131–140 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
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…
> In Brazil, only a judge can authorize someone to be wiretapped In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10749400 , it is claimed that "It says basically that police can require records of visited CONTENT without a court order and the ISP is required to supply that without informing the user." He is corrected by someone saying the text means metadata and not content. Which is true? Do you not consider grabbing metada…
Metadata is still privacy infringing personal data.
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…
You determine who is a criminal so you determine who has the right to privacy? Maybe you are a reasonable person but I think it is naive to operate under the assumption that governments/judges will always be reasonable. I think indeed that you may be spied upon when you are suspect of a crime but to force Whatsapp to store all messages (diminishing everyone's privacy) due to a couple of criminals sounds like a bad idea to me.
So the right to privacy should be absolute, until you disrespect other people's rights (the only thing that should be a crime). So do good policing, don't take privacy away from innocent, free (wo)men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
And lest you think that this is only a problem with China, America has the exact same issue. The FISA court was supposed to hear requests for people's private info but it was a glorified rubber stamp, granting 99.9999% of requests. And that's the problem, you cannot have a free and vibrant democracy when people's privacy is negotiable.
Perhaps that sounds like hyperbole, but have a look at what other commenters are saying about fishing expeditions and tell me if you still think so.
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…
Of course WhatsApp and Facebook are not above the law, but was the decision reasonable at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Whatsapp has a duty to protect their user's privacy. Unless they receive a binding legal order from their authorities (in Whatsapp's case, USA) it is entirely right to ignore nonbinding requests from judges in Brazil, Thailand, Iran or everywhere else. Simply submitting to out-of-jurisdiction authorities is not due process, it is sharing personal data with third parties without the user's consent which (IANAL, IMHO) is legal in USA but would be prohibited if, for example, Whatsapp was headquartered in EU.
In your examples, the listed companies (or their appropriate subsidiaries) are subject to those laws because they are headquarted there, those laws are their local laws exactly unlike the nonexistent legal relationship between Whatsapp and Brazil.
Some countries will have bilateral agreements to obtain evidence from abroad - a process on how e.g. Brazil law enforcement could cooperate with USA law enforcement to get a request that has some legal force in USA (and vice versa). In the absence of that, a provider should side with their users privacy and ignore foreign requests as a policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thi…
I'd say the point of security in communication is being able to verify that all participants are who they say they are. More so than hiding the content from third party. ;-)
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…
Good point. Similar thing can be said about law enforcement. They see bad all the time, so they are more likely to see everything as bad and push for legislation that is privacy restrictive because of that. Good people who see good need to be vigilant so that their rights are not diminished.
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…
Isn't that's how it works with phone calls?