3 ms·

So Facebook doesn'tviolent crimes investigation(like in Brazil) but help when it favors their growth strategy. Isn't time to break these companies (fb, alphabet

by meira 10y ago

So Facebook doesn'tviolent crimes investigation(like in Brazil) but help when it favors their growth strategy. Isn't time to break these companies (fb, alphabet, Apple) into N pieces? Like Standard Oil Co in the past.

morsch 10y ago
Brazil wants Facebook (WhatsApp) to release information it doesn't have -- it's not clear to me what data exactly, but presumably message content which they historically did not store and now, due to e2e encryption, cannot store; or maybe message metadata which I'm not sure they store (does anybody know?). This is about data Facebook, like most web sites, does store (site access logs including IPs). Though I wonder how long they store these kind of logs; different jurisdictions may have both minimum retention times as well as maximum retention times for personal data such as IPs.
- htaunay 10y ago
  Brazilian authorities have actually already accepted that previously sent messages are forever out of reach. Their last blockage of WhatsApp happened because they where requesting that a specific group of users to be tracked with previous notice. If this is technically feasible I can't say, but I don't imagine FB creating a precedent so that any state authority can require tracking of specific users. IMHO, this solution wouldn't take so long to start being exploited.
  - morsch 10y ago
    Thanks for the correction. Most (recent) articles annoyingly only go about the blocking and unblocking, and don't actually say what the Brazilian authorities want. Do you know what "tracking" entails? That could mean anything from revealing message contents to revealing social networks or tracking a user's geoposition or reporting all the IMSI/IMEIs associated with any given WhatsApp user.
    - gpribeiro 10y ago
      The last case involved a judge asking Whatsapp to implement a backdoor in its services.
      - simbalion 10y ago
        Kudos to facebook for resisting the government of brazil but why would they help the U.S. government nail media pirates and not help another government nail terrorists? This does not add up.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        The method of assistance involved is different between these two cases. One case wants them to introduce a deliberate backdoor into their software. Negating the entire point of their recent move to end-to-end encryption and a major reason they're such a big player in the communication service market. The other case was a warrant for, "What IP addresses accessed this account?". The second one is trivial to comply with and to compile. The first is going to require them to alienate most of their customers, destroy their business, and spend a few man-weeks (minimum) to put together.
        meira 10y ago
        Bullshit. The first makes them have less power and profit less, the second do the opposite. It's a "fair" choice, don't you think? At least if you are the billionare owner that don't care with anyone and pretends that he is pursuing an open world.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        Sure. Let's go with that then. EDIT: That was just straight snark. Sorry. Want a better response? I've seen your other comments regarding WhatsApp/Facebook on past related discussions. If you really think Brazil is being held back by these companies (WhatsApp in particular) make a competitor. Win over the Brazilian market. And deliberately make it insecure so your government can eavesdrop on any conversation. Good luck at keeping that market.

by meira 10y ago

morsch 10y ago

Brazil wants Facebook (WhatsApp) to release information it doesn't have -- it's not clear to me what data exactly, but presumably message content which they historically did not store and now, due to e2e encryption, cannot store; or maybe message metadata which I'm not sure they store (does anybody know?). This is about data Facebook, like most web sites, does store (site access logs including IPs). Though I wonder how long they store these kind of logs; different jurisdictions may have both minimum retention times as well as maximum retention times for personal data such as IPs.

htaunay 10y ago
Brazilian authorities have actually already accepted that previously sent messages are forever out of reach. Their last blockage of WhatsApp happened because they where requesting that a specific group of users to be tracked with previous notice. If this is technically feasible I can't say, but I don't imagine FB creating a precedent so that any state authority can require tracking of specific users. IMHO, this solution wouldn't take so long to start being exploited.
- morsch 10y ago
  Thanks for the correction. Most (recent) articles annoyingly only go about the blocking and unblocking, and don't actually say what the Brazilian authorities want. Do you know what "tracking" entails? That could mean anything from revealing message contents to revealing social networks or tracking a user's geoposition or reporting all the IMSI/IMEIs associated with any given WhatsApp user.
  - gpribeiro 10y ago
    The last case involved a judge asking Whatsapp to implement a backdoor in its services.
    - simbalion 10y ago
      Kudos to facebook for resisting the government of brazil but why would they help the U.S. government nail media pirates and not help another government nail terrorists? This does not add up.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        The method of assistance involved is different between these two cases. One case wants them to introduce a deliberate backdoor into their software. Negating the entire point of their recent move to end-to-end encryption and a major reason they're such a big player in the communication service market. The other case was a warrant for, "What IP addresses accessed this account?". The second one is trivial to comply with and to compile. The first is going to require them to alienate most of their customers, destroy their business, and spend a few man-weeks (minimum) to put together.
        meira 10y ago
        Bullshit. The first makes them have less power and profit less, the second do the opposite. It's a "fair" choice, don't you think? At least if you are the billionare owner that don't care with anyone and pretends that he is pursuing an open world.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        Sure. Let's go with that then. EDIT: That was just straight snark. Sorry. Want a better response? I've seen your other comments regarding WhatsApp/Facebook on past related discussions. If you really think Brazil is being held back by these companies (WhatsApp in particular) make a competitor. Win over the Brazilian market. And deliberately make it insecure so your government can eavesdrop on any conversation. Good luck at keeping that market.