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

Post by joshvm » Mon, May 02, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

spdustin wrote: post #194

joshvm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can believe them when they say they don't keep data. When I got a new phone (the old one broke), I was expecting my conversations to be in the cloud somewhere so that I could recover them. Nope, I lost everything that I hadn't backed up. I don't see what they can gain from storing masses of old chats and then not allowing users to download them onto new devices. If they kept chats to do analytics on, there's no rea…

Telegram isn't end-to-end encrypted unless you're in a "secret chat", and that chat exists only between two different devices and can't be used by multiple devices on one account. It's a "feature" of the normal chats/channels/groups/supergroups of Telegram that you are able to download them to other devices, or to restore them on a freshly wiped device, because (and I'm over-simplifying here, but the end result is th…

Post by xigency » Mon, May 02, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

robbiemitchell wrote: post #199

curiouscats wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies can be punished for failure to obey laws. If a company didn't bother to retain records on who bought something they are now required to recall due to safety failures I can't imagine any country would say that is ok. They would be punished. I don't happen to think the law mentioned is a good one. And I have no idea how the law is actually worded. Depending on how it is worded maybe it is ok to just not keep…

So if a judge demanded a telco hand over an audio recording of any specific conversation, they must comply -- even though calls are not recorded and stored? If a judge demanded the postal service hand over an image of every envelope processed, it must comply -- even though no such images exist? Where does it end?

Post by coliveira » Mon, May 02, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

gtirloni wrote: post #193

coliveira wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point, but what is scandalous in this decision is not that WhatsUp is being shut down, but the way this is happening. You have a judge from a remote jurisdiction in Brazil who has enough power to shut down the service in the whole country. I wound't be surprised if this resulted as a process that went through several levels of justice in Brasil, but the fact that any judge can block a service in the whole…

> You have a judge from a remote jurisdiction in Brazil Irrelevant. > judges these days feel that they have power to block even actions of the president of the Republic. Thankfully so. Presidents are not above the law.

Post by cheatnews » Mon, May 02, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

envy2 wrote: post #158

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…

There seem to be a few problems with this analysis. First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content, except in emergencies. Instead, foreign law enforcement must make a request for assistance to the US DoJ, which will then (eventually, and maybe)…

Post by Jtsummers » Mon, May 02, 2016, 9:20 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #195

Jtsummers wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

?? 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 What…

Monopoly isn't even about market size it's about companies exploiting their market position using anti-competitive practices. There is no indication WhatsApp has done any of this except being the most popular product in a highly competitive and open market.