Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 6:26 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #172

pqdbr wrote: post #65

I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…

> No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy. Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not, but that is an entirely different category, and your wording seems woefully imprecise. > Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have…

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #168

loceng wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume they aren't someone with a website and have a career?

Anything is possible of course but what is more likely: 1. An elected Judge in Brazil also has a side business of running a marginal tourism website and the time to comment on HN 2. Someone is lying on the internet

Post by Lawtonfogle » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #210

bmelton wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy. Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not, but that is an entirely different category, and your wording seems woefully imprecise. > Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have…

The US does not have a general right to privacy; the 4th amendment is very limited, and does not apply to information held by third parties. 4th amendment litigation is full of really questionable reasons for "probable cause" for warrantless searches, and then there's things like the FBI fake base stations and the NSA listening programme. The EU has a general right to privacy .. with a law enforcement exception.

Post by jeromegv » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

btreecat wrote: post #219

pqdbr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The order wasn't super broad, it was actually specific to a single individual, like you said. Also, even if it was broad, you don't get to ignore judicial orders. You answer to them giving your reasons and appealing if you don't agree. Ignoring them will get you either punished or arrested. WhatsApp notoriously doesn't even have an office in Brazil. No way to even get a judicial order to them. Facebook, the parent co…

>By the way, the judge in case actually demonstrated quite a deep understanding of the web. Unable to get WhatsApp to comply, he ordered all telecoms to block WhatsApp IP addresses, which was quite a smart move. Because VPN services do not exist in or are not accessible from Brazil?

Post by AbraKdabra » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 7:07 PM UTC

pqdbr wrote: post #65

I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…