351–360 of 629 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
In Germany you get recompensation for that. Also one might argue if they don't like the laws they shouldn't access the market.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My apps are in the Danish Google Play and Apple App Store... I never been there, I don't read or write danish, I never interacted with danish government, or met any danish person. If the dane government wanted something from me, and sent a letter to some random person, written in danish, even if it reaches me, I wouldn't understand it anyway. Thus, having app in some other country store doesn't prove much, except tha…
> except that you clicked "publish" somewhere on Google or Apple uploading interfaces. At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations. A famous example of someone operating legally under local law, but who got prosecuted for having merely a website accessible in another country, was Kim Dotcom. That’s the current state of international law, either lobby to change it, or accept it, but don't ignore i…
That's a pretty shit example, given everything that happened around that case.
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…
I am Brazilian as well and feel the same way. Laws are laws. We can change them if we don't like them, but defying and ignoring them is the wrong course of action.
This is horrible reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought Skype only stores the last 30 days of data on their servers, while it will store every piece of data received on your local computer indefinitely (unless you delete it, of course).
No. I personally have a video message that is almost 3 years old that I've tried to delete multiple times over the years and it still shows up if I do a fresh install of Skype on a new computer. Very old voice messages are also accessible even if "deleted". Text chats do seem to disappear, but at this point I don't believe anything Skype says. I figure they keep the chats forever as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Orders like these are normally written out by judges that are completely oblivious to how reality works. Adding to that the fact that people with power know they tend to get things their way in Brazil, and that the government is all-powerful, I'm quite sure this guy just assumed he could change the laws of the universe with a stroke of his pen.
that's how the legislative and judiciary branches think here in Brazil, write the problems away with a law. it called 'canetada'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then let me be more clear; you can't get around laws with technology. You have to change the laws. Proposing to make something peer to peer doesn't address the actual problem, the law.
As there are countries where laws cannot be changed, technological solutions can fix the problems once and for all. Even in "democratic" country, you would still have to fight the lobbyists, corporate controlled media and so on.
No, there aren't.
> technological solutions can fix the problems once and for all
No, they can't. Oppression can't be fixed by circumventing the law as it just leaves the government more power to enable selective enforcement which is the ideal way to scare people into compliance.
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…
I am sorry, but your argument is idiotic. It boils down to "WhatsApp wasn't there to produce something they didn't have, so a district court judge managed to order a bunch of nonparties to the lawsuit to take down WhatsApp." That's like a district judge in NY ordering all the telcos to block all iPhones because Apple refuses to hack a phone for him. What kind of judicial system are you running there in Brazil? I am g…
I don't really like seeing what is very very close to a personal attack ("your argument is idiotic", "I am glad you are in the minority...") in what should be a civilized place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Orders like these are normally written out by judges that are completely oblivious to how reality works. Adding to that the fact that people with power know they tend to get things their way in Brazil, and that the government is all-powerful, I'm quite sure this guy just assumed he could change the laws of the universe with a stroke of his pen.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/29/fbi-hacki...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Drugs are (highly) illegal but most people I know are at most two phone calls away from scoring whatever they want whenever they want. And yet most people don't. Knowing you can do something illegal, and doing it, are vastly different things.
> And yet most people don't. If people's life savings depended on circumventing capital controls, they would find a way. It's already a reality in China [1] and (until recently) Argentina [2]. Hell, where I'm from (Canada) 43% of people admit to having smoked marijuana in their lifetimes. And that's just breaking the law for fun, not serious practical reasons like saving $xx,xxx when your crappy central bank decides…
Most people break drug laws at some point in their lives just for fun, still not relevant to the fact that most don't most of the time.
Most people obey most laws most of the time, especially ones that can get them into serious trouble. No amount of anecdotes of some people this or some people that changes that fact. Laws matter.