3 ms·

The judge is explicitly asking for a backdoor [0]: > We are only requesting disabling cryptography and intercepting data, mirroring messages real time in one o

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.
vitorbaptistaa 10y ago
edit: styling I also found it interesting that Facebook's lawyers (which appears to be from https://www.zwillgen.com/ https://www.zwillgen.com/) asked for: > If possible, please provide responses in English as that will significantly improve our ability to analyze and process your request in a timely manner. > 1. Is this a criminal matter? > 2. What organization is conducting the investigation (Federal Police, Civil Police, Prosecutor’s Office)? > 3. What is the nature of the crime being investigated (corruption, drug trafficking, gun violence/homicide, child exploitation, terrorism, etc.)? > 4. What are the specific WhatsApp accounts that are the target of this legal process (including all applicable country codes)? > > 5. What data are you requesting for each of the targets listed above? I wonder if this was only to keep internal statistics.
- rmsaksida 10y ago
  Yep - and they've asked for this in English, something the judge complained about. I think I'm with the judge on this one. I found this really lazy and of bad taste on Facebook's part. The firm representing Facebook won't afford a translator for one of their top 3 countries (I'm guessing) in number of Whatsapp users? Really?
  - bllguo 10y ago
    You support a judge pettily and stupidly ordering the blockage of one the most ubiquitous apps in Brazil, over something this insignificant? Insensitive and foolish move on Facebook's part, sure, but come on. Let's put things in context here...
    - rmsaksida 10y ago
      Try reading the parent comment of this thread - I wrote it, and I explicitly condemn the judge. Doesn't change the fact Facebook lawyers are in the wrong when it comes to this specific issue (and, of course, that doesn't mean the judge is right about everything else).
- mikeash 10y ago
  I would fire a lawyer so hard if they just casually asked the court of a foreign nation to provide responses in English like that. Such arrogance. What better way to turn them against you? You conduct business in the language of the land. If you don't speak it, hire someone who does to translate for you.

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.

vitorbaptistaa 10y ago

edit: styling I also found it interesting that Facebook's lawyers (which appears to be from https://www.zwillgen.com/ https://www.zwillgen.com/) asked for: > If possible, please provide responses in English as that will significantly improve our ability to analyze and process your request in a timely manner. > 1. Is this a criminal matter? > 2. What organization is conducting the investigation (Federal Police, Civil Police, Prosecutor’s Office)? > 3. What is the nature of the crime being investigated (corruption, drug trafficking, gun violence/homicide, child exploitation, terrorism, etc.)? > 4. What are the specific WhatsApp accounts that are the target of this legal process (including all applicable country codes)? > > 5. What data are you requesting for each of the targets listed above? I wonder if this was only to keep internal statistics.

rmsaksida 10y ago
Yep - and they've asked for this in English, something the judge complained about. I think I'm with the judge on this one. I found this really lazy and of bad taste on Facebook's part. The firm representing Facebook won't afford a translator for one of their top 3 countries (I'm guessing) in number of Whatsapp users? Really?
- bllguo 10y ago
  You support a judge pettily and stupidly ordering the blockage of one the most ubiquitous apps in Brazil, over something this insignificant? Insensitive and foolish move on Facebook's part, sure, but come on. Let's put things in context here...
  - rmsaksida 10y ago
    Try reading the parent comment of this thread - I wrote it, and I explicitly condemn the judge. Doesn't change the fact Facebook lawyers are in the wrong when it comes to this specific issue (and, of course, that doesn't mean the judge is right about everything else).
mikeash 10y ago
I would fire a lawyer so hard if they just casually asked the court of a foreign nation to provide responses in English like that. Such arrogance. What better way to turn them against you? You conduct business in the language of the land. If you don't speak it, hire someone who does to translate for you.