Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp In Brazil 134
New submitter rafaelj writes: Apparently, Tim Berners Lee was not aware of the real impact on internet freedom in Brazil when he supported the Marco Civil to pass in the Brazilian congress last year. Using the Brazilian Civil "Rights" Framework, a minor Brazilian court ordered WhatsApp service to be suspended in the whole country after WhatsApp refused to provide user's data. The order was happily accomplished by the Brazilian mobile phone companies as they have been lobbying to convince the government to regulate the service in Brazil since their profits are decreasing steadily after Brazilians started using WhastsApp instead of (tolled) SMS and phone calls. Brazil has the most expensive cell phone rates on the planet.
Adds readers André Costa: The ban is a result of WhatsApp failing to comply with two previous court orders, on July 23 and August 7. Even though [the ban] affects millions of users, the service of course remains accessible through Wi-Fi. The plaintiff's identity is being kept secret. The news has already spread worldwide). The ban on WhatsApp resulted in more than 1.5 million users joining its competitor Telegram.
Re:This is fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pavel Durov, the guy who ran away from Putin's Russia after being forced to give or sell away his former company - vkontakte, a Russian Facebook like social network. He has 4 or 5 developers working on Telegram, they move around the world, not staying in any one country for too long, trying to escape government regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Telegram is the encrypted messaging app used by Daesh to do recruiting and plan missions.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is great news since Telegram encryption is utterly compromised:
http://cs.au.dk/~jakjak/master... [cs.au.dk]
Re: (Score:2)
Are Brazilians allowed to use Skype for voice calls?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but Skype has a license for that from Anatel (FCC like government agency).
The problem is always when you do something for free when other have to pay.
Taxi vs Uber: one pays for a license, the other don't.
Skype vs Whatsapp Call: one pays for a license, the other don't.
etc
Re: (Score:2)
With Skype, this only applies if you call a landline or cell. If you make a Skype call to another Skype user, the connection is Internet only. Telephone company resources, other than Internet connections that it is already charging for, are not being used.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and a Skype to Skype call is no different than a Whatsapp to Whatsapp call, yet they have said nothing about Skype being illegal.
Critical differences (Score:2)
Yes, and a Skype to Skype call is no different than a Whatsapp to Whatsapp call, yet they have said nothing about Skype being illegal
There's a small but very critical difference:
- WhatsApp has been slowly incorporating TextSecure by OpenWhisper. ( it's a slightly different kind of end-to-end encryption than Off-The-Record, but it's basically the same idae).
Granted, you need to blindly trust them for this one (as WhatsApp isn't opensource, there's no (publicly available) opensource implementation of WhatApp, and WhatsApp is actively fighting against any 3rd party implementation).
But still, as long as they have actually implemented it as i
If not a judge, then who? (Score:2)
It makes me nervous too, but...
Whenever such cases appear in the US, our complaint usually is, police demands data from companies, without a judge-signed warrant.
In this case, a judge made the order — not the prosecution. So, if he can not force a company to comply, who can?
Or is the legal system in Brazil so different from ours, that our terminology and standards do not apply?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually, the secret FISA courts are not Ok with me. But the judge in TFA is an ordinary member of the Judiciary — even the /. write-up describes his court as "minor".
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is not about nuances of the legal process, but whether or not there is a cause for outrage... I don't see it (yet) — do you?
Re: (Score:1)
whether or not there is a cause for outrage... I don't see it (yet) — do you?
Yes, the law notwithstanding, we shouldn't allow the authorities to shut down communications. That it is so easy is disturbing. But instead of outrage, I would prefer the energy be put into circumvention that makes such things impossible.
Re:If not a judge, then who? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you really are outraged, that a company disobeying a legal order is being punished. Ok, can you answer the question in the very title of this thread? If a judge shall not be able to compel a company to comply with his legal orders, who can? "No one" would be a valid answer too, BTW — we can explore that venue...
Well, the judge's target was not communications, but a particular company. Communications between people remain perfectly possible — even if they are more expensive now.
Consider the example of AT&T instead of WhatsApp — or Comcast or what have you — should they be above the law, simply because they are providing communications?
Re: (Score:1)
If a judge shall not be able to compel a company to comply with his legal orders, who can?
It's a bullshit order... as censorship always is. Everybody is above that "law".
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I remember you having problems maintaining coherent conversations, but this is a new low. Whatever ails you, it is progressing... Sad, really sad...
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, there are some things we can't allow.
Not possible (Score:2)
So you really are outraged, that a company disobeying a legal order is being punished.
Beside the jurisdiction problem as the company doesn't have presence within the jurisdiction of this court (The sexual practice I've done yesterday with my girlfriend is considered an "abomination onto the holybook" by the great spiritual leader of backwardistan. He has issued orders that anyone guilty of this should be beheaded. Everywhere in the world including here in my civilized western country. So are you outraged that I don't spontanously travel to backwardistan to turn myself in and get my head cut
Connection is obscure (Score:5, Insightful)
The connection between blocking the internet and the Marco Civil da Internet (in English: "Civil Rights Framework for the Internet") stated in the summary is not clear in the actual articles linked.
The gizmodo article linked in the summary [gizmodo.com] states: Under the Marco Civil da Internet — Civil Rights Framework for the Internet — approved in April 2014, which includes full-blown net neutrality, this kind of denial of service is illegal. Even before the regulation took effect, it was not considered kosher, which is why previous block orders were overturned before taking effect.
That seems to state the opposite of what it stated in the summary.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It has nothing to do with "Marco Civil"...
A judge (one single judge) ordered the shutdown of Whatsapp because Facebook wasn't complying with a court order for providing information on an account owned by a criminal already convicted at a lower level court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Connection is obscure (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, according to that article, the reason WhatsApp was shut down was because they didn't even bother to respond, not because they refused:
It sounds like what my old DI's used to say: "Yes sir? No sir? F*** you sir? Say something!"
Re: (Score:1)
I think there is never a reason to talk to a government. They can do shit of-course, they can come in with guns, with everything, I still think there is never a reason to talk to a government. I think everybody should avoid all government cooperation, I think everybody should stop paying taxes completely. I think all governments need to be abolished and eventually will become obsolete in our new global environment and we should speed up that process.
Re: (Score:2)
While I acknowledge that you have consistent views on government that I don't agree with, I suggest that there are practical considerations here that make it often wise to talk to governments.
Don't expect it to stop here. (Score:2)
Don't think for a moment that this will be something happening in Brazil alone. Now authorities in France are pointing the finger at both WhatsApp and Telegram [cnn.com] as providing a means for the attackers there to communicate.
[sarcasm]If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.[/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
By the way: I love Telegram and use it all the time, but I just wanted to remind you that it can be blocked as well.
When the people in power want something done, the geeks (who just want everyone to be happy usually) have to comply, or they will be replaced by other people who will do it. That includes censoring and ruining the Internet.
It sucks. :(
Re: (Score:1)
One day I will tell my grand-children about what the internet used to be, how you could get to sites in other countries and communicate internationally without having to go through approved government channels.
Sure, this is Brazil, so most Americans won't notice or care. But you can bet a bunch of USA congressmen and presidential candidates just got an idea. If they didn't on their own, their friendly acronym agency will make sure they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Did you just make the case for following other countries laws? Is that you Kim Jong-un?
And actually, just for the example you thought was hard to find: http://www.datacenterdynamics.... [datacenterdynamics.com]
TL;DR version: Microsoft refused to give an American court user data.
Misleading (Score:2)
Wrong. The service is only available in Brazil if you use VPN or if your multinational company's internet goes trough an overseas firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, it wasn't working this morning at home (VDSL2) and at work (small corporate provider). Not even http://web.whatsapp.com/ [whatsapp.com] was working...
Re: (Score:2)
This is Brazil (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, the judge shut down part of the internet, not the company.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the judge shut down a company. This was directly caused by the fact that WhatsApp is proprietary, closed shit. Open standard protocols, like email, IRC and XMPP do not have this problem.
I hope all the dumbasses who got sucked into using WhatsApp have learned a valuable lesson.
Re: (Score:1)
If the judge had shut down a company, their product wouldn't be working. It is working, everywhere except where internet access to specific domains and IPs (part of the internet) has been blocked. Shutting down the company is beyond the judge's ability because the company isn't in his jurisdiction.
If WhatsApp were like thepiratebay, they would have already bypassed the ability of the judge because, and this seems to be the key point you're missing, WhatsApp hasn't been shut down. The access has been blocked
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I very rarely chat with anyone but my wife and kids online. What I look for in a chat client are these features: fast, easy to chat, easy to send pics, easy to tell when someone has read your message.
I don't typically look for encryption, but I would prefer if everything was encrypted by default. Do you use a smartphone app that does OTR?
Re: (Score:2)
Soooo....VPN? (Score:2)
Not that I'd want to use WhatsApp anyway, but what's stopping the end-user from routing around the damaged portion of the network?
What data? (Score:2)
I use whatsapp only on tablets, with the help of a dozen empty simcards on a second-hand phone I bought for a buck on eBay.
I do it that way for all the sites sending SMS verifications for signing app.
Together with the VPN there's not much data any court can get that way.
Where are the standards?? (Score:5, Insightful)
This article shows the sad state of the internet. Why are most people not using standard internet protocols for communication? They talk about how people can't chat because WhatsApp is down. Why are people not using standard XMPP apps which could be switched among providers? Why are people not using standard VOIP services that can be switched among providers?
Why do people keep migrating to these crappy proprietary solutions?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently because the average end-user can't be bothered to use something that actually requires a modicum of knowledge about how the service operates.
I asked in another post why the users aren't just routing around the damaged network with a VPN, and the answer was that it's too hard. So if the lowest common denominators using WhatsApp can't even figure out how to do something as simple as connecting to a VPN, they'd never be able to understand something like XMPP or VOIP. Life is hard.
I've always used
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And what about the VPN's monthly bill? Or alternatively, VPN provider spying on you.
And do you know how to enable a VPN on a random touchscreen cell phone?, with ten different Android versions and a few different crappy GUIs.
Re: (Score:1)
It uses a modified version of xmpp that makes it closed.
And xmpp without syndication is equally worthless as whatsapp.
Re: (Score:1)
Users switched from WhatsApp to Telegram. If they switched to Pablo's XMPP Server instead, it would not solve the problem. The protocol is insignificant in their choices. It is about where their friends/family are. When Pablo gets greedy and starts sending out too many adds and mandating strange policies, they can switch to Juana's XMPP. When Juana gets shut down for legal reasons, they would need to switch again.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that make a difference? If your XMPP provider is blocked by your telco, then you're still out of luck. You can't simply move between servers at will, XMPP doesn't work like that because your server name is encoded in your identity. And anyway, WhatsApp uses XMPP under the hood (or used to) - it's essentially just a really big provider.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the protocol have anything to do with this? Apparently, WhatsApp is blocked at the IP level.
Also, remember that your crappy proprietary solution is somebody else's good UI. Relatively few people buy things on the grounds of standards conformance and whether the software is proprietary or free.
"(tolled) SMS" (Score:2)
Looks like Brazil's telecoms need to join the 21st century and stop charging to send tiny bits of data around.
If they can't survive without this particular revenue, surely they can find revenue elsewhere? The US telecoms have had no problem thriving after they stopped charging for SMS, minutes and long distance! They just ream us on data now, which, although it sucks, is a hell of a lot better than paying 10 cents per text message.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending of the plan you get unlimited SMS. Cheaper plans from my operator gets me unlimited SMS inside its network, and 500 SMSs to other networks.
What is the real reason for the shutdown? (Score:2)
The articles mention that a judge ordered the shutdown because Whatsapp didn't provide customer data for a court case. Is Whatsapp refusing to provide the data for some reason or is Whatsapp not able to provide the data (i.e. doesn't have it or it is encrypted in a way that they cannot decrypt)?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is in the articles but is not an answer to my question. I've found a few other articles but the reporting is very lazy.
What, _exactly_, was the court demanding?
Is WhatsApp choosing not to comply?
or
Is WhatsApp unable to comply (for whatever reason)?
Re: (Score:3)
Simple. Follow the money.
Brazil's government is fairly notorious for using onerous regulation, taxes, and tarrifs to prop up their local corporations, at the expense of international competition. This isn't even the first time they've gone after WhatsApp. Over the years, they've also tried to double-tax out-of-country internet services such as Netflix, Google, and Facebook, or to extort them into opening local subsidiaries; with varying degrees of success. Amazon eventually wound up having to give them
Re: (Score:2)
That is in the articles but is not an answer to my question.
Still no explanation of what exactly the court was demanding nor whether WhatsApp is choosing not to comply or is unable to comply.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're dealing with a court order, and you can't comply, you tell the judge that. If you won't, and have a reason, you tell the judge that. If you do not respond to the judge, you are neither complying with the court order nor telling the judge that there's a good reason. WhatsApp did not respond to the judge, and the Brazilian courts responded appropriately.
This would have happened no matter how reasonable the original demand was, as long as it convinced a judge to issue an order, or how good a re
hmmm (Score:2)
"A Brazilian state judge ordered the suspension of Facebook Inc.’s WhatsApp throughout Brazil for 48 hours early Thursday, disrupting the lives of tens of millions of Brazilians who use the messaging service."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/br... [wsj.com]
I would guess that tens of millions of Brazilians are going to have something to say about this the next time they vote.
Overruled (Score:1)
Already overruled.
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/m... [uol.com.br]
A higher level judge ordered the ban to be lifted, stating (google translate, just being lazy...):
"in light of constitutional principles, it does not seem reasonable that millions of users be affected as a result of the company's inertia in providing information for the justice"
also:
"You can always, respected the conviction of the authority identified as constraining, raise the amount of the fine to a sufficient level to inhibit any resistance"
It's a bad ru
Re: (Score:2)
My brazilian chat channels are very active right now. So I can confirm that WhatsApp is working again in Brazil.
Burying the lead? (Score:2)
it's over (Score:4, Informative)
That didn't last long -
"Brazil judge lifts WhatsApp suspension"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
Shut down parts of the Internet in certain areas? (Score:2)
Now where have I heard that before and people claimed it was impossible?
Tim Burners-Lee not the inventor of the Internet (Score:1)
Good for him (or her) (Score:2)
(un)intended consequences (Score:2)
Unfortunately, a lot of legislation nominally intended to "help the people" or "ensure civil rights" has other consequences, sometimes intended, sometimes not. Some of those consequences are part of the original drafting, others get added at the last minute, often subverting the stated intent of the legislation. It often only takes adding one sentence or changing a couple of words to completely derail or reverse legislation.
Passing new legislation for any purpose, however noble, is like a high wire act with
Re: (Score:1)