Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

thephonesgsm.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 276 posts

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#81

Post by caio1982 »

hvis wrote: post #69
pqdbr wrote: post #65

I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminals, on the other hand, don't have that right already.

The ones involved in the crimes of this case had been convicted already but then they were released recently after a habeas corpus, but are still under investigation and being prosecuted.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#82

Post by emmet »

mahouse wrote: post #60
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it would be a huge improvement if this happened in my country. It would mean that if I'm sitting in front of a keyboard and a screen as I am most of the day, I would be able to reply to my friends comfortably using them. With that joke of an application called Whatsapp, I have to choose between replying from a tiny smartphone screen and on-screen keyboard, or going through a ludicrous ritual of photographing a…

>or going through a ludicrous ritual of photographing a QR code You know you have to do that only once yes?

You have to do it every time you use WhatsApp web. Not for each message, but it's an unwanted ceremony nonetheless.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#83

Post by _jgdh »

pqdbr wrote: post #75
hvis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminals, on the other hand, don't have that right already.

No they don't. Your argument doesn't make any logical sense. Wiretapping is needed during the investigation phase, which you need to gather evidence BEFORE trialling and convicting anyone. And is only authorized if you have strong evidence that a crime or criminal organization is in place. If only convicted criminals didn't have right to privacy, how would you get them convicted in the first place ? Also, you really…

Its absurdly simple to make someone an alleged criminal. You simply need to accuse them of a crime. There are many countries where the government does exactly this - they accuse people such as human rights activists of crimes like "fomenting discord" and "promoting unrest" and lock them up. Under your enlightened regime of revoking the human right of privacy from alleged criminal, these people would have no recourse.

So no, your argument doesn't make any logical sense.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#84

Post by [deleted] »

pqdbr wrote: post #75
hvis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminals, on the other hand, don't have that right already.

No they don't. Your argument doesn't make any logical sense. Wiretapping is needed during the investigation phase, which you need to gather evidence BEFORE trialling and convicting anyone. And is only authorized if you have strong evidence that a crime or criminal organization is in place. If only convicted criminals didn't have right to privacy, how would you get them convicted in the first place ? Also, you really…

[deleted]

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#85

Post by PeterisP »

pqdbr wrote: post #72
caio1982 wrote: post #32

What really happened: a drug smuggler with ties to a major criminal organization had been investigated and sentenced several months ago and since July Facebook and WhatsApp folks had not complied (actually they simply ignored all requests) with some users data the justice demanded to keep prosecuting the guy and his associates. Allegedly, according to the new https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Civil_Rights_Frame…

The order wasn't super broad, it was actually specific to a single individual, like you said. Also, even if it was broad, you don't get to ignore judicial orders. You answer to them giving your reasons and appealing if you don't agree. Ignoring them will get you either punished or arrested. WhatsApp notoriously doesn't even have an office in Brazil. No way to even get a judicial order to them. Facebook, the parent co…

You do get to ignore judicial orders if you are outside of their jurisdiction.

If, say, a valid legal authority in Iran issues some judicial order that affects me or some content that I have published (even if it is accessible in Iran), then it is perfectly reasonable to ignore it as long as I'm not in Iran, don't have an office there, etc.

I am not and should not be bound by Iran's laws and judgements, I reside elsewhere. Whatsapp is not and should not be bound by Brazil's laws and judgements, they reside elsewhere. If their host country allows (or requires!) them to protect user privacy, then they should follow their own laws, not those of Brazil.

Should Whatsapp censor messages critical of Thailand's royalty because they are illegal there? Should Whatsapp censor messages that are blasphemous and thus illegal in some places? Should Whatsapp give up personal details of the users who have made such illegal messages? In my opinion definitely NO.

Countries should not get to export their restrictions across the globe, they can either participate in the global network with an understanding that foreign companies will follow their laws and not yours, or countries can self-isolate as in this case Brazil has done.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#86

Post by mahouse »

emmet wrote: post #82
mahouse wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>or going through a ludicrous ritual of photographing a QR code You know you have to do that only once yes?

You have to do it every time you use WhatsApp web. Not for each message, but it's an unwanted ceremony nonetheless.

No. It's only the first time. Then the key is stored in the browser forever (or, at least, for a very long time)

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#87

Post by akerro »

oceanofsolaris wrote: post #67
akerro wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They now have a desktop app It sit on the top of a close-source browser...

You can also use it with chromium, which is open source.

Which downloads blobs from google when you're not looking...

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#88

Post by middleclick »

pqdbr wrote: post #75
hvis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminals, on the other hand, don't have that right already.

No they don't. Your argument doesn't make any logical sense. Wiretapping is needed during the investigation phase, which you need to gather evidence BEFORE trialling and convicting anyone. And is only authorized if you have strong evidence that a crime or criminal organization is in place. If only convicted criminals didn't have right to privacy, how would you get them convicted in the first place ? Also, you really…

In an ideal world, what you said would make sense. But unfortunately many governments and judicial systems around the world are corrupt and they misuse their powers - they have and they will. There is a reason most countries have laws against unlawful search and seizure. Otherwise going by what you said and assuming the judiciary is incorruptible (which is almost probably never by the way), why would we give citizens rights against the government?

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#89

Post by d_theorist »

pqdbr wrote: post #65

I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…

The point of secure communication is that nobody except the sender and receiver can read it. It's not that we all agree not to read it unless we really really think the people are bad. That is not security.

So, you either have secure communication systems available for everybody, and accept that the government is not always going to get what it wants, or you don't.

There is no such thing as a secure system that a third-party can read if it chooses to. By definition.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#90

Post by varjag »

jdmichal wrote: post #76
pqdbr wrote: post #65

I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…

I love these two parts: > Also, the judge must specify a single phone number or single e-mail account and the decision must be reviewed every 15 days, otherwise it expires. Also, there's a national database of wiretaps that every judge must feed by the end of the month, specifying how many wiretaps there are currently running. Great way to apply natural negative pressure on continuing wiretap operations. It's not imp…

Nothing there that can't be automated with a simple shell script.

Not saying the oversight system in Brazil is unreasonable, but you can't rely on the natural disincentives alone.

Post reply on HN