Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 629 posts

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#111

Post by 794CD01 »

latj wrote: post #90
soneca wrote: post #64

I'm here to defend the judge's ruling, a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil. Brazilian law regarding regarding privacy of users of internet services is very recent and clear: if a judge order the company to share a specific user data, the company must comply. You can disagree with the law, but the law is there. Now, the judge ordered Whatsapp to share a particular user conversation (a suspect…

You are missing the most important part of the story. Facebook and Whatsapp are not ignoring the request. They have said that it is impossible for them to provide the information requested.

"It's impossible for me to follow the law" is not a valid defense.

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#112

Post by MrMullen »

free2rhyme214 wrote: post #103
abritinthebay wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But... Telegram isn't E2E encrypted so is less private..? I mean, it's not blocked so I guess it's better than nothing but it's not a plus for privacy: it's a net negative.

Telegram's secret chats are E2E encrypted.

Using an unexamined and unpublished encryption algorithm. Encryption is hard and when someone says "trust us", you know they are implementing poor encryption.

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#113

Post by 794CD01 »

Others wrote: post #89
soneca wrote: post #64

I'm here to defend the judge's ruling, a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil. Brazilian law regarding regarding privacy of users of internet services is very recent and clear: if a judge order the company to share a specific user data, the company must comply. You can disagree with the law, but the law is there. Now, the judge ordered Whatsapp to share a particular user conversation (a suspect…

But, as it says in the article, WhatsApp just doesn't have the data the judge wants it to turn over. How does it make sense to punish a company for not doing something that it physically cannot do?

If it is impossible for you to drive legally - say, for example, you are blind - that does not permit you to then drive illegally.

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#114

Post by bybjorn »

Others wrote: post #89
soneca wrote: post #64

I'm here to defend the judge's ruling, a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil. Brazilian law regarding regarding privacy of users of internet services is very recent and clear: if a judge order the company to share a specific user data, the company must comply. You can disagree with the law, but the law is there. Now, the judge ordered Whatsapp to share a particular user conversation (a suspect…

But, as it says in the article, WhatsApp just doesn't have the data the judge wants it to turn over. How does it make sense to punish a company for not doing something that it physically cannot do?

Surely they are physically able to answer the court?

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#115

Post by soapdog »

dosgonlogs wrote: post #54
soapdog wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samstave, Just a bit of nitpick to save you some trouble in the future. Brazil is not poor. Brazil is the seventh world economy, if you count the number of nations in north america and europe, being the seventh world economy is a great deal. Also the division in 1st world and 3rd world is schewed upon today. Its akin to saying the N-word. There are much better, non-pejorative terms to be used. Brazil is a part of the…

I think it will be very hard for Brazil and India to shake being labeled as third world countries, with the amount of citizens below the poverty line, and the poor infrastructure of the areas those citizens inhabit. The United States itself is labeled as a third world country when talking about areas of Detroit for example, and the wealth inequality starting to resemble that of Brazil and India. You might take except…

Of course countries can be criticized. There are so many wrong things here that I wouldn't even learn where to begin prioritizing the list of criticisms.

Things are getting better, we've managed to get ourselves out of the U.N. Hunger and Misery map. This is a victory, and not a small one. The past 12 years it has been the very first time in 500 years where there are no people starving to death.

Still, the problem of Brazil is not that "it is a poor country" or "it has poor areas" like others portray in a simplistic view. As you said, it brews out of a self-perpetuating wealth inequality where the gap keeps enlarging as rich get richer.

We'll always find things to criticize and still advances are made by focusing efforts on solving the very problems we surface with our criticisms.

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#116

Post by dragonwriter »

corybrown wrote: post #86
hkmurakami wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1st world and 3rd world country can often be a strange one. South Korea is technically considered a 3rd world country, even though it has quite a global influence in industries such as consumer electronics, automotive, semiconductors, and steel. edit: Apologies, looks like I was completely wrong since the source online I looked at incorrectly defined SK as economically undeveloped (I looked further and SK is in t…

South Korea isn't, but Switzerland and Sweden, by virtue of being neutral is a third world country in the original defintion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World Because it wasn't an economic criteria, you've also got countries like Angola in the First World by the original defintion.

> Because it wasn't an economic criteria, you've also got countries like Angola in the First World by the original defintion.

No, you didn't. Angola was never both a country and part of the First World (Portugal was part of the First World when the term was coined, and Angola was part of Portugal then; when Angola became independent, the regime was Cuban-backed and Soviet-allied, and thus it was part of the Second World.)

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#117

Post by Jtsummers »

meira wrote: post #46
myth_drannon wrote: post #3

Unlike in N. America, in Brazil a lot of businesses depend on WhatsApp. You can talk with your doctor, call a plumber, claim insurance. On billboards no one puts a website address or an email, just phone number and WhatsUp. That's an economy cripling move and it's shocking how one judge can do it.

More important. Why aren't congressmen creating rules to prevent these monopolies ?

?? Can't tell if serious.

Unless whatsapp did something to wreck their competition in Brazil, any effective monopoly they possess is by virtue of people choosing to use their system over other systems.

This sort of effective monopoly cannot and ought not be stopped unless the monopoly power is abusing their position. And how would you when it's a choice people have made? Mandate that every 5th person mustn't use WhatsApp?

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#118

Post by newman314 »

soneca wrote: post #64

I'm here to defend the judge's ruling, a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil. Brazilian law regarding regarding privacy of users of internet services is very recent and clear: if a judge order the company to share a specific user data, the company must comply. You can disagree with the law, but the law is there. Now, the judge ordered Whatsapp to share a particular user conversation (a suspect…

Therein lies the rub. What's "legal" does not always mean it's right.

To hide behind "it's legal" to me is harmful to humanity as ofttimes the law is behind the curve, we can and should be better.

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#119

Post by chukye »

soneca wrote: post #106
Others wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, as it says in the article, WhatsApp just doesn't have the data the judge wants it to turn over. How does it make sense to punish a company for not doing something that it physically cannot do?

I think this statement weird. End-to-end encryption is very recent, the data asked by the judge is for communication made before this feature roll-out. So I'm assuming Whatsapp do have the information for these two particular cases. But I could be wrong. Anyway, maybe they are just using it for PR support on their position against the court decision, betting that all of that Telegram new users will come back to Whats…

You are assuming, just like the judge. That is not correct, you should trust in the company when they say that. The hole world works as that, trust. A judge cannot assume that they have that data, because they don't. This judge just dont have any tech acknowledge, thats the problem, people that dont understand what they are doing. BTW, its not End-to-end encryption related, is just that they dont store that data in anywhere.

Re: WhatsApp, Used by 100M Brazilians, Shut Down Nationwide Today by a Single Judge

#120

Post by ww520 »

latj wrote: post #90
soneca wrote: post #64

I'm here to defend the judge's ruling, a position very unpopular among all my friends here in Brazil. Brazilian law regarding regarding privacy of users of internet services is very recent and clear: if a judge order the company to share a specific user data, the company must comply. You can disagree with the law, but the law is there. Now, the judge ordered Whatsapp to share a particular user conversation (a suspect…

You are missing the most important part of the story. Facebook and Whatsapp are not ignoring the request. They have said that it is impossible for them to provide the information requested.

That's the problem with all these judicial orders. They think it's a flip of the switch to comply. Why don't the courts provide the money to build the services and infrastructure to comply with the order?
Post reply on HN