111–120 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two wrongs make a right?
Where is the wrong here? When company does not cooperate you force it to do so by any means available to you.
Some people don't consider this "might makes right" morally compelling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really curious. I've been using Signal for years, and it's been much much better than the default app on my phone (not to mention more secure). What's so good about Telegram? I've avoided it because of its suspicious encryption.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for the use of Telegram. I keep posting this in hopes that moxie will understand just how important UX is and hire accordingly. WhatsApp, Telegram etc. are going to eat Signal's lunch because of the UX and I would like that not to happen.
There are also features some consider good UX but Signal shuns because they create confusion regarding the security properties (i.e. self-destructing messages). Signal's number one priority is security while that is not nearly as important for Telegram in practice. A lot of the UX advantages the latter has can be traced back to this essential difference.
I agree though that something like messaging multiple people without creating a group first is more or less UX-only and would probably make sense (groups are anyway a client-side abstraction only in Signal, servers have no concept of them, so making anonymous or automatically named groups on the fly should be doable)
Also probably getting in touch with OWS on their mailing list is more effective than hoping they notice random posts on HN. It is not the most contributor-friendly project on the planet but clearly articulated and focused posts are usually answered and so are issues/pull-requests that conform to their stated guidelines (do not add extra options, do not put security second, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 res…
This quote from a German politician sounds silly at first, but makes sense.
If a company wishes to get access to a market, they have to follow their laws.
I can’t start a company and sell pirated DVDs to the US – even if that might be legal in China.
And the US can then stop importing my products, and demand I follow their laws, or be blocked.
For you, as a solo developer, it is very simple.
Either you only focus on your own market, the market you know, or you accept to abide the rules of every market where you operate. Most US startups limit their services to the US only anyway, as you need a US address, or a US credit card, or a .edu email, etc.
But an internet without rules, without laws, would be the worst possible result for the consumer.
If someone scams you in a transaction? No way to get money back. If snapchat sells your nudes, or even blackmails you? No way to prevent.
We need those laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is the wrong here? When company does not cooperate you force it to do so by any means available to you.
>When company does not cooperate you force it to do so by any means available to you. Some people don't consider this "might makes right" morally compelling.
WhatsApp provides a service in a country, they gain direct financial benefit from almost 100M users, they received a subpoena and ignored it because it's Brazil, if this would've been a European nation they would most likely have complied, if it were a US court order they would for sure have complied.
The only "might makes right" here is WhatsApp ignoring the subpoena because they are an almighty multi billion dollar US company which thinks it's above the law. And on the other side we know that there's pretty much no company on the planet that would dare to defy a US subpoena or court order.
Should only US and "western" nation's legal systems be respected? Is this some how morally compelling to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not understanding your clarification. It still seems like a ridiculous reason to shut down whatsapp
Not at all. When companies decline to obey local law, it's reasonable for them to be cut off from operating in that country. Which is what the judge is proposing, temporarily. Probably with longer cutoffs to follow if this doesn't inspire obedience of judicial orders.
It's possible. It's only reasonable if the local law is itself reasonable.
This is also what WhatsApp states in its legal documentation: https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/ : "The contents of messages that have been delivered by the WhatsApp Service are not copied, kept or archived by WhatsApp in the normal course of business."
Furthermore, messages are end-to-end encrypted. So how could WhatsApp comply to the judge's demand?
I'm in the US and my family is in Brazil. I relly on WhatsApp over 3G/4G to comunicante with them as they are usually without access to faster internet (DSL/cable). I read about the blockage a few hours ago and made me concerned because if anything happens that's the most reliable channel I have. Then I receive a message from my brother saying he was going to the hospital (on WhatsApp, just before they cutted it off)…
This is insane, this judge must be on a power trip. WhatsApp is now part of Brazilian social life and economy. Everyone here is part of many groups of friends, family or workmates, that is where most instant communication happens. In my company, our deployment engineers, who usually are on very remote places with bad and unreliable internet, rely on WhatsApp. I'm not saying this is the best practice, but this is simp…
I'm also selling my house and I'm pretty sure that every Real Estate agents in São Paulo use WhatsApp as the main communication channel. So no visits today.
I was having a conversation with the pediatrician of my children, so no answers today on what to do with my baby vomiting. It's not so serious to make a call, but it was fine to send a message.
My mother is 63 and sends WhatsApp messages every day to me, so no mommy messages today.
Well, it's not all that bad... I think today may be a very productive day for me.