141–150 of 276 posts
I am from Brazil and I can say: we are almost becoming the new Argentina. And this is quite interesting because Argentina is becoming the new Venezuela (at least they were, but few weeks ago they had elections and the left wing lost). And Venezuela clearly is becoming the new Cuba.
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…
The company is free to chose not to operate in their country. It can chose to not answer to any official /judicial question (I'm not even saying agree with, only answer). It can do so even if it concerns a citizen of the country in question.
But if it does all that, it cannot expect said country to let them operate their business freely on "their soil", and that it is on the Internet does not change that, it's still accessing the Brazilian market.
I'm not agreeing with what Brazil is doing here, but I don't like the "I'm not on your soil so I can ignore you and still operate on your market" logic.
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?
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 have to disagree with you on this Sir. Criminals have the essential uncontested right to privacy like everybody else. However, law enforcement have the right too to collect and gather info on subjects to prepare a case and prosecute in a court of law but that gathering and collecting should only be limited to the scope of investigation and suspected criminal activities without going after their personal lives and tiny details of their intimate relationships and also without feeding the shameless media these bits of information because if you cross that line, you'd gradually but assuredly lose the moral high ground for your position and then those suspects/criminals would look like victims in the eyes of the public and you guys as the bad guys and trust me you don't wanna lose the public opinion battle.
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…
"No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it." The problem is, that by definition, you can't take away privacy from criminals without taking it away from everyone else. Especially when term criminal varies from country to country -- in this case it might be a drug lord, but i.e. in Russia it might be an opposition leader or journalist that dug too deep.
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.
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.
They certainly do not have evidence that every citizen and every foreigner (total 7 billion people) is a pedophile, terrorist or even a jaywalker.
I for one have lost any faith in governance in the information age, and will happily encrypt my communication. If I can sabotage for the organisations spying on me, that is a net win.
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're looking at this the other way round. It's not that privacy makes it harder to foster a civilized society, but removing makes it totally impossible.
Is amuses me that you would see this as post Snowden or even American issue. As a Brazilian I know our state is much more corrupt and inapt, and the risks are an order of magnitude higher for us, Snowden or not.
See here for some of the rational: http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-somethin...
Your comment history says otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4167143
Seem to be a run of the mill dev to me. I'm surprised you got as many credulous responses as you did.