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

Post by mirimir » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:35 AM UTC

rmc wrote: post #495

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)…

> WhatsApp is a US company and... I always feel like many large US tech companies want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be a global company, they want to have 2 billion users, and are valued at having that many users. But when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone. I wouldn't mind if they ignored all national laws, and acted like a true global company. But I'm not from the USA (or Braz…

Post by patall » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:37 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #441

devishard wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) process it and serve it on the US company. This is…

As a digital native, I feel like an international Internet is more important than national sovereignty. That is, I don't think the interesting question is whether US or Brazilian law should apply, the question is how to ensure international access to international digital resources.

Post by patall » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:41 AM UTC

hrktb wrote: post #494

marklgr wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a business wants to operate in a foreign country, it seems natural to me to follow the rules of that country; the fact that the business did not open an office in that country looks irrelevant--otherwise, do not open any office abroad and do what you want. Incidentally, I wonder how the situation would be handled and what the opinion would be if some big foreign company operating in the US were shut down in the sa…

> otherwise, do not open any office abroad and do what you want. Isn't this a fair position ? Imagine you are a lone dev creating a service that has no specific limitations. You are subject to your countries law, but should also be liable under each single law of every country where your users might happen to be ? It seems to me that countries should have the right to do what they want within their borders (including…

Post by ptaipale » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:48 AM UTC

sbarre wrote: post #235

dmix wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brazil already arrested a Facebook executive and detained them for 24hrs this year over the fact they said there is nothing that can do regarding the information request. I'm not sure what you're proposing Facebook to do here? Hand over useless encrypted data? Hold a cryptography seminar for Brazillian law enforcement to explain what end-to-end encryption means? Have more of their employees risk arrest?

Pull their app from the Brazilian app store and let democratic process take its course

Post by serge2k » Tue, May 03, 2016, 7:53 AM UTC

lerpa wrote: post #405

serge2k wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have every right to pull your app, arrest you and prosecute you if you ever do go to their country, and apply to have your extradited under relevant treaties.

They have every right to do something ridiculous like that, in the same sense Hitler had every right to kill the Jews. I.e. only in their minds. Harmful lays laws should not be considered lawful just because somebody wrote them down.