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

Post by raverbashing » Tue, May 03, 2016, 6:32 AM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #149

surye wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing to see here I feel like this is an overly dismissive attitude to have, even, or especially if, everything you said is true and this is some common behavior.

Unfortunately this became common for Brazilians in the last few years. Judges are perceived as having extraordinary powers over everyone's lives. In the last few months, lower court judges have blocked actions of the president of the republic. They have also put in jail some of the richest people in the country, supposedly for corruption, but also for political reasons.

Post by ptaipale » Tue, May 03, 2016, 6:38 AM UTC

empressplay wrote: post #471

envy2 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

If a US law makes it impossible for a US company to comply with laws in another country in which they operate, that other country has the right to prohibit said company from operating there.

Post by ptaipale » Tue, May 03, 2016, 6:41 AM UTC

BrandonMarc wrote: post #392

gcb0 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content i know nothing about law, but where are you getting this from? does not seems to be the case with any company in china (yahoo gave in, google decided to leave) for example.

The difference is likely that these companies had the type of presence that causes Chinese law to come into effect ... such as physical presence (servers), buildings (owned property), human presence (employees, especially if they're Chinese citizens), financial presence (bank accounts, insurance), business/legal presence (i.e. local corp, subsidiary, company of some sort).

Post by CamperBob2 » Tue, May 03, 2016, 6:49 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #480

CamperBob2 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as a country whose laws can't be changed. Only countries where the people don't care enough to do what's necessary to change them.

Oh, now I understand North Korea's problems!

Post by mirimir » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:02 AM UTC

cantrevealname wrote: post #236

btreesOfSpring wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ruling makes end-to-end encryption illegal where, a service provider at no time holds the keys to decrypt messages between communicating parties. This is a protocol decision and since the Snowden revelations, a point of concern for civil libertarians. The Apple v FBI debate is a child of these exact concerns. The idea that governments want to legislate unfettered access to private communications and devices shou…

> This ruling makes end-to-end encryption illegal where, a service provider at no time holds the keys The Big Company (like WhatsApp, Google, Apple) is always the easy target for subpoenas, judicial orders, and National Security Letters when it comes to encrypted transmissions. Here's an idea for a legal maneuver to take Big Company out of the picture: Suppose crypto was handled by an open source 3rd-party program th…