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

Post by coldtea » Tue, May 03, 2016, 1:48 AM UTC

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…

Post by gcb0 » Tue, May 03, 2016, 1:53 AM UTC

necessity wrote: post #339

kartan wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument looks like it can also be applied to even malware. If I put something illegal doesn't has the judges right to stop the distribution of that app in the country? Another question is if what Watsapp did should be illegal. But if the judges can't stop internet companies from doing something illegal who do you thing should do it?

No, he does not have that right. By that same logic brazilians shouldn't be allowed to visit websites from any other country where there's a discrepancy with brazilian law. With a government like ours next thing you know we have our own Great Firewall. This kind of thing can't even be enforced, being so easy to bypass.

Post by cplease » Tue, May 03, 2016, 2:06 AM 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 lawpoop » Tue, May 03, 2016, 2:09 AM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #273

kuschku wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>>At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations. Uhm nope. If my app(published on Apple Store/Google Play) violated a law in Saudi Arabia and they sent me a letter requesting me to appear and subject myself to 100 lashes for violating their law, I would very promptly disregard said letter, to put it politely.

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, May 03, 2016, 2:15 AM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #267

MichaelGG wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, judges need to notice when a law creates a contradiction or a stupid scenario and not make such rulings. Judges are supposed to have "wisdom". Pointing at a broken law, then breaking communications for everyone hardly seems wise. Unless he's secretly hoping this will force a big change in law and government.

Contradictions are one thing, but the stupidity of a law is subjective, and the judiciary should not be empowered to rule contrary to the law based on their opinion of it. Which is not to say they shouldn't point out that it's ridiculous when they make their ruling, and suggest that the legislature fixes it quickly.