Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

>Alleged pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the full panoply of rights available...

For starters, lets throw right to privacy out the window, from the US perspective what we are talking about is 4th Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

>Only after THAT hurdle is cleared may the rights of the alleged criminal be intruded upon by the state...

No. In many instances police are not limited to obtaining a warrant/judicial oversight before conducting searches and seizures (including communications). Just a few examples: (a) if an officer conducts a lawful traffic stop, and smells marijuana (plain-view/plain-smell doctrine) the officer can lawfully search your person and the vehicle,seizing any evidence of a crime, even if unrelated to marijuana; or (b) subsequent to a DUI arrest, an officer can impound the vehicle and conduct a search/inventory of the vehicle and seize any evidence of a crime (even unrelated to the DUI). These are some of the many lawful Government searches and seizures without prior judicial approval.

>At least in America, a judge cannot issue a warrant for the wiretaps you described on the mere accusation that "so and so is a {pedophile,terrorist,drug dealer}."

A judge certainly can issue a warrant based on accusation as long as the judge makes a finding there is probable cause. In fact an officer can obtain a warrant from a Judge based on an anonymous tip, or what would be called hearsay evidence which would be inadmissible in an actual trial.

What you did here is not cool.

On HN, we start from the benefit of the doubt. A person can be both a programmer and a judge. pqdbr's comment was coherent and plausible. The null hypothesis is therefore that pqdbr is making a valuable contribution.

It's fine and interesting to look through someone's comment history for background. It can also be ok to ask questions based on that, but this is always delicate and must be done respectfully. But to dig around for a bit, leap to a sinister conclusion, and fling it at them with a couple insults for good measure is a serious violation of civility on this site.

HN members with outlier backgrounds (and 'judge' certainly is one) are some of the most valuable contributors we have; doubly so—if not more—when they speak computing too. Imagine what it would feel like to share from one's expertise in the most on-topic way possible, only to be randomly slapped in the face and have your character impugned. You owe pqdbr a lot more of an apology than "Cool! Always happy to be wrong when evidence supports it." (Edit: which, now that I think of it, reads more like a humblebrag than making amends.)

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10751003 and marked it off-topic.

Other commenter here. The text says that any autority (autoridade policial ou administrativa -> police force or administrative power) may require that the metadata be recorded for a period of time , but access to this metadata needs the judges order.

For example, if the cops starts investigating John Doe they may ask the service provider to keep metadata for a fixed period of time, stated on the Marco Civil (six months IIRC). But access to this metadata can only be authorized by a judge.

Edit: Reread the Marco civil an refreshed my memory. What I said is not entirely correct. All metadata is kept by default and needs a court order to be accessed. What authorities may ask without a court order is for the service provider to keep the metadata for a time longer than specified on the Marco civil.

Also, as I said on my previous comment, the intention of the bill was that only metadata was recorded, but the term "registros de conexão -> connections log" is vague enough to be interpreted in other ways :(

I'm seeing more and more news article saying that Brizilian judges want to shut down the social web? This seems like a huge over-reaction, no?

http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/16/brazils-congress-has-shut-d...

Well I hope this ban bites the Judge who ordered it in the rear. This is a stupid thing to do and should never happen again.