8 ms·

> Earlier this year the Brazilian government used the courts to block WhatsApp for 72 hours as it seems they did not like being unable to peer into the private

by tomp 10y ago

> Earlier this year the Brazilian government used the courts to block WhatsApp for 72 hours as it seems they did not like being unable to peer into the private communications of their citizens. This happened again just a couple of weeks ago and it seems what the government cannot control should be blocked or even banned. It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for "peering into private communications" by using public legal means against US corporations, whereas the US government has done exactly the same thing (using legal and illegal means) but you just didn't know about it (because most Internet companies are based in the US). [I'm not sure that the author is an American, but there are undoubtedly many Americans that share this attitude.]

martinko 10y ago
Remind me, was that before or after they enabled end-to-end encryption?
- kbart 10y ago
  Since WhatsApp is virtually a blackbox, their word for end-to-end encryption means nothing. Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor.
  - dnzm 10y ago
    > Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor. Just one would be enough, methinks.
  - martinko 10y ago
    True, but it would at least give them plausible deniability that they couldn't hand over plaintext messages, even if they wanted to.
    - etatoby 10y ago
      That's probably the entire purpose behind WhatsApp "encryption": to have their cake and eat it too.
  - cderwin 10y ago
    > Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor. This holds regardless of whether WhatsApp is a blackbox or not. Now, that doesn't make the claim of end-to-end encryption verifiable, but if you take Facebook's word for it, the bug bounty should be about as good a stalwart as there is against implementation bugs.
- tim333 10y ago
  It's kind of complicated. There were Brazilian bans in 2015 and 2016. Whatsapp has had encryption since 2012 but it was a bit half arsed. It now seems good. I guess the courts could still order the metadata of who's been calling who though. It's a bit unclear what exactly the courts did order.
rmc 10y ago
Remember: if you're a non-US citizen outside the US, then the US Constitution protection against search (4th Amendment) doesn't apply to you! We have no 4th Amendment protections!
- jnbiche 10y ago
  I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    I am surprise that even citizens think that they are safe from mass surveillance regardless of what the country's constitution states. Secret services obey no law other than their own internal regulations, regardless of what people might see on TV series.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any. Yes, Germany. Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human. And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.
    - jnbiche 10y ago
      That's impressive. I guess that's the difference between a modern, progressive constitution written over 2 centuries ago versus one written 50 years ago. Semantic point, do you differentiate between a "human" and "person"? This may be a translation issue, but to me there's no practical difference between the two.
Draiken 10y ago
Honestly I see this whole WhatsApp debacle as a big old scape goat. They're putting a big corporation on the spot so they can extort money from it, make people talk about this and ultimately it's just a means to keep spying on every single brazilian citizen. People say WhatsApp is evil for not cooperating now and pretend the government is a pure entity only seeking good. Meanwhile they forget we probably just had a silent coup for the presidency, the whole government is corrupt and so is the justice system that is enforcing these rules. I see talks about how evil the americans are for not helping the poor brazilian government, pretending like before WhatsApp existed crime in Brazil was almost non-existent. It's honestly sad. The best part is that this only generates animosities between citizens, who attack each other because they support "red" or "blue" allowing the corrupt to keep doing whatever they want. The whole world has shown exemplary individuals that despite living in their corrupt environments stand up and take a stand for us all. Despite that we're stuck pointing fingers at each other with blind faith in our own corrupt governments. Honestly you can even be right that the brazilian government is "legally" spying on us. That doesn't make it right. And to say we the author "doesn't know about american government spying" seems extremely naive to me. We probably know more about how corrupt the US government is than any other government on the planet and I doubt he's not aware of that.
geon 10y ago
It is not hypocricy unless they endorse the american governments actions.
JadeNB 10y ago
> It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for "peering into private communications" by using public legal means against US corporations, whereas the US government has done exactly the same thing (using legal and illegal means) but you just didn't know about it (because most Internet companies are based in the US). Surely this is only hypocritical if the American supports his or her government's doing these things. (I am an American, and I don't support these actions, whether taken by my country or any other.) Surely you don't want to take the position that those ruled by a morally corrupt regime by that fact lose their right to protest corruption?

by tomp 10y ago

martinko 10y ago

Remind me, was that before or after they enabled end-to-end encryption?

kbart 10y ago
Since WhatsApp is virtually a blackbox, their word for end-to-end encryption means nothing. Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor.
- dnzm 10y ago
  > Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor. Just one would be enough, methinks.
- martinko 10y ago
  True, but it would at least give them plausible deniability that they couldn't hand over plaintext messages, even if they wanted to.
  - etatoby 10y ago
    That's probably the entire purpose behind WhatsApp "encryption": to have their cake and eat it too.
- cderwin 10y ago
  > Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor. This holds regardless of whether WhatsApp is a blackbox or not. Now, that doesn't make the claim of end-to-end encryption verifiable, but if you take Facebook's word for it, the bug bounty should be about as good a stalwart as there is against implementation bugs.
tim333 10y ago
It's kind of complicated. There were Brazilian bans in 2015 and 2016. Whatsapp has had encryption since 2012 but it was a bit half arsed. It now seems good. I guess the courts could still order the metadata of who's been calling who though. It's a bit unclear what exactly the courts did order.

rmc 10y ago

Remember: if you're a non-US citizen outside the US, then the US Constitution protection against search (4th Amendment) doesn't apply to you! We have no 4th Amendment protections!

jnbiche 10y ago
I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  I am surprise that even citizens think that they are safe from mass surveillance regardless of what the country's constitution states. Secret services obey no law other than their own internal regulations, regardless of what people might see on TV series.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any. Yes, Germany. Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human. And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    That's impressive. I guess that's the difference between a modern, progressive constitution written over 2 centuries ago versus one written 50 years ago. Semantic point, do you differentiate between a "human" and "person"? This may be a translation issue, but to me there's no practical difference between the two.

Draiken 10y ago

Honestly I see this whole WhatsApp debacle as a big old scape goat. They're putting a big corporation on the spot so they can extort money from it, make people talk about this and ultimately it's just a means to keep spying on every single brazilian citizen. People say WhatsApp is evil for not cooperating now and pretend the government is a pure entity only seeking good. Meanwhile they forget we probably just had a silent coup for the presidency, the whole government is corrupt and so is the justice system that is enforcing these rules. I see talks about how evil the americans are for not helping the poor brazilian government, pretending like before WhatsApp existed crime in Brazil was almost non-existent. It's honestly sad. The best part is that this only generates animosities between citizens, who attack each other because they support "red" or "blue" allowing the corrupt to keep doing whatever they want. The whole world has shown exemplary individuals that despite living in their corrupt environments stand up and take a stand for us all. Despite that we're stuck pointing fingers at each other with blind faith in our own corrupt governments. Honestly you can even be right that the brazilian government is "legally" spying on us. That doesn't make it right. And to say we the author "doesn't know about american government spying" seems extremely naive to me. We probably know more about how corrupt the US government is than any other government on the planet and I doubt he's not aware of that.

geon 10y ago

It is not hypocricy unless they endorse the american governments actions.

JadeNB 10y ago

> It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for "peering into private communications" by using public legal means against US corporations, whereas the US government has done exactly the same thing (using legal and illegal means) but you just didn't know about it (because most Internet companies are based in the US). Surely this is only hypocritical if the American supports his or her government's doing these things. (I am an American, and I don't support these actions, whether taken by my country or any other.) Surely you don't want to take the position that those ruled by a morally corrupt regime by that fact lose their right to protest corruption?