15 ms·

WhatsApp is back online in Brazil

209 points by natthub 10y ago

molecule 10y ago
"Brazilian appellate judge rescinds WhatsApp block" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/brazilian-judge-blocks-whatsapp-for-72-hours-but-it-still-works-over-vpn-wi-fi/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/brazilian-judge-b...
- gtirloni 10y ago
  Now Facebook appointed Matt Steinfeld (Facebook's Head of Communications) to discuss the matter. The judge must be pleased.
smaili 10y ago
I'm fairly certain Brazil didn't just wake up one day and decide to reactivate WhatsApp's service... So my first reaction to this news is what did Facebook/WhatsApp/Zuckerberg do, or possibly even give up, in order to change Brazil's mind.
- x0054 10y ago
  Nothing, their judicial system functioned as it should, only a day too slow. A district judge in the middle of the country has no right to do stuff like that, and the appellate judge fixed the overstep. Now, step 2, disbar the original district judge.
  - outworlder 10y ago
    Step 2 seldom happens. Judges have an extreme amount of power.
    - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
      Actually judges generally have very little power. For example, they can't enforce any decision they make, they can only make decisions. In a functioning democracy the branches are balanced. In this case it looks like it took too long.
      - neves 10y ago
        In Brazil a lower judge just illegally wired trap the president talking to an ex-president and released it to the media. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/release-tapped-phone-calls-lula-rousseff-deepens-brazil-chaos http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/release-tapped-...
- readams 10y ago
  There is only one specific judge that has ordered the block both times it has occurred. Both times it has been overturned when appealed to other judges in Brazil. It's not "Brazil" that made this decision. It's one extremist judge.
  - schoen 10y ago
    The December 2015 block was ordered by a judge in São Paulo (edit: São Bernardo do Campo city, in São Paulo state), while the most recent block was ordered by a judge in Sergipe. What you might be thinking of was the February arrest of a Facebook executive, which was ordered by the same judge in Sergipe as the current WhatsApp block.
    - singlow 10y ago
      I think he or she just meant that in each case it was a single Judge's decision - that in neither case was the decision reviewed by a second court or committee before taking effect.
  - luizlopes 10y ago
    I've heard of groups of people in the Southeast talk about how the mentality of the people in the Northeast is different, and that is how you get the extremist judge.
    - schoen 10y ago
      Recall that a similar order was issued by a judge in São Bernardo do Campo just five months ago (causing Brazilian ISPs to block access to WhatsApp servers).
    - cadddr 10y ago
      If you are Brazilian (as your username suggests), you should be ashamed for making this comment.
      - scriptalipta 10y ago
notliketherest 10y ago
This follows a nation wide uproar. Definitely not a popular decision in a country that relies on this service, however the decision was made. My wife is Brazilian and you should see her Facebook news feed...they're blaming the same government they want to throw out of office - not a great timing on their part.
- icebraining 10y ago
  On whose part? This wasn't a decision by the government.
antisthenes 10y ago
Out of curiosity, what did Brazil use before WhatsApp existed? It seems strange to me that 1 app can capture such an overwhelming majority, because it's just a client, of which there have always been dozens if not hundreds.
- gtirloni 10y ago
  SMS. It was a big focus for a lot of telcos until recently. WhatsApp usage seem to have gone hand in hand with increased availability of smartphones (Android, mostly). I don't remember any other mobile messaging app that had widespread usage before that.
  - astronautjones 10y ago
    exactly. remember, the US was not the reason FB shelled out to buy 'em
- revelation 10y ago
  Orkut (SCNR)
- guhcampos 10y ago
  I'm not even sure. I remember giving Kik a go in the early days of smartphones, but all of a sudden everyone was using WhatsApp. My own social circle used to prefer Kik since it had features like Location sharing way before WhatsApp did. It could be that WhatsApp was the first to get translated to Brazilian Portuguese, and since I've always used the English version I never noticed. Even if English is taught as a second language in all schools, most Brazilians can't read or write English, so this is a big deal.
- notliketherest 10y ago
  SMS. It is VERY expensive in Brazil
- EuAndreh 10y ago
  IMHO, the biggest selling point of WhatsApp for brazilians is that it works as offline as it is possible. All received data is stored locally. Even if you're offline and send a message, it stores it locally and send it when connection becomes available. Since the majority of WhatsApp users in Brazil have access only to low quality internet connection, this becomes a major issue.
rev087 10y ago
I'm Brazilian, my phone got bombarded with "<user> just joined Telegram" notifications today.
- voltagex_ 10y ago
  Hopefully it's the user that you expect: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/726468845133811717 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/72646884513381171...
educar 10y ago
I hope the govt sees the reliance on this service and does something positive about it (for example, build their own or tie up with some company). Such massive dependence on a company with no contracts is going to end up in a mess later.
- visarga 10y ago
  On the other hand, using a government issued instant messenger seems even more dangerous. I think Brazilians have more to fear from their own government than foreign governments.
  - educar 10y ago
    Well, fear of government and police seems to be some hip thing amongst some HN commenters. This doesn't make sense and shakes the whole foundation of democracy. Do we really have democratic nations that would rather rely on some corporation than the government? Is brazil such a nation. That is semi-alarming to me.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  I do not understand this approach. A market solution works and is popular, so the government should step in and try to develop something better with "contracts"?
  - educar 10y ago
    It's just a form of standardization by the government in terms of the technical protocol. Just like EU has some with OOXML and ODF. This ensures that other players can come in and build alternative clients. Without regulations, it's going to be a nation relying on a company. I don't think that is good.
    - EuAndreh 10y ago
      Many people in fact rely on WhatsApp. But that's not like they own the only road available. If for some reason WhatsApp suddenly vanished, people would switch to the competitors, like Telegram, Messenger, Viber, etc. There would be chaos during the change, but that's just because the change happens suddenly. If it happens slowly (if the government continues to block WhatsApp, people will rely on an alternative), then I see no harm.
guhcampos 10y ago
This is hardly the first or the last time this kind of things happens in Brazil. Long story short, this is exactly the same standoff that happened recently in the US between the FBI and Apple: the authorities want information from a suspect phone, and assume they can get it from a company, in this case WhatsApp. A warrant is issued, and the company refuses to comply. The big difference is: WhatsApp has been a major headache for telecom companies in Brazil, especially since the arrival of voice calls. With Wifi everywhere, people have been avoiding expensive traditional calls and just using WhatsApp to call for free. For that reason, the telcos in Brazil are more than happy to comply with court when it comes to WhatsApp blocks, so they do it right away, no questions asked.
- deleted_soon 10y ago
  The thing is, WhatsApp is not just refusing to comply - they can't comply, since they don't retain message data. In addition, now that all messages are encrypted end to end, it will be impossible for them to comply in the future.
  - motoboi 10y ago
    Well, if they just had responded to the judge order explain that or explaining anything, maybe the judge would consider it. We came to this point because whatsapp do not exist as a company in Brazil and simply ignored the court order. Know they probably considered such orders may happen again and decided to respond to the order.
    - nihonde 10y ago
      I guarantee you that there is a good reason WhatsApp doesn't have a presence in Brazil and doesn't show its face in their courts. I have no inside knowledge, but I'm assuming it's because legal presence will give the Brazilian government even more leverage to coerce them to dubious ends, expose them to more liability, etc. I do know that Brazil has a history of corruption and tragically stupid foreign trade policies.
lucastx 10y ago
We dodged this bullet but here in Brazil but RIGHT NOW there is a much more dangerous risk: with the Parliamentary Commission on Cybercrimes (CPI dos Crimes Cibernéticos / CPICIBER) report a "combo" of bills will get "fast track" on Congress and, to list some things, expand data retention, allow access to IP addresses without warrant and allow judges to block "illegal" content, including copyright violations much like DMCA does (they use the "notice-and-staydown" terminology). More details here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/battery-dangerous-cybercrime-proposals-still-hang-over-brazil https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/battery-dangerous-cybe... https://www.accessnow.org/access-now-delivers-petition-brazil-cybercrime-commission/ https://www.accessnow.org/access-now-delivers-petition-brazi... https://theintercept.com/2016/04/26/brazilian-cybercrime-bills-threaten-open-internet-for-200-million-people/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/26/brazilian-cybercrime-bil... The final voting will happen TOMORROW, 9 a.m. Brasilia time (GMT-3), 5am in California I guess. If you can help raise awareness and use EFF's Action Center to message the parliamentaries through Twitter and Facebook around that time, it would help a lot. https://act.eff.org/action/fight-back-against-brazil-s-draconian-new-cybercrime-bill https://act.eff.org/action/fight-back-against-brazil-s-draco... In portuguese, this is the best starting point on the debate (disclaimer: I work on antivigilancia.org): https://antivigilancia.org/pt/cpiciber/ https://antivigilancia.org/pt/cpiciber/
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Your page isn't clear, what exactly happens tomorrow? Is it the final voting on the CPI? Or is there some law project under vote right now?
  - lucastx 10y ago
    I'll work on a quick article today to explain this and adapt the page to reflect that. Thanks for the tips. Answering you quickly (I'm preparing dinner :-)): - Tomorrow, the CPI decides their final report (after three drafts and a couple separate patches) on all the inquiries the commission made the last months. This report includes "recommendations" to some existing draft bills and proposes a number of other bills. - Parliamentaries presented "destaques" that will be voted separately and may supress the "IP blocking for illegal content" and "notification-based removal of illegal content" bills. - The final report as of now is the first link with a small patch on the Projeto de Lei 1.6 made by the second link. http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1452665 http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?... http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-temporarias/parlamentar-de-inquerito/55a-legislatura/cpi-crimes-ciberneticos/documentos/outros-documentos/nota-de-esclarecimento-sub-relatores-deputados-sandro-alex-e-rafael-motta http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co... EDIT TO APPEND: TL;DR: The two bills that we may realistically remove through the help of friendly parliamentaries tomorrow are the ones about illegal website blocking (ISP blacklisting) and content removal through notification; both open the door for criminalizing remixes and using copyright infringement for censorship.
source99 10y ago
And now Facebook is down for me entirely.
smegel 10y ago
What does the USA do about WhatsApp? Do they really tolerate end to end encryption they cant subpoena the company for...or does the NSA have a big fat pipe into the WhatsApp data-center?
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  I think that one way or another, WhatsApp isn't foiling the NSA if the NSA doesn't feel like being foiled. Then again, they may realize what most of us do, which is that WhatsApp is not exactly a terrorist hotbed.
  - walrus01 10y ago
    NSA will simply pwn the endpoint devices of whoever they're really interested in.
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      I want to believe that. I want to believe that the NSA, while having no respect for the law, does at least care about results. It would make a lot more sense to tap devices of interesting people, than this idea of bulk collection (which leads to just a lot more noise).
    - aw3c2 10y ago
      And that would be fine. If they have reasonable proof that someone is bad enough to allow this, by all means pwn the targeted hell out of their devices.
  - lazaroclapp 10y ago
    It is not foiling targeted attacks, of course. But it might be making a dent on cheap/effortless mass surveillance, which is the main point.
- caf 10y ago
  If the end-to-end encryption is working as designed then "a big fat pipe into the WhatsApp data-center" would be of no help. For high enough value targets the NSA is probably happy to compromise the endpoints.
walrus01 10y ago
gggggggooooooaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllll
chatmasta 10y ago
> the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy If companies like Facebook were not funneling everybody onto centralized platforms, it would be harder for an ISP to deny that freedom. The centralization of communication platforms is a bigger problem than any ISP censorship. That they have a target to shutdown at all is the real issue.
- davesque 10y ago
  Agreed. Zuckerberg's little victory speech in this post reminds me of the kind of talk he used in defending his free basics plan. I get a little tired of people with heavy business interests weighing in on "democracy" and "freedom."
lucb1e 10y ago
> the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy Says the person (in name of the company, I assume) whose company blocks things they don't "like", such as messages containing telegram.org or telegram.me[1]. Now Facebook is not a democracy and they can block and censor pretty much any message they like, but now they go on to tell Brazil how it should run its judicial system. That's like giving people free beer and then asking them to take up pitchforks and come along to put some pressure on a third party you don't like very much. [1] https://i.snag.gy/9KBPGR.jpg https://i.snag.gy/9KBPGR.jpg
- nxzero 10y ago
  Maybe this is obvious, or that I'm wrong, but the issue in Brazil is that most Brazilians are left-wing conservatives AND within in recent past put the current government in power. Long term this is the issue, not these "cyber attacks" - which are to me very problematic, but only a symptom of the issue.
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    I'm not sure which "cyber attacks" you are talking about. It's about a judge ordering Whatsapp to be taken offline for 72 hours for not complying with a court order, or am I missing something?
    - nxzero 10y ago
      Quotes infer that it's a hyperbolic metaphor - and is used to express the degree of my disgust for a country "legally" attacking itself without good cause. __ * Hyperbolic metaphor: https://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/can-a-metaphor-be-hyperbole-too/ https://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/can-a-metaphor-b...
  - dublinben 10y ago
    What does "left-wing conservatives" mean?
hudell 10y ago
"Brazilians have been leaders in connecting the world and creating an open internet for many years. I hope you make your voice heard now and demand change" I think he didn't word this right.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
camillomiller 10y ago
Once again the bigger problem we really have to face is the corporatization of the defense of civil rights
tomash 10y ago
Facebook once banned me for 24h just for sending my friend a link (via messenger) to animgif containing female boobs. (together with ban FB expired all API access tokens of my apps) Zuckerberg positioning himself as champion of democracy and unrestricted communication is ridiculous.
JackC 10y ago
Public service announcement: if you install Orbot, you can route traffic for any Android app through Tor. https://www.torproject.org/docs/android.html.en https://www.torproject.org/docs/android.html.en

209 points by natthub 10y ago

"Brazilian appellate judge rescinds WhatsApp block" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/brazilian-judge-blocks-whatsapp-for-72-hours-but-it-still-works-over-vpn-wi-fi/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/brazilian-judge-b...

gtirloni 10y ago
Now Facebook appointed Matt Steinfeld (Facebook's Head of Communications) to discuss the matter. The judge must be pleased.

smaili 10y ago

I'm fairly certain Brazil didn't just wake up one day and decide to reactivate WhatsApp's service... So my first reaction to this news is what did Facebook/WhatsApp/Zuckerberg do, or possibly even give up, in order to change Brazil's mind.

x0054 10y ago
Nothing, their judicial system functioned as it should, only a day too slow. A district judge in the middle of the country has no right to do stuff like that, and the appellate judge fixed the overstep. Now, step 2, disbar the original district judge.
- outworlder 10y ago
  Step 2 seldom happens. Judges have an extreme amount of power.
  - matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    Actually judges generally have very little power. For example, they can't enforce any decision they make, they can only make decisions. In a functioning democracy the branches are balanced. In this case it looks like it took too long.
    - neves 10y ago
      In Brazil a lower judge just illegally wired trap the president talking to an ex-president and released it to the media. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/release-tapped-phone-calls-lula-rousseff-deepens-brazil-chaos http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/release-tapped-...
readams 10y ago
There is only one specific judge that has ordered the block both times it has occurred. Both times it has been overturned when appealed to other judges in Brazil. It's not "Brazil" that made this decision. It's one extremist judge.
- schoen 10y ago
  The December 2015 block was ordered by a judge in São Paulo (edit: São Bernardo do Campo city, in São Paulo state), while the most recent block was ordered by a judge in Sergipe. What you might be thinking of was the February arrest of a Facebook executive, which was ordered by the same judge in Sergipe as the current WhatsApp block.
  - singlow 10y ago
    I think he or she just meant that in each case it was a single Judge's decision - that in neither case was the decision reviewed by a second court or committee before taking effect.
- luizlopes 10y ago
  I've heard of groups of people in the Southeast talk about how the mentality of the people in the Northeast is different, and that is how you get the extremist judge.
  - schoen 10y ago
    Recall that a similar order was issued by a judge in São Bernardo do Campo just five months ago (causing Brazilian ISPs to block access to WhatsApp servers).
  - cadddr 10y ago
    If you are Brazilian (as your username suggests), you should be ashamed for making this comment.
    - scriptalipta 10y ago

notliketherest 10y ago

This follows a nation wide uproar. Definitely not a popular decision in a country that relies on this service, however the decision was made. My wife is Brazilian and you should see her Facebook news feed...they're blaming the same government they want to throw out of office - not a great timing on their part.

icebraining 10y ago
On whose part? This wasn't a decision by the government.

antisthenes 10y ago

Out of curiosity, what did Brazil use before WhatsApp existed? It seems strange to me that 1 app can capture such an overwhelming majority, because it's just a client, of which there have always been dozens if not hundreds.

gtirloni 10y ago
SMS. It was a big focus for a lot of telcos until recently. WhatsApp usage seem to have gone hand in hand with increased availability of smartphones (Android, mostly). I don't remember any other mobile messaging app that had widespread usage before that.
- astronautjones 10y ago
  exactly. remember, the US was not the reason FB shelled out to buy 'em
revelation 10y ago
Orkut (SCNR)
guhcampos 10y ago
I'm not even sure. I remember giving Kik a go in the early days of smartphones, but all of a sudden everyone was using WhatsApp. My own social circle used to prefer Kik since it had features like Location sharing way before WhatsApp did. It could be that WhatsApp was the first to get translated to Brazilian Portuguese, and since I've always used the English version I never noticed. Even if English is taught as a second language in all schools, most Brazilians can't read or write English, so this is a big deal.
notliketherest 10y ago
SMS. It is VERY expensive in Brazil
EuAndreh 10y ago
IMHO, the biggest selling point of WhatsApp for brazilians is that it works as offline as it is possible. All received data is stored locally. Even if you're offline and send a message, it stores it locally and send it when connection becomes available. Since the majority of WhatsApp users in Brazil have access only to low quality internet connection, this becomes a major issue.

rev087 10y ago

I'm Brazilian, my phone got bombarded with "<user> just joined Telegram" notifications today.

voltagex_ 10y ago
Hopefully it's the user that you expect: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/726468845133811717 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/72646884513381171...

educar 10y ago

I hope the govt sees the reliance on this service and does something positive about it (for example, build their own or tie up with some company). Such massive dependence on a company with no contracts is going to end up in a mess later.

visarga 10y ago
On the other hand, using a government issued instant messenger seems even more dangerous. I think Brazilians have more to fear from their own government than foreign governments.
- educar 10y ago
  Well, fear of government and police seems to be some hip thing amongst some HN commenters. This doesn't make sense and shakes the whole foundation of democracy. Do we really have democratic nations that would rather rely on some corporation than the government? Is brazil such a nation. That is semi-alarming to me.
ptaipale 10y ago
I do not understand this approach. A market solution works and is popular, so the government should step in and try to develop something better with "contracts"?
- educar 10y ago
  It's just a form of standardization by the government in terms of the technical protocol. Just like EU has some with OOXML and ODF. This ensures that other players can come in and build alternative clients. Without regulations, it's going to be a nation relying on a company. I don't think that is good.
  - EuAndreh 10y ago
    Many people in fact rely on WhatsApp. But that's not like they own the only road available. If for some reason WhatsApp suddenly vanished, people would switch to the competitors, like Telegram, Messenger, Viber, etc. There would be chaos during the change, but that's just because the change happens suddenly. If it happens slowly (if the government continues to block WhatsApp, people will rely on an alternative), then I see no harm.

guhcampos 10y ago

This is hardly the first or the last time this kind of things happens in Brazil. Long story short, this is exactly the same standoff that happened recently in the US between the FBI and Apple: the authorities want information from a suspect phone, and assume they can get it from a company, in this case WhatsApp. A warrant is issued, and the company refuses to comply. The big difference is: WhatsApp has been a major headache for telecom companies in Brazil, especially since the arrival of voice calls. With Wifi everywhere, people have been avoiding expensive traditional calls and just using WhatsApp to call for free. For that reason, the telcos in Brazil are more than happy to comply with court when it comes to WhatsApp blocks, so they do it right away, no questions asked.

deleted_soon 10y ago
The thing is, WhatsApp is not just refusing to comply - they can't comply, since they don't retain message data. In addition, now that all messages are encrypted end to end, it will be impossible for them to comply in the future.
- motoboi 10y ago
  Well, if they just had responded to the judge order explain that or explaining anything, maybe the judge would consider it. We came to this point because whatsapp do not exist as a company in Brazil and simply ignored the court order. Know they probably considered such orders may happen again and decided to respond to the order.
  - nihonde 10y ago
    I guarantee you that there is a good reason WhatsApp doesn't have a presence in Brazil and doesn't show its face in their courts. I have no inside knowledge, but I'm assuming it's because legal presence will give the Brazilian government even more leverage to coerce them to dubious ends, expose them to more liability, etc. I do know that Brazil has a history of corruption and tragically stupid foreign trade policies.

lucastx 10y ago

We dodged this bullet but here in Brazil but RIGHT NOW there is a much more dangerous risk: with the Parliamentary Commission on Cybercrimes (CPI dos Crimes Cibernéticos / CPICIBER) report a "combo" of bills will get "fast track" on Congress and, to list some things, expand data retention, allow access to IP addresses without warrant and allow judges to block "illegal" content, including copyright violations much like DMCA does (they use the "notice-and-staydown" terminology). More details here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/battery-dangerous-cybercrime-proposals-still-hang-over-brazil https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/battery-dangerous-cybe... https://www.accessnow.org/access-now-delivers-petition-brazil-cybercrime-commission/ https://www.accessnow.org/access-now-delivers-petition-brazi... https://theintercept.com/2016/04/26/brazilian-cybercrime-bills-threaten-open-internet-for-200-million-people/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/26/brazilian-cybercrime-bil... The final voting will happen TOMORROW, 9 a.m. Brasilia time (GMT-3), 5am in California I guess. If you can help raise awareness and use EFF's Action Center to message the parliamentaries through Twitter and Facebook around that time, it would help a lot. https://act.eff.org/action/fight-back-against-brazil-s-draconian-new-cybercrime-bill https://act.eff.org/action/fight-back-against-brazil-s-draco... In portuguese, this is the best starting point on the debate (disclaimer: I work on antivigilancia.org): https://antivigilancia.org/pt/cpiciber/ https://antivigilancia.org/pt/cpiciber/

marcosdumay 10y ago
Your page isn't clear, what exactly happens tomorrow? Is it the final voting on the CPI? Or is there some law project under vote right now?
- lucastx 10y ago
  I'll work on a quick article today to explain this and adapt the page to reflect that. Thanks for the tips. Answering you quickly (I'm preparing dinner :-)): - Tomorrow, the CPI decides their final report (after three drafts and a couple separate patches) on all the inquiries the commission made the last months. This report includes "recommendations" to some existing draft bills and proposes a number of other bills. - Parliamentaries presented "destaques" that will be voted separately and may supress the "IP blocking for illegal content" and "notification-based removal of illegal content" bills. - The final report as of now is the first link with a small patch on the Projeto de Lei 1.6 made by the second link. http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1452665 http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?... http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-temporarias/parlamentar-de-inquerito/55a-legislatura/cpi-crimes-ciberneticos/documentos/outros-documentos/nota-de-esclarecimento-sub-relatores-deputados-sandro-alex-e-rafael-motta http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co... EDIT TO APPEND: TL;DR: The two bills that we may realistically remove through the help of friendly parliamentaries tomorrow are the ones about illegal website blocking (ISP blacklisting) and content removal through notification; both open the door for criminalizing remixes and using copyright infringement for censorship.

source99 10y ago

And now Facebook is down for me entirely.

smegel 10y ago

What does the USA do about WhatsApp? Do they really tolerate end to end encryption they cant subpoena the company for...or does the NSA have a big fat pipe into the WhatsApp data-center?

Aelinsaar 10y ago
I think that one way or another, WhatsApp isn't foiling the NSA if the NSA doesn't feel like being foiled. Then again, they may realize what most of us do, which is that WhatsApp is not exactly a terrorist hotbed.
- walrus01 10y ago
  NSA will simply pwn the endpoint devices of whoever they're really interested in.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    I want to believe that. I want to believe that the NSA, while having no respect for the law, does at least care about results. It would make a lot more sense to tap devices of interesting people, than this idea of bulk collection (which leads to just a lot more noise).
  - aw3c2 10y ago
    And that would be fine. If they have reasonable proof that someone is bad enough to allow this, by all means pwn the targeted hell out of their devices.
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  It is not foiling targeted attacks, of course. But it might be making a dent on cheap/effortless mass surveillance, which is the main point.
caf 10y ago
If the end-to-end encryption is working as designed then "a big fat pipe into the WhatsApp data-center" would be of no help. For high enough value targets the NSA is probably happy to compromise the endpoints.

walrus01 10y ago

gggggggooooooaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllll

chatmasta 10y ago

> the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy If companies like Facebook were not funneling everybody onto centralized platforms, it would be harder for an ISP to deny that freedom. The centralization of communication platforms is a bigger problem than any ISP censorship. That they have a target to shutdown at all is the real issue.

davesque 10y ago
Agreed. Zuckerberg's little victory speech in this post reminds me of the kind of talk he used in defending his free basics plan. I get a little tired of people with heavy business interests weighing in on "democracy" and "freedom."

lucb1e 10y ago

> the idea that everyone in Brazil can be denied the freedom to communicate the way they want is very scary in a democracy Says the person (in name of the company, I assume) whose company blocks things they don't "like", such as messages containing telegram.org or telegram.me[1]. Now Facebook is not a democracy and they can block and censor pretty much any message they like, but now they go on to tell Brazil how it should run its judicial system. That's like giving people free beer and then asking them to take up pitchforks and come along to put some pressure on a third party you don't like very much. [1] https://i.snag.gy/9KBPGR.jpg https://i.snag.gy/9KBPGR.jpg

nxzero 10y ago
Maybe this is obvious, or that I'm wrong, but the issue in Brazil is that most Brazilians are left-wing conservatives AND within in recent past put the current government in power. Long term this is the issue, not these "cyber attacks" - which are to me very problematic, but only a symptom of the issue.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  I'm not sure which "cyber attacks" you are talking about. It's about a judge ordering Whatsapp to be taken offline for 72 hours for not complying with a court order, or am I missing something?
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Quotes infer that it's a hyperbolic metaphor - and is used to express the degree of my disgust for a country "legally" attacking itself without good cause. __ * Hyperbolic metaphor: https://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/can-a-metaphor-be-hyperbole-too/ https://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/can-a-metaphor-b...
- dublinben 10y ago
  What does "left-wing conservatives" mean?

hudell 10y ago

"Brazilians have been leaders in connecting the world and creating an open internet for many years. I hope you make your voice heard now and demand change" I think he didn't word this right.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

camillomiller 10y ago

Once again the bigger problem we really have to face is the corporatization of the defense of civil rights

tomash 10y ago

Facebook once banned me for 24h just for sending my friend a link (via messenger) to animgif containing female boobs. (together with ban FB expired all API access tokens of my apps) Zuckerberg positioning himself as champion of democracy and unrestricted communication is ridiculous.

JackC 10y ago

Public service announcement: if you install Orbot, you can route traffic for any Android app through Tor. https://www.torproject.org/docs/android.html.en https://www.torproject.org/docs/android.html.en