Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#151

Post by jdahlin » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

I'm sure that the phone operators were very happy to comply to ban, they hate WhatsApp. When WhatsApp first got popular here it ended their very lucrative business of SMS and more recently they introduced VOIP calls which considerably cheaper than normal phone calls, especially long distance.

Three of the major phone operators (Vivo, Claro, TIM) implemented the ban, while the fourth (Oi), did not. The CEO of Vivo, one of the major phone operators, came out a couple of months ago saying that WhatsApp is "piracy", since they are not affected by the same regulations as the normal phone operator.[1]

[1]: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2015/08/1666187-whatsap... (portuguese)

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#152

Post by AndrewKemendo » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

kogepathic wrote: post #105

PeterisP wrote: post #85

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…

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.

That's because they are British. No, seriously.

Some countries have most favored nation status in diplomatic and economic affairs. As a result, if you piss off the wrong partner nation then you will get stomped on locally.

Brazil doesn't. So the US is not going to force the whatsapp guys to do shit.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#153

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#154

Post by lorenzhs » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

tazjin wrote: post #18

lorenzhs wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal has multi device sync now, and it's cryptographically secure. It works by sending Signal messages to the other linked devices. This enables Signal-Desktop (the Chrome app that is now in beta). Sync is only implemented in the Android client at the moment though.

That's quite literally multi-device >>sync Seems like a low effort solution and would not satisfy my requirements, but it probably works for some people.

No, your claim is false. This has been claimed about Signal multiple times now on HN and I've never understood how people came to this conclusion, because it's just not true and never was. All your messages arrive on all your devices, even if all of them are off at the time the message is sent. It's stored in an end-to-end encrypted fashion on Signal's servers until you switch on one of them, at which point the message will be delivered. When you switch on another one, the messages will be present at that device as well. The only thing missing right now is the sync of old messages when you link a new device, but that's only relevant in the first couple of days/weeks of use.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#155

Post by loceng » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #150

I'm a judge in Brazil. 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.

Why do you assume they aren't someone with a website and have a career?

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#156

Post by dharmach » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

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…

> "No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it."

Unfortunately, no technology can differentiate between criminal and innocent, only human can. The implication is to decide the priority: privacy for criminals or no privacy for innocents.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#157

Post by loceng » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:34 PM UTC

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 share data with foreign governments, who then could perhaps side-step your local laws? Just curious as it sounds like a loophole I've seen people talking about.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#158

Post by soneca » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:36 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #150

I'm a judge in Brazil. 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.

Very weird indeed. Although I agree with the reasoning, despite of the authority.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#159

Post by rlpb » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #132

rlpb wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This distinction between metadata and data is getting old. Metadata is personal, revealing information to a large degree. The analogy with envelopes and the address written on the outside is absurd. There is a huge difference between that and the huge electronic logs they create from our mobile phones and internet activities (such as cell tower based location, search keywords on http sites, etc) Metadata is still pri…

That's my point. He said a judge's order is required for a "wiretap", but other commenters have said (and provided text) that metadata is available without a judge's order. So unless that statement is incorrect and a judge's order is actually required, the entire argument that there's a high bar to wiretap is false. He's just redefined "wiretap", that's all.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#160

Post by Puts » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 2:40 PM UTC

Majestic121 wrote: post #138

Puts wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. ;-)

That's a debatable definition, to say the least. I'm not saying authentication is not an important part of security, but saying it is the only important part is quite a stretch, don't you think?

I was only trying to make a point because d_theorist seemed to only think security is about hiding the message from third party. Secure communication could even mean not to get a electric shock from your phone while using it.