Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 168 posts

Re: Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

#101

Post by cthalupa »

kuschku wrote: post #70
cthalupa wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a retaliation, to show that WhatsApp has to comply with Brazilian local laws when storing data from Brazilians using the service in Brazil, they banned WhatsApp for 48 hrs. Why must WhatsApp comply with Brazilian laws? They have no offices there. If I run, say, a porn site, hosted in the US, as a US company, is it my responsibility to prevent users in a country where pornography is illegal from using my site? Do…

The idea is that if WhatsApp doesn’t want to be blocked, they have to follow the laws. And so they are blocked for 48 hours, warning them that they might be blocked permanently. It’s the only way to deal with lawbreaking companies in a globalized world.

>It’s the only way to deal with lawbreaking companies in a globalized world.

Fundamentally, I think it's ludicrous to think you should international companies to the laws of your own country. Fundamentally, WhatsApp is not a lawbreaking company - they are not subject to Brazilian law. You can't break a rule that isn't actually imposed on you.

From a practical perspective, it doesn't matter for Brazilians. The end result is the same. Brazilian law allows for them to block the site, and that's the end of that.

But the reasoning behind it is important, and that people believe they have the right to subject people in different countries with different laws to their own local laws, despite those people not being in Brazil, is fundamentally scary to me.

Even if I believed in following all of these laws, I am now expected to know all of them?

WhatsApp has the backing of Facebook, so it's conceivable they have the resources to figure out the laws for every place their app is accessible from. But what about a small startup, or solo developer? How can you reasonably expect them to know every law in every internet accessible location?

That way lies madness.

Re: Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

#102

Post by gotchange »

msh wrote: post #98
gotchange wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's app is a America n company, so it should only respond to American supoenas. American exceptionalism and supremacy at work.

I am not American. I expect it to work the other way around too. Brazilian companies should not respond to foreign subpoenas unless validated by Brazilian courts.

Does WhatsApp have any physical presence in Brazil? Did they incorporate any subsidiary there?

Re: Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

#103

Post by ghshephard »

eduardordm wrote: post #38
adenot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought if you leave US for more than 3 (?) months you loose your green card status.

6 months + extensions. A minor effort is required to keep the visa.

Be cautious, I had a close friend have their Green Card seized while crossing the border back from Canada into the United States, even though he had documented evidence that he had spent 95% of the previous three years in the United States. He was a consultant, and traveled a lot, but thought he would hang out in Vancouver, BC for a while. Even though he only returned to Vancouver for a few days at a time, before going on the next engagement, and all engagements were in the United States, with a US employer, (And he was a Stanford Graduate) - they seized his GreenCard because his household goods (Mattress/clothing), had left the country more than a couple years ago, and used that as evidence of being away from the United States.

Lesson learned - Sometimes the border staff gets caught up on stupid technicalities. Be aware of them, and don't use common sense.

Re: Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

#104

Post by cthalupa »

DannyBee wrote: post #74
cthalupa wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a retaliation, to show that WhatsApp has to comply with Brazilian local laws when storing data from Brazilians using the service in Brazil, they banned WhatsApp for 48 hrs. Why must WhatsApp comply with Brazilian laws? They have no offices there. If I run, say, a porn site, hosted in the US, as a US company, is it my responsibility to prevent users in a country where pornography is illegal from using my site? Do…

"Why must WhatsApp comply with Brazilian laws? They have no offices there. " They don't. They only have to comply if they don't want to be blocked. "If I run, say, a porn site, hosted in the US, as a US company, is it my responsibility to prevent users in a country where pornography is illegal from using my site? Do I have any duty to comply with said country requesting the identity and viewing history of citizens li…

There's some subtle and fundamental differences here that I think are important.

People are saying WhatsApp are lawbreakers, etc. That heavily implies that they've done something wrong - which would mean that they are indeed subject to these laws in some shape or fashion.

I would argue that this is a dangerous thought process to have. It's a scary precedent - blocking WhatsApp is relatively mild, but what about if they wanted extradition?

It's also encouraging a world where anyone with an internet accessible site or business is now having to somehow keep track of every applicable law in every internet accessible location.

WhatsApp is a US based business that has not broken any US laws. They've done nothing wrong from that perspective. They can't be breaking laws they're not subject to.

Brazil can control what is and isn't allowed in their country, and you can say that the service did not comply with their laws, and thus the ban - but WhatsApp still isn't a lawbreaking company.

I think the distinction between the two is vital.

Re: Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

#105

Post by guelo »

morgante wrote: post #69
_delirium wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contempt of court in the U.S. escalates considerably beyond fines if the company doesn't start complying quickly. The court can jail the company's officers, issue an injunction forcing them to stop doing business, instruct customs to blockade them at the U.S. border (in the case of companies selling physical goods), and a range of other things.

Yes, that's all true. But they don't compel third parties to block the company's app.

US government used coercion through unofficial back channels to force Amazon and Paypal to cutoff Wikileaks.

Re: Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

#106

Post by CaptSpify »

guelo wrote: post #105
morgante wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's all true. But they don't compel third parties to block the company's app.

US government used coercion through unofficial back channels to force Amazon and Paypal to cutoff Wikileaks.

And that was the wrong approach to that "problem" as well

Re: Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

#107

Post by andreyf »

gotchange wrote: post #102
msh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not American. I expect it to work the other way around too. Brazilian companies should not respond to foreign subpoenas unless validated by Brazilian courts.

Does WhatsApp have any physical presence in Brazil? Did they incorporate any subsidiary there?

I don't know, but for the sake of argument, I think it's OK to say no.

If I have a website that is reachable on the internet that hosts a wiki and logs access, does that mean I am doing business in all countries that have internet access? Can any of their courts compel me to disclose visitors from their country? What if I refuse to provide visitor logs, is it OK for them to block my site at the border? What about to order a private teleco to block my site?

I have opinions, but I don't see any obvious answers one way or the other.

Re: Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp for 48 Hours

#108

Post by andreyf »

guelo wrote: post #105
morgante wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's all true. But they don't compel third parties to block the company's app.

US government used coercion through unofficial back channels to force Amazon and Paypal to cutoff Wikileaks.

Why do you think it was the US government?
Post reply on HN