[deleted]
Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
91–100 of 276 posts
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 for Signal (used to be TextSecure). They now have a desktop app in beta which synchronises perfectly with my mobile
>They now have a desktop app It sit on the top of a close-source browser...
No it doesn't. If you're going to wave this flag, you should be complaining about the management controller inside of your CPU (presuming you are already running an open source OS).
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#93I'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
What about the right to life, or the right to not be tortured?
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#94Would it be possible to get the messages if FB/WhatsApp decided to do so? I heard they started doing end-to-end encryption, with the keys only on the user's phone.
Also, if you've designed a system like this, could you also design one where you'd be unable to comply with the shutdown order? I suppose one of the Bitcoin related message services would be like that.
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#95Earlier 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…
You do get to ignore judicial orders if you are outside of their jurisdiction. If, say, a valid legal authority in Iran issues some judicial order that affects me or some content that I have published (even if it is accessible in Iran), then it is perfectly reasonable to ignore it as long as I'm not in Iran, don't have an office there, etc. I am not and should not be bound by Iran's laws and judgements, I reside else…
I agree, very much with your point.
The judge's decision to block WhatsApp in Brazil, hoewever, is completely within their jurisdiction. So in order to fight it, WhatsApp would have to go to Brazil. Otherwise they'll just lose a very big market.
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#96Earlier 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…
I can't reply to replies, so I'll post here.
1. No, you don't make someone an alleged criminal by simply accusing them of a crime. You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime. Judges are really demanding when analyzing this proof before authorizing a wiretap.
If you authorize a wiretap and you find out a crime, but later the lawyer can demonstrate that the wiretap was illegal (because the judge didn't have enough preliminary proof), the crime discovered is considered to be discovered "by chance", so it nullifies the entire result of the wiretap, based on the theory named "fruits of the poisonous tree", and unless you have enough evidence that doesn't derive at all from the wiretap, the defendant won't be convicted.
2. Read the newspaper in Brazil and you'll see the country is harshly investigating our politicians. We have a senator in jail by a supreme court's order as we speak for god's sake.
3. The same law in Brazil that authorizes wiretapping (Law nº 9296 from 1996) criminalizes with 2 to 4 years of jail anyone that does a wiretap without judicial order or with abuse of power.
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#97I'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 What about the right to life, or the right to not be tortured?
Right to life is not absolute, otherwise there would be no army; nice thought, but not going to happen.
Right to not be tortured is debatable
No right is absolute, and there is no single hierarchy of rights. Read Isaiah Berlin's seminal Four Essays on Liberty on why.
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#98I'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…
If you think this is going to do anything other than cause criminals to develop their own secure apps, quite frankly you're delusional.
With the amount of money the drug cartels have, it will be trivial for them to simply hire developers to write them a secure messaging app.
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I can't reply to replies, so I'll post here. 1. No, you don't make someone an alleged criminal by simply accusing them of a crime. You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime. Judges are really demanding when analyzing this proof before authorizing a wiretap. If you authorize a wiretap and you find out a crime, but later the lawyer can demonstrat…
> You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime.
Definition of "most likely" varies wildly. Without concrete proof, any breach of privacy seems corrupt to me.
Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban
#100I'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…
You reap what was sowed. Yes, what the NSA was (is!) doing is completely absurd. The net effect of that is a backlash against all information gathering by authorities and the practical effect of that is that companies will now be differentiated to greater or lesser extent by the amount of privacy their communications platforms give to ordinary citizens. This is what drives https anywhere and other such efforts.
That 'well meaning judges' have a harder time obtaining evidence in those cases where wire-taps are authorized with sufficient reasons and specificity (sp?) is a direct consequence of that.
But you shouldn't complain about the companies that merely provide what the market now wants.
Technology is strange that way, we, technologists can relatively easily make boxes that we ourselves can no longer open and those boxes can be used to transport information from one private individual to another.
Yes, the existence of such boxes may be an obstacle to law enforcement. But the rights of ordinary citizens are trampled to such an extent that I'd be willing to live in a society where those rights are restored if the consequence of that is that the police will have to work that much harder to gather evidence or that some criminals will get away with their crimes.
Authorities have overstepped their bounds to such an extent that this is now an acceptable compromise.