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

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#191

Post by dovereconomics » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 3:58 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…

I'm Brazilian (not a shaddy judge though) and this comment is baffling. It reminded me why I left it in the first place.

> No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy

Indeed true.

That's why you see Brazilian politicians embezzling billions of dollars and running away with it. At the same time, impoverished individuals are imprisoned for years after stealing a basket of eggs (literally).

No, it's not the same as in the U.S. Many innocent Americans are put in jail because they didn't know their rights. Impoverished Brazilians are not even given that choice.

The law isn't the same for everyone. If a Brazilian with a college education is arrested, he goes to a different, more pompous, prison "by law".

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#192

Post by mikeash » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:02 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #161

d_theorist wrote: post #89

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…

That would be the first system like that available to public ever. "It's not that we all agree not to read it unless we really really think the people are bad" is pretty much the definition of the secrecy of correspondence we had since pre-digital era.

People have been coming up with and breaking codes for thousands of years. The Caesar Cipher is not named such just because of some fascination with ancient Rome, for example.

One-time pads have been around for more than a century. Book ciphers can be quite secure and are centuries old. Criminals have been substituting phrases (e.g. "I gave the flowers to Wanda" -> "I murdered Bob the Snitch") since they've been aware they might be eavesdropped upon.

It has pretty much always been the case that you can encrypt your correspondence if you wish and then the state can attempt to read it anyway if they wish, and in states which require this sort of thing, if they can get a warrant.

Encrypting your correspondence has gotten easier. Nobody would have bothered to use a good cipher for "Don't forget to get eggs at the store" (meaning, actually get eggs, not some substitute phrase for "murder Bob the Snitch") twenty years ago, but now we do it all the time.

But that doesn't change a whole lot. Criminals who gave a shit about not being spied upon have always had ways to ensure it couldn't happen.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#193

Post by woliveirajr » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:04 PM UTC

_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, that's not how investigations work. The police gets some information about some crime (told by the victim, a witness, etc.). Investigates. Then asks the judge "I have a potential crime here, to be sure about it I need to wiretape". The judges gives it or not.

After someone is convicted, there's no use on wiretaping him about something that was already solved.

How simple is it to make someone an alleged criminal, well, that's country specific. Can also be thought on how easy is to have a government receiving data directly from Facebook, or using gag orders, or bombing another country without proofs of any wrongdoing.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#194

Post by saint_fiasco » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:04 PM UTC

mahouse wrote: post #64

saint_fiasco wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't they prosperous for a while after World War I?

They were prosperous when they had surges of incoming white immigrants from Europe, yes.

It was more about them selling food to war-thorn countries. Even Paraguay had a budget surplus after WWI for similar reasons, and they didn't get many white immigrants.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#195

Post by simoncion » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:11 PM UTC

iraphael wrote: post #178

whatever_dude wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. WhatsApp could not deliver what the judge requested, even if they wanted to. Messages are encrypted end to end and not kept in their servers. The Judge requested something impossible. predictably, WhatsApp and Facebook did not comply. The Judge threw a hissy fit and decided to block the service, affecting everyone who uses it (95% of the Internet users in the country). A similar thing happened years ago wh…

Apparently, Whatsapp is only end-to-end encrypted on Android, where it uses TextSecure. On iOS, it still uses RC4.

Do you have a cite for this?

Signal (née TextSecure) runs on Android and iOS, with an in-development Chrome extension (or whatever) to run where Chrome runs.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#196

Post by simoncion » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

pqdbr wrote: post #96

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…

I can't reply to replies, so I'll post here. 1. No, you don't make someone an alleged criminal by simply accusing them of a crime. You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime. Judges are really demanding when analyzing this proof before authorizing a wiretap. If you authorize a wiretap and you find out a crime, but later the lawyer can demonstrat…

> I can't reply to replies...

Click the timestamp of the comment (or find another way to access the permalink for the comment). The reply link should appear.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#197

Post by bmelton » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:16 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #188

bmelton wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy. Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not, but that is an entirely different category, and your wording seems woefully imprecise. > Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have…

In the US convicted criminals still have privacy rights after release. They are slightly less than a non criminal, but after probation ends cops can't just enter a criminals home on a whim.

Correct, but they do have other rights-restrictions.

Regarding privacy though, I think we're in agreement that the only people who don't have it are those that are currently incarcerated as a result of due process.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#198

Post by jdmichal » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:17 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #179

jdmichal wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This feels like some sort of inverse appeal-to-authority. "You can't be this kind of expert, therefore your assertions are false."

If you start your post with "I'm an authority" then you are inducing the appeal to authority implicitly through Priming.

You are committing the same folly you accuse him of. It would be fine to simply point out his use of it, but following that up with: "I'm surprised you got as many credulous responses as you did." You are basically doing the same thing. Prime that he is not an expert, then state that he should not be getting credulous responses. The implication of course being that his not being an expert means that his argument does not deserve credible thought and response.

Also, there's always a fine line with appeal to authority with regards to experts, which you would hope a judge would be in the field of law. For instance, is it folly to point to consensus in science? That is, after all, nothing but an authority.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#199

Post by jdmichal » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:22 PM UTC

varjag wrote: post #90

jdmichal wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At that level, I would actually guess that it's more likely that an assistant would prepare the documents to be rubber stamped. It's not perfect, but at least something has to be done.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#200

Post by bsbechtel » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 4:25 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…

Isn't blocking a form of communication for millions of citizens also a gross infringement on freedom of speech? I don't know what legal rights the Brazilian Constitution reserves for its citizens vs the U.S., but blocking a service individuals use to communicate with others on seems to fall within that realm.