4 ms·

So difficult to a judge understand what is encryption.

by edpichler 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago
So difficult for a tech company to understand what government jurisdiction is.
- greiskul 10y ago
  But when you use that jurisdiction to order something that is literally impossible, you don't sound powerful, just stupid.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    But its not impossible. If you make decryption impossible, the law can require you to not make it so. If you're a commercial entity, and you don't follow the law, you can be dissolved. This is XKCD 101: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
    - outworlder 10y ago
      Except that Facebook is not a Brazilian company. They would just leave the country instead.
      - sargas 10y ago
        And that's entirely possible.
- edpichler 10y ago
  The crime will happen no matter what tool they use. If there is no privacy on WhatsApp, they will send messages with any other software. Encrypted messengers apps will be always available, because they are need for legal purposes. If we follow the logic of this judge, all car and beer companies should be accountable for the drivers that kill driving drunk. Please, tell me that I am wrong.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    I do not disagree that encryption will always exist. I'm stating that a commercial organization can be held liable and have action taken against it for running a messenger that violates the law of where it operates. People torrent, but you would not expect a commercial torrent service to last very long if the law prohibits it. The technology can exist, but an entity formed within the framework of a government's regulations (in this case, a company) cannot run it. Am I wrong?
    - Spivak 10y ago
      The question is whether a media sharing service that operates in a country with no IP laws is required to either obey laws of countries that do or take reasonable measures to prevent citizens of such countries from accessing the service.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - edpichler 10y ago
      I respect your opinion my friend, you are not wrong, you are on your way. Privacy is very important, millions of individuals can't loose it just because some criminals, that's is why I agree that this kind of companies shouldn't save the messages. This is my opinion. Criminals could use other kind of encrypted messages, like email, or their own code. So it's in vain every body lose his privacy because some individuals, we must fight for other ways to combat crime.
- Spivak 10y ago
  The important question is whether a country has jurisdiction over services rendered remotely. Is every website accessed by a Brazilian person required to follow Brazilian law? If a Brazilian uses GPG is the author required to provide the Brazilian government a method of decryption? Are they required to take measures preventing Brazilians from acquiring the software?

So difficult to a judge understand what is encryption.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

So difficult for a tech company to understand what government jurisdiction is.

greiskul 10y ago
But when you use that jurisdiction to order something that is literally impossible, you don't sound powerful, just stupid.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  But its not impossible. If you make decryption impossible, the law can require you to not make it so. If you're a commercial entity, and you don't follow the law, you can be dissolved. This is XKCD 101: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
  - outworlder 10y ago
    Except that Facebook is not a Brazilian company. They would just leave the country instead.
    - sargas 10y ago
      And that's entirely possible.
edpichler 10y ago
The crime will happen no matter what tool they use. If there is no privacy on WhatsApp, they will send messages with any other software. Encrypted messengers apps will be always available, because they are need for legal purposes. If we follow the logic of this judge, all car and beer companies should be accountable for the drivers that kill driving drunk. Please, tell me that I am wrong.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I do not disagree that encryption will always exist. I'm stating that a commercial organization can be held liable and have action taken against it for running a messenger that violates the law of where it operates. People torrent, but you would not expect a commercial torrent service to last very long if the law prohibits it. The technology can exist, but an entity formed within the framework of a government's regulations (in this case, a company) cannot run it. Am I wrong?
  - Spivak 10y ago
    The question is whether a media sharing service that operates in a country with no IP laws is required to either obey laws of countries that do or take reasonable measures to prevent citizens of such countries from accessing the service.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - edpichler 10y ago
    I respect your opinion my friend, you are not wrong, you are on your way. Privacy is very important, millions of individuals can't loose it just because some criminals, that's is why I agree that this kind of companies shouldn't save the messages. This is my opinion. Criminals could use other kind of encrypted messages, like email, or their own code. So it's in vain every body lose his privacy because some individuals, we must fight for other ways to combat crime.
Spivak 10y ago
The important question is whether a country has jurisdiction over services rendered remotely. Is every website accessed by a Brazilian person required to follow Brazilian law? If a Brazilian uses GPG is the author required to provide the Brazilian government a method of decryption? Are they required to take measures preventing Brazilians from acquiring the software?