16 ms·
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,
by envy2 10y 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 10y agoI 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 10y agoTelegram isn't end-to-end encrypted unless you're in a "secret chat", and that chat exists only between two different devices and can't be used by multiple devices on one account. It's a "feature" of the normal chats/channels/groups/supergroups of Telegram that you are able to download them to other devices, or to restore them on a freshly wiped device, because (and I'm over-simplifying here, but the end result is the same) they are encrypted with a key known to the server, and which other devices signed into your account can then be authorized to use.
- joshvm 10y agoMy point was more that if WhatsApp retained messages in some form they most likely would expose that functionality to its users (as Telegram does). So when people say 'apparently' they don't store messages, I'm inclined to believe WhatsApp/Facebook.
- cantrevealname 10y ago> I can believe them [WhatsApp] when they say they don't keep data. If that's true, I'm in awe of their integrity. Skype on the other hand now has complete disregard for user privacy. Skype stores your voice mails and video messages forever[1]. This is something that they started doing 2-3 years ago and few people seem to be aware of it. It's amazing how low Skype fallen from its early days when it was considered a beacon of privacy and on the cutting edge of encryption and security. [1] Details: Clicking on Preferences -> Privacy -> Delete history (OS X) or Options -> Privacy Settings -> Clear history (Windows) pretends to delete the voice/video messages but it merely hides them from your view. If you re-install Skype on the same computer or run Skype on a different computer, all those "deleted" voice mails and video messages re-appear. The delete and clear buttons are basically lies; there's no polite way to put it.
- newjersey 10y agoYou used to could store your archive to Google Drive (at least with the Android client). Edit: yes, the chat backup functionality still works. I have never tried to restore it though. Go to settings > chats >> Chat backup to start backing up your messages to Google Drive. (Make sure you have 2FA on your Google account)
- Fargren 10y agoIf WhatsApp is unable to comply with Brazilian law, should it be allowed to operate in Brazil? I think this is a bad law by the way. Hopefully the clearly negative impact it is having will lead to it's reform.
- spullara 10y agoIt seems to me that they did comply with Brazilian law. They handed over all the conversations they had — zero. Is there a law that says they have to record all the conversations?
- kuschku 10y agoThey didn’t – they didn’t hand over the IP addresses that were requested.
- icebraining 10y agoWhere did you read that?
- lucb1e 10y agoI don't remember if those comments had sources, but I've seen that in various comments in this thread. There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around.
- MoreTuple 10y agoDo they operate in Brazil? They apparently have no offices there and are only available over the internet (as is true of all websites throughout most of the world.) How can anyone expect to hold what amounts to a random IP address on the internet responsible for anything?
- t3nary 10y agoTheir apps are in the Brazilian app stores
- cheatnews 10y agoreply
- smarx007 10y agoForeign law enforcement may kindly request US DoJ OR operate under their (foreign) laws (and with 0 help, it's not hard to guess what route would be taken).
- melvinmt 10y ago> WhatsApp publicly stated that it does not and has not retained any message content once messages are delivered This does not make a lot of sense. If they don't retain any message content, then how am I able to browse all my message threads on https://web.whatsapp.com https://web.whatsapp.com? EDIT: I'm wrong.
- kawera 10y agoThe messages come from your phone; that's why you need your phone to access the webapp.
- missing_cipher 10y agoIt connects to your phone which stores the messages, I believe.
- jklp 10y agoI also use the web interface and I believe it tethers your phone to the browser - so the phone is sending the unencrypted messages to the browser window. If you delete a message on the phone the message disappears in the web interface too.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- melvinmt 10y agoLooks like you guys are right: "WhatsApp Web connects to your phone to sync messages." I.. did not know that.
- point78 10y agoYour first point makes no sense whatsoever. Because an American company operates in a foreign country doesn't mean they don't have to follow the law. "oh sorry, breaking local laws? Oh well, we're in america! Too bad!" Doesn't work like that.
- serge2k 10y ago> 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. If you want to do business in a country then you should follow its laws.
- gcb0 10y ago> Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content i know nothing about law, but where are you getting this from? does not seems to be the case with any company in china (yahoo gave in, google decided to leave) for example.
- BrandonMarc 10y agoThe difference is likely that these companies had the type of presence that causes Chinese law to come into effect ... such as physical presence (servers), buildings (owned property), human presence (employees, especially if they're Chinese citizens), financial presence (bank accounts, insurance), business/legal presence (i.e. local corp, subsidiary, company of some sort).
- ptaipale 10y agoAnd in that case, it's the Chinese subsidiary that makes the decision to comply with Chinese law, as it obviously has to.
- lawpoop 10y ago> has no presence in Brazil. If they have no presence in Brazil, how did they get shut down in Brazil? I don't mean to be glib, but I don't see how the two concepts jive with each other. On a purely practical level, if they were interesting in maintaining their service in Brazil, why didn't they establish a presence in Brazil when all these previous orders and shutdowns were going on? This is like ignoring notices in the mail and then wondering why you're getting collections calls.
- Zombieball 10y ago> If they have no presence in Brazil, how did they get shut down in Brazil? Blocked at the ISP level.
- ashitlerferad 10y agoSeems like a flaw in the service if it can be shut down that easily.
- millak 10y agoWhy is that a flaw in the service? The ISP/mobile operator is essentially the gatekeeper to the Internet; having them block WhatsApp (or anything else) is just a case of them adding a block rule to their DNS. What would interest me is knowing whether or not access is still blocked if you change your default DNS server to something like 8.8.8.8?
- cplease 10y ago> First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. I certainly disagree with this ruling, but "no presence in Brazil" is wrong and contradicted by Facebook itself: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/saopaulo/ https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/saopaulo/ > São Paulo, Brazil 23 open positions > One of the most talented and diverse cities in the world, Sao Paulo is a hub for our operations throughout Latin America. Our teams make an impact by providing support to our communities, small and medium businesses and brands in the region. And of course their Latin America VP is located in this office: http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-hires-new-latin-america-head/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-hires-new-latin-americ... So I don't know where the bizarre idea that Facebook has "no presence" in Brazil comes from.
- ultrasandwich 10y agoWhatsApp and Facebook are in fact still separate companies. Just making this distinction.
- cplease 10y ago"Separate" as in WhatsApp Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Facebook Inc. That matters a lot.
- ultrasandwich 10y agoI suppose, but would you refer to General Electric and Telemundo in the same interchangeable way? Same difference. If I were applying to a job in GE's aviation research division, I wouldn't mail my application to Telemundo.
- cplease 10y agoThat's actually wrong at multiple levels; Telemundo is a division of NBCUniversal, a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast since 2013. It would be an apt comparison, if you imagine that Comcast had a Latin American headquarters in Brazil, where Telemundo's Portuguese telenovelas have millions of viewers; it would be weak tea for NBCUniversal to then argue that Brazil had no jurisdiction over it and the programming it distributes there because the shows are produced in Florida and NBCUniversal has no employees there.
- devishard 10y ago> 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. This is all WhatsApp's and the US's problem, not Brazil's. In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings. If anything, I think this would justify ruling against WhatsApp more harshly, as it sends the message to the US that policies which don't respect the sovereignty of Brazil will hurt US economic interests in Brazil. That said: > 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. If this is true, that's a solid argument and stands on its own.
- Retra 10y ago>In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings. It's just as insensitive for a judge of a foreign nation to suggest that all foreigners must consider his rulings when making decisions under their own sovereign laws.
- empressplay 10y agoIf a US law makes it impossible for a US company to comply with laws in another country in which they operate, that other country has the right to prohibit said company from operating there.
- ptaipale 10y agoThat doesn't mean it's wise for the said country to do so. In this case, doesn't seem like it is.
- rmc 10y ago> WhatsApp is a US company and... I always feel like many large US tech companies want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be a global company, they want to have 2 billion users, and are valued at having that many users. But when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone. I wouldn't mind if they ignored all national laws, and acted like a true global company. But I'm not from the USA (or Brazil), and don't want to be under US law. If you want to operate only user US law, then why not constrain yourself to the US market? Only operate there?
- rplnt 10y ago> when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone And when it comes to taxes...
- antr 10y ago... and when it comes to taxes they operate under US law, meaning that if they repatriate any foreign profits, they will have to pay taxes. If they decide not to, like Apple has decided, they won't be liable for any tax payment.
- mirimir 10y agoThat makes sense to me. But there really is no international law that's coherent and enforceable. It's a hard problem.