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

101–110 of 276 posts

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#101

Post by bzxbot »

_jgdh wrote: post #83
pqdbr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

No, it's not, at least not in Brazil. As mentioned above, wiretapping need to be authorized by a judge. The police must provide a reasonable justification. If the provided justification is weak or deemed unlawful, a lawyer can exclude all the data collected in trial.

If privacy is a human right that cannot be violated ever, how are going to deal with criminals that use services such as WhatsApp?

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#102

Post by ethbro »

_jgdh wrote: post #83
pqdbr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I think the reasoning proceed from two different opinions of the citizenry.

It's my opinion that in any reasonably developed and old democracy a majority of the population are currently criminals in the sense that they have broken at least one law.

In reality, that law is either trivial, inconsistently enforced, or generally ignored. But the important thing is that it's still on the books as the law of the land, and therefore makes the citizen prosecutable in a court of law.Whether or not that individual is prosecuted then becomes the folly of most systems -- a choice that can be arbitrarily made (as it's never incorrect for the government to enforce its current laws, even if it can be unjust).

As a consequence of all the above... pre-investigation is tantamount to power-to-convict. And privacy is the only effective deterrent against "I would like to find some crime you're guilty of and then charge you with it because {unrelated and non-legally-based rationale}". Imho, this is the fundamental and most dangerous type of corruption a democracy can fall institutional victim to, because it only requires that there be a large number of rarely-enforced laws on the book (a systemic weakness of democracy where repealing a law takes more effort than leaving it valid) and individuals of questionable motive (human nature) in positions of power.

(I'm perfectly willing to accept that others may have a different viewpoint on democracy, but I think I historical support as to this is the actual way a mature legal system functions)

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#103

Post by akerro »

sneak wrote: post #92
akerro wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No it doesn't. If you're going to wave this flag, you should be complaining about the management controller inside of your CPU (presuming you are already running an open source OS).

>you should be complaining about the management controller inside of your CPU

And I am! I can't wait for Novena! Also notice a difference. Having a close-sourced CPU is different than having a close-source browser which has much more possibilities to compromise you. It can start camera, microphone, read disk files, locate you and transmit everything to "cloud".

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#104

Post by pauljohncleary »

PeterisP wrote: post #85
pqdbr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 else…

yes, and by ignoring those laws it's perfectly reasonable for that judiciary to ban your service within the bounds of their jurisdiction

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#105

Post by kogepathic »

PeterisP wrote: post #85
pqdbr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 else…

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

That's nice to say in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. Just ask Microsoft. [1] [2]

Fact of the matter is, if the Metropolitan police came to Facebook with the proper paperwork requesting data on a British user as part of a criminal case, Facebook would cooperate with them.

> Should Whatsapp censor messages critical of Thailand's royalty because they are illegal there?

No. But if Thailand decides to prosecute someone for making these statements via WhatsApp, then they have every right to legally request the data from WhatsApp. A user in Thailand broke Thai laws.

> Should Whatsapp censor messages that are blasphemous and thus illegal in some places?

Again, no. But if the jurisdiction decides to charge someone for breaking the law, WhatsApp and Facebook must cooperate with the legal request for data. To ignore such a request is circumventing due process.

> Should Whatsapp give up personal details of the users who have made such illegal messages?

Yes. If the request follows the legal process in the jurisdiction, then of course WhatsApp should be obligated to hand over the data.

What you're essentially saying is that if someone in the US plans a bombing of American citizens via WhatsApp, and if the FBI finds out of this plot and decides to request the data from WhatsApp, WhatsApp has every legal right to tell the FBI to fuck off. [3]

Obviously this is ridiculous. Someone did something which was against the laws of their country of residence, and that country has every right to legally prosecute them for breaking the law. To claim that WhatsApp is somehow immune from this simply because they're a foreign company operating in that country is ridiculous.

> with an understanding that foreign companies will follow their laws and not yours

Sorry, that's not how business works. Just ask VW about their recent 'dieselgate' incident if you need an example.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/09/microsoft-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Unite...

[3] http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-terror-messagi...

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#106

Post by marcosdumay »

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.

Whatever you think, our Law says that if the police has enough evidence to strongly suspect somebody, a court can restrict his right of privacy to gather extra proof.

You may hold any opinion you want, but the above is in Brazilian Constitution, and not even contested by anybody.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#107

Post by rmc »

tw04 wrote: post #98
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…

If you think this is going to do anything other than cause criminals to develop their own secure apps, quite frankly you're delusional. With the amount of money the drug cartels have, it will be trivial for them to simply hire developers to write them a secure messaging app.

Because infosec is so easy.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#108

Post by rmc »

PeterisP wrote: post #85
pqdbr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 else…

Fair enough. WhatsApp doesn't have to obey the laws in Brazil. It also means they don't have a right to complain when a country blocks them.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#110

Post by tw04 »

rmc wrote: post #107
tw04 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think this is going to do anything other than cause criminals to develop their own secure apps, quite frankly you're delusional. With the amount of money the drug cartels have, it will be trivial for them to simply hire developers to write them a secure messaging app.

Because infosec is so easy.

What does the ease of infosec have to do with anything? They've got literally an unlimited budget, and there are countless open source apps they can build on top of to get started. FFS they've built their own cell networks, their own submarines, I'm confident they can have a secure messaging app commissioned.
Post reply on HN