3 ms·

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://

• 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
  • kawera 10y ago
    Probably means a local bar accredited lawyer.
  • soneca 10y ago
    Any lawyer that has a license to work as a lawyer in Brazil, with brazilian justice system. Their lawyers answering the judge's court order are from this american firm: https://www.zwillgen.com/ https://www.zwillgen.com/
    • ucaetano 10y ago
      WhatsApp is not subject to the Brazilian justice system, it does not have to answer to Brazilian law.
      • doikor 10y ago
        And that tends to make Brazilian judges quite angry and thus they do the only thing they can do. Which happens to be blocking WhatsApp (the only real weapon that works against WhatsApp they have)
        • ucaetano 10y ago
          Sure, which is clearly far from legal. No wonder it is quickly overturned every single time, like now, lasted what, 12 hours?
          • deltaprotocol 10y ago
            Five hours this time.
      • serge2k 10y ago
        Then Brazil doesn't have to allow them to operate in their country.
        • ucaetano 10y ago
          They don't operate in Brazil, just like other millions of websites. Do you think every single website that wants to serve content to someone in Brasil should have a subsidiary in the country? That's not how the internet works.
          • schoen 10y ago
            Having written a letter to the Brazilian Congress about (almost) this very issue (in connection with the CPI-Cibercrimes inquiry), I think some Brazilians may be surprised to know that the U.S. does not require ISPs to block connectivity to third-party foreign Internet sites that facilitate violations of U.S. laws, directly violate U.S. laws, or ignore U.S. court orders, as long as the ISPs themselves have no relationship with the sites. In fact, a proposal to begin doing so in copyright cases, known as SOPA/PIPA, was extraordinarily controversial in the U.S. and was effectively defeated. The U.S. legal system generally appears to accept that ISP blocking of third-party connectivity is simply not an available remedy, even in "clear" cases of legal violations. That means that it is not universal or obvious that this kind of blocking would be practiced or accepted. (For example, if a Brazilian company ignored a subpoena from a U.S. court, there would not be a legal basis for the U.S. court to order ISPs to prevent Americans from accessing that company's services.) Some portion of Brazilians think it is "obvious" that a government would never allow its citizens to access Internet services that allow or commit violations of local law, or are simply not subject to local jurisdiction at all. But it's not obvious at all.
• JupiterMoon 10y ago
  But surely in order to engage a Brazilian lawyer they would need some presence in the country - which would make them subject to the countries laws.