Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban • Hacker News Board

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#71

Post by airza » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:24 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…

I mean, yes, we don't think that criminals should have the right to privacy, but to me large companies and governments have abused the shit out of a lack of complete privacy for everyone to the point where I don't trust them to make this reasonable compromise.

I would rather the rest of us have this right protected in spite of the fact that some criminals will get it as well.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#72

Post by pqdbr » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:24 PM UTC

caio1982 wrote: post #32

What really happened: a drug smuggler with ties to a major criminal organization had been investigated and sentenced several months ago and since July Facebook and WhatsApp folks had not complied (actually they simply ignored all requests) with some users data the justice demanded to keep prosecuting the guy and his associates. Allegedly, according to the new https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Civil_Rights_Frame…

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 company, simply says they are Facebook and not WhatsApp, so they can't help.

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.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#73

Post by shinigami » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:25 PM UTC

pedrodelfino wrote: post #24

I am from Brazil and I can say: we are almost becoming the new Argentina. And this is quite interesting because Argentina is becoming the new Venezuela (at least they were, but few weeks ago they had elections and the left wing lost). And Venezuela clearly is becoming the new Cuba.

I am from Brazil and I can say that we are nowhere near becoming the new Argentina.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#74

Post by PeterisP » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:26 PM UTC

pqdbr wrote: post #66

thiopental wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No worries, in a few years, corporations will be able to sue governments into oblivion for lost revenue on cases like this...

I'd love to know what your background in law is to say such an absurd thing. What case would they have ? "We failed to comply with a judicial order and decided to protect criminal's privacy instead, and we got blocked. We want damages". Seriously ?

It would require an international treaty with appropriate language to do so (not that it is likely IMHO), but then it can be analogous to the "your environmental laws caused us to shut down our polluting factory, so you owe us damages" cases.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#75

Post by pqdbr » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:26 PM UTC

hvis wrote: post #69

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…

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminals, on the other hand, don't have that right already.

No they don't. Your argument doesn't make any logical sense.

Wiretapping is needed during the investigation phase, which you need to gather evidence BEFORE trialling and convicting anyone. And is only authorized if you have strong evidence that a crime or criminal organization is in place.

If only convicted criminals didn't have right to privacy, how would you get them convicted in the first place ?

Also, you really got it 100% backwards. Convicted criminals have right to privacy after they are convicted, because we don't assume they will commit new crimes.

Everybody is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. We must have new evidence that convicted criminals are commiting crimes to start a new wiretap.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#76

Post by jdmichal » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:27 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…

I love these two parts:

> Also, the judge must specify a single phone number or single e-mail account and the decision must be reviewed every 15 days, otherwise it expires. Also, there's a national database of wiretaps that every judge must feed by the end of the month, specifying how many wiretaps there are currently running.

Great way to apply natural negative pressure on continuing wiretap operations. It's not impossible to have a wiretap span a long period of time, but it will create work for the judge and (possibly?) the officers, so in general it will hopefully only happen when it's actually useful. Kudos.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#77

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:29 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…

[deleted]

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#78

Post by djhn » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:30 PM UTC

pqdbr wrote: post #75

hvis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminals, on the other hand, don't have that right already.

No they don't. Your argument doesn't make any logical sense. Wiretapping is needed during the investigation phase, which you need to gather evidence BEFORE trialling and convicting anyone. And is only authorized if you have strong evidence that a crime or criminal organization is in place. If only convicted criminals didn't have right to privacy, how would you get them convicted in the first place ? Also, you really…

You convict them by having proof.

Not by fishing for something you can construct into proof.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#79

Post by evook » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:31 PM UTC

pqdbr wrote: post #75

hvis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminals, on the other hand, don't have that right already.

No they don't. Your argument doesn't make any logical sense. Wiretapping is needed during the investigation phase, which you need to gather evidence BEFORE trialling and convicting anyone. And is only authorized if you have strong evidence that a crime or criminal organization is in place. If only convicted criminals didn't have right to privacy, how would you get them convicted in the first place ? Also, you really…

Wiretape your politicans. How would you get them convicted in the first place otherwise?

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#80

Post by mmariani » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:31 PM UTC

pqdbr wrote: post #66

thiopental wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No worries, in a few years, corporations will be able to sue governments into oblivion for lost revenue on cases like this...

I'd love to know what your background in law is to say such an absurd thing. What case would they have ? "We failed to comply with a judicial order and decided to protect criminal's privacy instead, and we got blocked. We want damages". Seriously ?

I think he's talking about TPP or TTIP which so far have nothing to do with Brazil. But who's to say such a deal is not on the plans of some politicians there as a quicker way out of the economic mess currently happening there?