11 ms·

Annoyed at crypto, Brazilian judge orders mobile carriers to block WhatsApp

147 points by Aelinsaar 10y ago

ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago
Seems to becoming a monthly affair.
serg_chernata 10y ago
His age is showing.
- csours 10y ago
  This comment doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even young judges expect to have access to information needed to make decisions; that is key to the judicial process.
  - jdavis703 10y ago
    > Even young judges expect to have access to information needed to make decisions; that is key to the judicial process. Yes but how they get access is important. A judge could order someone who has critical information to be tortured, but at least in democratic societies, most wouldn't. Of course the ramifications of using torture are clear, technically illiterate people might not understand the risks of banning encryption.
  - serg_chernata 10y ago
    Maybe I should have elaborated, maybe I shouldn't have assumed, but I think most people on the younger side of age brackets would understand that WhatsApp is not the ONLY way to have encrypted conversations.
    - rmsaksida 10y ago
      This is silly. The judge is female and young (for a judge): http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/juiza-agredida-no-bep-ganhou-apelido-de-kate-mahoney-17667644 http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/juiza-agredida-no-bep-ganhou-ape... Unfortunately, tech-related ignorance is common across ages and genders.
mankash666 10y ago
Why is Facebook applying different standards to different countries? In Saudi Arabia, they outright disable encryption to placate the government, so why not Brazil (not that I argue for weaker encryption, but the double standards are mysterious)
- rarec 10y ago
  Money talks.
  - 0x006A 10y ago
    would be interesting if its true, do you have any source to back up that claim?
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      I think (s)he's referring to the generic issue that businesses want to be in a given market for the reason of making money, not that they got bribed/paid off.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  So this is about WhatsApp, not Facebook. Does WhatsApp disable encryption in Saudi Arabia? EDIT: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/whatsapp-blocking-encrypted-calls-saudi-arabia-1570599 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/whatsapp-blocking-encrypted-calls-s... Is this what you're referring to? This deosn't indicate that they're disabling encryption, but that they're blocking all calls to Saudi numbers. A different issue.
  - unwind 10y ago
    I read that as since Facebook owns WhatsApp, it's their decision.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      Fair. But either way encryption doesn't seem to be disabled. Rather, calls are not allowed at all. Encrypted messaging still seems to be present.
0x006A 10y ago
Does anyone know how the block was done last time? Is this done via DNS or are they blocking based on IP Address or some other way?
- kawera 10y ago
  Telcos were forced to block IP addresses and they were happy doing so as we had to use their expensive services.
  - the8472 10y ago
    If the block is IP-based then adding a p2p component would be the next logical step.
    - kawera 10y ago
      It's certainly an option. I for one use a VPN so no blockage.
      - necessity 10y ago
        The problem is that the people you want to communicate with often don't even know what a VPN is.
        kawera 10y ago
        True for most people, yes, but not in my case since my kids and business contacts are all on VPNs.
erpellan 10y ago
What if they just gave up the ciphertext? They will have complied in the sense that the court would know everything WhatsApp knows about the content.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  That'd be interesting to see. What's the process, in general, if you're served a warrant for something you don't have?
- ucaetano 10y ago
  The judge explicitly requested that encryption is disabled. Which would mean pushing an update that disabled WhatsApp encryption worldwide. Also, the judge requested that "messages in the server that still haven't been encrypted" be handed over. It just shows the complete lack of understanding of how it works by the judge.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
This is exactly why people build services such that they themselves don't have access to user data, because anything you have access to you can be compelled to produce (by a jurisdiction that has power over you, or that you let have power over you because you want its business more than your users' trust). WhatsApp is feeling the pain here because they're popularizing end-to-end encryption, and jurisdictions are trying to test the boundaries and push back. As long as there are only a few such applications and services, blocks like this will remain feasible. We need a whole generation full of such applications and services, all of which have no access to user data, so that jurisdictions get used to the idea that user data is owned by the users, and that there's no point in going after the service. And with enough such essential services woven into everyday life, it'll become less feasible or politically acceptable to attempt to block them. Consider the very short list of countries that block Google, or YouTube, or Wikipedia, and what properties those countries have in common, versus the much larger set of countries making attacks on encryption right now. Consider the expected length of a political career in a reasonable country for someone who tried to block YouTube, versus the disturbing lack of backlash against attacks on encryption. We need to make attacking encryption a political third-rail.
- AJ007 10y ago
  How many commercial services should just be have just been open internet protocols in the first place? If email was created today it would be one company and they would call it a platform. More than one company is trying to co-opt email in to their own app and do just this. May be it would be totally free at first but gradually exposure would decrease and eventually companies would have to pay to ensure that their customers saw their messages. If a gag order was attached with the backdoor, no debate would even happen. This isn't an anti-business rant. Every tech company today has benefitted tremendously because of open standards - from Linux powering servers to http to the peering among internet providers. What if every free piece of the pie came at a cost? There are a lot of funded tech companies right now creating free services in an attempt to grow their platforms as large as possible. Then, when they hit the critical mass of the network effect they either start charging or do something to cash in. This means that the next generation of tools not only have the potential to "tax" the next generation of businesses for every little piece they have, but it also brings immense cross-border regulatory exposure increasing the risk of broken dependancies. What a different story it would be if the headline read "Brazilian judge orders mobile carriers to block the internet." We would all laugh.
rmsaksida 10y ago
The judge is explicitly asking for a backdoor [0]: > We are only requesting disabling cryptography and intercepting data, mirroring messages real time in one of the ways suggested by the Ministério Público [1] - in addition to forwarding the messages received by the user but not yet encrypted; in other words, the exchanged messages must be forwarded in real time before encryption is implemented, in a manner similar to phone tapping. (This is a direct quote from the court order.) This is ridiculous. Judges shouldn't have the power to force software authors to install backdoors. Nobody should. What's next? Outlawing encryption? [0] http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-whatsapp http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-wh... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Prosecutor%27s_Office_(Brazil) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Prosecutor%27s_Office_(...
- protomyth 10y ago
  > Outlawing encryption? A question to ask politicians "How do you outlaw math?".
  - mikeash 10y ago
    They'd probably respond, "Easy, you pass a law saying that anyone who uses such-and-such kind of math shall be punished with fines or prison." I get what you're saying, but I think they might miss the point. Plenty of countries outlaw certain uses of words, which is not much different.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Here's the problem. We can talk tech all we want, but you have to reduce modern politics down to a catch-phrase that makes your opponent look stupid. You make anyone who tries to ban encryption embarrassed and make others call them stupid. Hell, pull out the card deck and say they're trying to ban a card trick. Logic is so long dead in politics that you got to go for the emotional gut. Bonus, if you can phrase stuff in such a way to make them unpatriotic too. I'll go be sick in the corner now from writing the truth of it.
- 10y ago
bikamonki 10y ago
FB cannot afford to lose its Brazilian Whatsapp market share, I am guesstimating over 50% of its users in South America are from Brazil? Furthermore, integrations of Whatsapp to businesses (with or without a legal API) are already happening so there is high pressure to rollout a business oriented API and make the billions back, I am sure Brazilian numbers are key in the projected revenue stream. Given this, I dare to predict FB will just lift encryption for Brazilian users and blame it on their legal system. In the end, the average internet user couldn't care less about privacy; in fact, in developing countries users are much more concerned with saving money with free SMS and calls.
- niftich 10y ago
  Absolutely this. They've already lost people to Telegram with the repeated blockings. The third question in the Telegram FAQ is 'How is it different from WhatsApp?' [1]. The feud between WhatsApp and Telegram, with the former blocking the latter's links, is well-documented [2]. Both of these apps are available on Android, Windows Phone, and iOS, and since Windows Phone has a higher-than-usual (relative to North America) share in Brazil, this is relevant. [1] https://telegram.org/faq https://telegram.org/faq [2] http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/01/whatsapp-is-blocking-links-to-rival-app-telegram-on-android/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/01/whatsapp-is-blocking-links-...
- scardine 10y ago
  We know the court order is abusive and will be voided by an appeal in a few hours, so nobody cares. While it is blocked we may use telegram or resort to plain old SMS. The problem is that a Judge here in Brazil cannot be fired based on the number of reformed decisions.
  - necessity 10y ago
    As someone expecting a reply from my boss on WhatsApp, I care. As a french man once said, Brazil is not a serious country.
    - ucaetano 10y ago
Kenji 10y ago
I wonder what security threat or investigation could be so large as to warrant stifling the communication of large parts of the population. A classic case of a state gone haywire and not serving its people anymore.
- vocatus_gate 10y ago
  Does any state really serve its people?
soneca 10y ago
Yes, the judge is asking for a backdoor, but Whatsapp was not blocked just for that reason. They were blocked also because they are playing a game with brazilian justice. Whatsapp Inc. claims is based outside of Brazil, so answer court orders in english and ask for more information about the process (that is confidential). And Facebook Brasil just claims is another company. But the counter court order that removed the block the other times was filled by Facebook Brasil. So Facebook Brasil + Whatsapp are obviously on an arrogant position with very unprofessional response to the court orders. If a proper brazilian lawyer was hired to properly react to the court orders I doubt that any of the 3 blocks would ever have happened, moreso because they have strong technical and ethical reasons on their side. At a minimum there would be a long judicial dispute. Even the judge that overruled the other block stated that Whatsapp didn't act the proper way while dealing with the previous court order. WhatsApp might have the HN crowd sympathy on this, but they brought these issues to themselves by being unprofessional on their response to brazilian justice.
- necessity 10y ago
  This is ridiculous. If that was the case the responsible parties should be charged with contempt. Blocking the service "out of spite" has no legal grounds. Furthermore, no judge claimed what you claimed as the reason. They asked for access to data WhatsApp has no access to, and then blocked the service when they didn't get it.
  - soneca 10y ago
    Yes, a judge claimed that reason. Here is the last block court order (in portuguese): http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-whatsapp http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-wh... "Out of spite" is ridiculous indeed, but I sustain my guess that if a proper brazilian lawyer had addressed the case, no block would ever be ordered.
    - inopinatus 10y ago
      What is a "proper brazilian lawyer", particularly compared to the lawyers involved so far? (I am having a No True Scotsman[1] kind of a reaction to this phrase, with a side serving of Kafka[2].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
aianus 10y ago
If WhatsApp gets summoned to Sharia court in Saudi Arabia over a case of suspected extramarital sex, do you think they should humor them and play along? It is unrealistic to expect WhatsApp to 'correctly respond' to every little despot's 'court orders' worldwide.
- tmp19 10y ago
  Every little despot's 'court orders' exept for court orders from the most despotic court in the world: The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    > most despotic court in the world How does one even measure that? Is it measured in units of polpots or what?
    - mikeash 10y ago
      That's unfair, you'd get a more reasonable magnitude measuring in millipolpots.
      - walrus01 10y ago
        Everyone knows the picomussolini is the correct SI measurement unit.
        mikeash 10y ago
        That seems way too small. I'm pretty sure I'd hit at least several picomussolini just putting my kid to bed at night.
- soneca 10y ago
  Ad absurdum. They may very well ignore brazilian justice. It is their choice. What they can't do is to ignore brazilian justice and continue to operate in the country.
cesarb 10y ago
I found a copy of the full order at http://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-whatsapp-vara-criminal-duque.pdf http://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-whatsapp-vara-criminal-d... (source: http://www.conjur.com.br/2016-jul-19/juiza-manda-suspender-whatsapp-reclama-resposta-ingles http://www.conjur.com.br/2016-jul-19/juiza-manda-suspender-w...). To me, the most eyebrow-raising part is "[...] além do encaminhamento das mensagens já recebidas pelo usuário e ainda não criptografadas [...]" (page 4, rough translation: "and also the forwarding of messages already received by the user but not yet encrypted"). Do they believe that the messages are encrypted only after being received either by the user or by a central server? I get the feeling that they think that the encryption is done by a central server, and that the messages can be intercepted there before the encryption (while in reality, they're probably encrypted by the sender's phone, so intercepting would mean pushing a software update).
- pb8226 10y ago
  That's bizzare if they think that. If it's not encrypted end to end a lot of the value of encryption is lost.
utopcell 10y ago
is it fair to assume that all other messaging apps operating in Brazil that have not been blocked have cooperated with the government and installed backdoors ? does anyone have more information on this ?
- thomasfortes 10y ago
  Not exactly, the thing with whatsapp here is their MASSIVE user base, almost every one uses it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ucy 10y ago
Brazilian here http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-whatsapp http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-wh... "Em verdade, o Juízo requer, apenas, a desabilitação da chave de criptografia, com a interceptação do fluxo de dados, com o desvio em tempo real em uma das formas sugeridas pelo MP, além do encaminhamento das mensagens já recebidas pelo usuário e ainda não criptografadas, ou seja, as mensagens trocadas deverão ser desviadas em tempo real (na forma que se dá com a interceptação de conversações telefônicas), antes de implementada a criptografia." So, a judge required Whatsapp to put a backdoor to realtime wiretap some users before the payload is encrypted. I personally dont think Whatsapp should comply. Whatsapp isnt secure, anyway, the default config is to store all the messages and the key on icloud or google. Also, the server knows your contact list, (and bans you if you dont sync), and someone could tap your wifi to get your contact list. The judges here are annoyed that the lawyers requested info that is under a gag order, and that they answered in English, and that Facebook, who has a local office plays dumb and insists that "Whatsapp is out of my jurisdiction" when Brazil has the 2nd bigger userbase of the app. They are hitting them where it hurts - blocking 7 billion usd of their assets. http://link.estadao.com.br/noticias/empresas,justica-brasileira-bloqueia-r-19-5-milhoes-de-contas-do-facebook,10000060270 http://link.estadao.com.br/noticias/empresas,justica-brasile...
- eggie 10y ago
  > Also, the server knows your contact list, (and bans you if you dont sync), and someone could tap your wifi to get your contact list. Wouldn't they also have a contact log for each user? That plus the contact list is a pretty nice chunk of data for use by their parent company. And also, it would surely be useful for law enforcement. Has it been shared with the courts?
hughw 10y ago
The judge "did not give a reason for the blockade due to legal secrecy in an ongoing case." Secrecy for me, jail for you!
ucy 10y ago
It's back already - the Head of Supreme Justice overturned the decision. http://www.tecmundo.com.br/whatsapp/107456-caiu-presidente-supremo-derruba-bloqueio-whatsapp.htm?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=thumb http://www.tecmundo.com.br/whatsapp/107456-caiu-presidente-s...
kawera 10y ago
Brazilian Supreme Court just upholded the order, the blockage is over: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2016/07/1793291-presidente-do-stf-suspende-bloqueio-do-whatsapp-no-brasil.shtml http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2016/07/1793291-preside...
meira 10y ago
Awesome!
ucaetano 10y ago
Let's look at a similar case in the US: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/microsoft-wins-court-rules-feds-cant-use-sca-to-nab-overseas-data/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/microsoft-wins-co... US government sues uses SCA to request data held overseas by an American company. Court rules that US government under SCA has no jurisdiction to request data held overseas, even if by an American company. In this case, WhatsApp does not operate in Brazil. They do not have a legal entity in Brazil. A Brazilian judge has exactly zero jurisdiction over WhatsApp. Sure, it is in the judge's power to blackmail the company by ordering other companies to block it. But the judge still has zero authority over WhatsApp. The correct way for the judge to proceed would be to use the Mutual Legal Assistance treaty between the US and Brazil to request the data through the US Government and judicial system: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/106962.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/106962.pdf From Art. I, assistance shall include: (f) executing requests for searches and seizures; Which would be subject to US laws, therefore, probably wouldn't happen.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Why does a case in the US have anything at all to do with this?
  - ucaetano 10y ago
    It provides a parallel view on a critical subject: how does the sovereignty and jurisdiction of countries extend or not over the entire internet.
holografix 10y ago
To telegram it is...
meira 10y ago
It's funny how HN didn't care when judges and the supreme court broke several laws in support of a parlamentary coup d'etat. And it's sad to see so many brazillians not defending the best interests of their country here in HN.
meira 10y ago
She got more annoyed with the arrogante attitude of whatsapp's director. He didn't answer her in the local language. He could have been jailed for delaying investigations.

147 points by Aelinsaar 10y ago

ajeet_dhaliwal 10y ago

Seems to becoming a monthly affair.

serg_chernata 10y ago

His age is showing.

csours 10y ago
This comment doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even young judges expect to have access to information needed to make decisions; that is key to the judicial process.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  > Even young judges expect to have access to information needed to make decisions; that is key to the judicial process. Yes but how they get access is important. A judge could order someone who has critical information to be tortured, but at least in democratic societies, most wouldn't. Of course the ramifications of using torture are clear, technically illiterate people might not understand the risks of banning encryption.
- serg_chernata 10y ago
  Maybe I should have elaborated, maybe I shouldn't have assumed, but I think most people on the younger side of age brackets would understand that WhatsApp is not the ONLY way to have encrypted conversations.
  - rmsaksida 10y ago
    This is silly. The judge is female and young (for a judge): http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/juiza-agredida-no-bep-ganhou-apelido-de-kate-mahoney-17667644 http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/juiza-agredida-no-bep-ganhou-ape... Unfortunately, tech-related ignorance is common across ages and genders.

mankash666 10y ago

Why is Facebook applying different standards to different countries? In Saudi Arabia, they outright disable encryption to placate the government, so why not Brazil (not that I argue for weaker encryption, but the double standards are mysterious)

rarec 10y ago
Money talks.
- 0x006A 10y ago
  would be interesting if its true, do you have any source to back up that claim?
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    I think (s)he's referring to the generic issue that businesses want to be in a given market for the reason of making money, not that they got bribed/paid off.
Jtsummers 10y ago
So this is about WhatsApp, not Facebook. Does WhatsApp disable encryption in Saudi Arabia? EDIT: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/whatsapp-blocking-encrypted-calls-saudi-arabia-1570599 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/whatsapp-blocking-encrypted-calls-s... Is this what you're referring to? This deosn't indicate that they're disabling encryption, but that they're blocking all calls to Saudi numbers. A different issue.
- unwind 10y ago
  I read that as since Facebook owns WhatsApp, it's their decision.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Fair. But either way encryption doesn't seem to be disabled. Rather, calls are not allowed at all. Encrypted messaging still seems to be present.

0x006A 10y ago

Does anyone know how the block was done last time? Is this done via DNS or are they blocking based on IP Address or some other way?

kawera 10y ago
Telcos were forced to block IP addresses and they were happy doing so as we had to use their expensive services.
- the8472 10y ago
  If the block is IP-based then adding a p2p component would be the next logical step.
  - kawera 10y ago
    It's certainly an option. I for one use a VPN so no blockage.
    - necessity 10y ago
      The problem is that the people you want to communicate with often don't even know what a VPN is.
      - kawera 10y ago
        True for most people, yes, but not in my case since my kids and business contacts are all on VPNs.

erpellan 10y ago

What if they just gave up the ciphertext? They will have complied in the sense that the court would know everything WhatsApp knows about the content.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
That'd be interesting to see. What's the process, in general, if you're served a warrant for something you don't have?
ucaetano 10y ago
The judge explicitly requested that encryption is disabled. Which would mean pushing an update that disabled WhatsApp encryption worldwide. Also, the judge requested that "messages in the server that still haven't been encrypted" be handed over. It just shows the complete lack of understanding of how it works by the judge.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

This is exactly why people build services such that they themselves don't have access to user data, because anything you have access to you can be compelled to produce (by a jurisdiction that has power over you, or that you let have power over you because you want its business more than your users' trust). WhatsApp is feeling the pain here because they're popularizing end-to-end encryption, and jurisdictions are trying to test the boundaries and push back. As long as there are only a few such applications and services, blocks like this will remain feasible. We need a whole generation full of such applications and services, all of which have no access to user data, so that jurisdictions get used to the idea that user data is owned by the users, and that there's no point in going after the service. And with enough such essential services woven into everyday life, it'll become less feasible or politically acceptable to attempt to block them. Consider the very short list of countries that block Google, or YouTube, or Wikipedia, and what properties those countries have in common, versus the much larger set of countries making attacks on encryption right now. Consider the expected length of a political career in a reasonable country for someone who tried to block YouTube, versus the disturbing lack of backlash against attacks on encryption. We need to make attacking encryption a political third-rail.

AJ007 10y ago
How many commercial services should just be have just been open internet protocols in the first place? If email was created today it would be one company and they would call it a platform. More than one company is trying to co-opt email in to their own app and do just this. May be it would be totally free at first but gradually exposure would decrease and eventually companies would have to pay to ensure that their customers saw their messages. If a gag order was attached with the backdoor, no debate would even happen. This isn't an anti-business rant. Every tech company today has benefitted tremendously because of open standards - from Linux powering servers to http to the peering among internet providers. What if every free piece of the pie came at a cost? There are a lot of funded tech companies right now creating free services in an attempt to grow their platforms as large as possible. Then, when they hit the critical mass of the network effect they either start charging or do something to cash in. This means that the next generation of tools not only have the potential to "tax" the next generation of businesses for every little piece they have, but it also brings immense cross-border regulatory exposure increasing the risk of broken dependancies. What a different story it would be if the headline read "Brazilian judge orders mobile carriers to block the internet." We would all laugh.

rmsaksida 10y ago

The judge is explicitly asking for a backdoor [0]: > We are only requesting disabling cryptography and intercepting data, mirroring messages real time in one of the ways suggested by the Ministério Público [1] - in addition to forwarding the messages received by the user but not yet encrypted; in other words, the exchanged messages must be forwarded in real time before encryption is implemented, in a manner similar to phone tapping. (This is a direct quote from the court order.) This is ridiculous. Judges shouldn't have the power to force software authors to install backdoors. Nobody should. What's next? Outlawing encryption? [0] http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-whatsapp http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-wh... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Prosecutor%27s_Office_(Brazil) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Prosecutor%27s_Office_(...

protomyth 10y ago
> Outlawing encryption? A question to ask politicians "How do you outlaw math?".
- mikeash 10y ago
  They'd probably respond, "Easy, you pass a law saying that anyone who uses such-and-such kind of math shall be punished with fines or prison." I get what you're saying, but I think they might miss the point. Plenty of countries outlaw certain uses of words, which is not much different.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Here's the problem. We can talk tech all we want, but you have to reduce modern politics down to a catch-phrase that makes your opponent look stupid. You make anyone who tries to ban encryption embarrassed and make others call them stupid. Hell, pull out the card deck and say they're trying to ban a card trick. Logic is so long dead in politics that you got to go for the emotional gut. Bonus, if you can phrase stuff in such a way to make them unpatriotic too. I'll go be sick in the corner now from writing the truth of it.
10y ago

bikamonki 10y ago

FB cannot afford to lose its Brazilian Whatsapp market share, I am guesstimating over 50% of its users in South America are from Brazil? Furthermore, integrations of Whatsapp to businesses (with or without a legal API) are already happening so there is high pressure to rollout a business oriented API and make the billions back, I am sure Brazilian numbers are key in the projected revenue stream. Given this, I dare to predict FB will just lift encryption for Brazilian users and blame it on their legal system. In the end, the average internet user couldn't care less about privacy; in fact, in developing countries users are much more concerned with saving money with free SMS and calls.

niftich 10y ago
Absolutely this. They've already lost people to Telegram with the repeated blockings. The third question in the Telegram FAQ is 'How is it different from WhatsApp?' [1]. The feud between WhatsApp and Telegram, with the former blocking the latter's links, is well-documented [2]. Both of these apps are available on Android, Windows Phone, and iOS, and since Windows Phone has a higher-than-usual (relative to North America) share in Brazil, this is relevant. [1] https://telegram.org/faq https://telegram.org/faq [2] http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/01/whatsapp-is-blocking-links-to-rival-app-telegram-on-android/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/01/whatsapp-is-blocking-links-...
scardine 10y ago
We know the court order is abusive and will be voided by an appeal in a few hours, so nobody cares. While it is blocked we may use telegram or resort to plain old SMS. The problem is that a Judge here in Brazil cannot be fired based on the number of reformed decisions.
- necessity 10y ago
  As someone expecting a reply from my boss on WhatsApp, I care. As a french man once said, Brazil is not a serious country.
  - ucaetano 10y ago

Kenji 10y ago

I wonder what security threat or investigation could be so large as to warrant stifling the communication of large parts of the population. A classic case of a state gone haywire and not serving its people anymore.

vocatus_gate 10y ago
Does any state really serve its people?

soneca 10y ago

Yes, the judge is asking for a backdoor, but Whatsapp was not blocked just for that reason. They were blocked also because they are playing a game with brazilian justice. Whatsapp Inc. claims is based outside of Brazil, so answer court orders in english and ask for more information about the process (that is confidential). And Facebook Brasil just claims is another company. But the counter court order that removed the block the other times was filled by Facebook Brasil. So Facebook Brasil + Whatsapp are obviously on an arrogant position with very unprofessional response to the court orders. If a proper brazilian lawyer was hired to properly react to the court orders I doubt that any of the 3 blocks would ever have happened, moreso because they have strong technical and ethical reasons on their side. At a minimum there would be a long judicial dispute. Even the judge that overruled the other block stated that Whatsapp didn't act the proper way while dealing with the previous court order. WhatsApp might have the HN crowd sympathy on this, but they brought these issues to themselves by being unprofessional on their response to brazilian justice.

necessity 10y ago
This is ridiculous. If that was the case the responsible parties should be charged with contempt. Blocking the service "out of spite" has no legal grounds. Furthermore, no judge claimed what you claimed as the reason. They asked for access to data WhatsApp has no access to, and then blocked the service when they didn't get it.
- soneca 10y ago
  Yes, a judge claimed that reason. Here is the last block court order (in portuguese): http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-whatsapp http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-wh... "Out of spite" is ridiculous indeed, but I sustain my guess that if a proper brazilian lawyer had addressed the case, no block would ever be ordered.
  - inopinatus 10y ago
    What is a "proper brazilian lawyer", particularly compared to the lawyers involved so far? (I am having a No True Scotsman[1] kind of a reaction to this phrase, with a side serving of Kafka[2].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial

aianus 10y ago

If WhatsApp gets summoned to Sharia court in Saudi Arabia over a case of suspected extramarital sex, do you think they should humor them and play along? It is unrealistic to expect WhatsApp to 'correctly respond' to every little despot's 'court orders' worldwide.

tmp19 10y ago
Every little despot's 'court orders' exept for court orders from the most despotic court in the world: The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  > most despotic court in the world How does one even measure that? Is it measured in units of polpots or what?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    That's unfair, you'd get a more reasonable magnitude measuring in millipolpots.
    - walrus01 10y ago
      Everyone knows the picomussolini is the correct SI measurement unit.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        That seems way too small. I'm pretty sure I'd hit at least several picomussolini just putting my kid to bed at night.
soneca 10y ago
Ad absurdum. They may very well ignore brazilian justice. It is their choice. What they can't do is to ignore brazilian justice and continue to operate in the country.

cesarb 10y ago

I found a copy of the full order at http://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-whatsapp-vara-criminal-duque.pdf http://www.conjur.com.br/dl/decisao-whatsapp-vara-criminal-d... (source: http://www.conjur.com.br/2016-jul-19/juiza-manda-suspender-whatsapp-reclama-resposta-ingles http://www.conjur.com.br/2016-jul-19/juiza-manda-suspender-w...). To me, the most eyebrow-raising part is "[...] além do encaminhamento das mensagens já recebidas pelo usuário e ainda não criptografadas [...]" (page 4, rough translation: "and also the forwarding of messages already received by the user but not yet encrypted"). Do they believe that the messages are encrypted only after being received either by the user or by a central server? I get the feeling that they think that the encryption is done by a central server, and that the messages can be intercepted there before the encryption (while in reality, they're probably encrypted by the sender's phone, so intercepting would mean pushing a software update).

pb8226 10y ago
That's bizzare if they think that. If it's not encrypted end to end a lot of the value of encryption is lost.

utopcell 10y ago

is it fair to assume that all other messaging apps operating in Brazil that have not been blocked have cooperated with the government and installed backdoors ? does anyone have more information on this ?

thomasfortes 10y ago
Not exactly, the thing with whatsapp here is their MASSIVE user base, almost every one uses it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ucy 10y ago

Brazilian here http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-whatsapp http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-wh... "Em verdade, o Juízo requer, apenas, a desabilitação da chave de criptografia, com a interceptação do fluxo de dados, com o desvio em tempo real em uma das formas sugeridas pelo MP, além do encaminhamento das mensagens já recebidas pelo usuário e ainda não criptografadas, ou seja, as mensagens trocadas deverão ser desviadas em tempo real (na forma que se dá com a interceptação de conversações telefônicas), antes de implementada a criptografia." So, a judge required Whatsapp to put a backdoor to realtime wiretap some users before the payload is encrypted. I personally dont think Whatsapp should comply. Whatsapp isnt secure, anyway, the default config is to store all the messages and the key on icloud or google. Also, the server knows your contact list, (and bans you if you dont sync), and someone could tap your wifi to get your contact list. The judges here are annoyed that the lawyers requested info that is under a gag order, and that they answered in English, and that Facebook, who has a local office plays dumb and insists that "Whatsapp is out of my jurisdiction" when Brazil has the 2nd bigger userbase of the app. They are hitting them where it hurts - blocking 7 billion usd of their assets. http://link.estadao.com.br/noticias/empresas,justica-brasileira-bloqueia-r-19-5-milhoes-de-contas-do-facebook,10000060270 http://link.estadao.com.br/noticias/empresas,justica-brasile...

eggie 10y ago
> Also, the server knows your contact list, (and bans you if you dont sync), and someone could tap your wifi to get your contact list. Wouldn't they also have a contact log for each user? That plus the contact list is a pretty nice chunk of data for use by their parent company. And also, it would surely be useful for law enforcement. Has it been shared with the courts?

hughw 10y ago

The judge "did not give a reason for the blockade due to legal secrecy in an ongoing case." Secrecy for me, jail for you!

ucy 10y ago

It's back already - the Head of Supreme Justice overturned the decision. http://www.tecmundo.com.br/whatsapp/107456-caiu-presidente-supremo-derruba-bloqueio-whatsapp.htm?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=thumb http://www.tecmundo.com.br/whatsapp/107456-caiu-presidente-s...

kawera 10y ago

Brazilian Supreme Court just upholded the order, the blockage is over: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2016/07/1793291-presidente-do-stf-suspende-bloqueio-do-whatsapp-no-brasil.shtml http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2016/07/1793291-preside...

meira 10y ago

Awesome!

ucaetano 10y ago

Let's look at a similar case in the US: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/microsoft-wins-court-rules-feds-cant-use-sca-to-nab-overseas-data/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/microsoft-wins-co... US government sues uses SCA to request data held overseas by an American company. Court rules that US government under SCA has no jurisdiction to request data held overseas, even if by an American company. In this case, WhatsApp does not operate in Brazil. They do not have a legal entity in Brazil. A Brazilian judge has exactly zero jurisdiction over WhatsApp. Sure, it is in the judge's power to blackmail the company by ordering other companies to block it. But the judge still has zero authority over WhatsApp. The correct way for the judge to proceed would be to use the Mutual Legal Assistance treaty between the US and Brazil to request the data through the US Government and judicial system: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/106962.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/106962.pdf From Art. I, assistance shall include: (f) executing requests for searches and seizures; Which would be subject to US laws, therefore, probably wouldn't happen.

serge2k 10y ago
Why does a case in the US have anything at all to do with this?
- ucaetano 10y ago
  It provides a parallel view on a critical subject: how does the sovereignty and jurisdiction of countries extend or not over the entire internet.

holografix 10y ago

To telegram it is...

meira 10y ago

It's funny how HN didn't care when judges and the supreme court broke several laws in support of a parlamentary coup d'etat. And it's sad to see so many brazillians not defending the best interests of their country here in HN.

meira 10y ago

She got more annoyed with the arrogante attitude of whatsapp's director. He didn't answer her in the local language. He could have been jailed for delaying investigations.