robbiemitchell 10y ago
So if a judge demanded a telco hand over an audio recording of any specific conversation, they must comply -- even though calls are not recorded and stored? If a judge demanded the postal service hand over an image of every envelope processed, it must comply -- even though no such images exist? Where does it end?
- curiouscats 10y ago