WhatsApp Blocked in Brazil for 72 Hours Over Data Dispute (techcrunch.com) 52
An anonymous reader cites an article on TechCrunch: WhatsApp, Facebook's messaging service that recently rolled out end-to-end encryption to its users, will be blocked in Brazil for 72 hours, starting this afternoon. A Brazilian judge ordered telecom providers in the country to block WhatsApp today in a dispute over access to encrypted data. Judge Marcel Montalvao has ordered WhatsApp to turn over chat records related to a drug investigation, but WhatsApp has argued that it cannot access the chats in an unencrypted form and therefore cannot provide the required records to the court. [...] This isn't Montalvao's first clash with WhatsApp, which boasts more than 100 million Brazilian users. The judge ordered the arrest of Facebook's vice president for Latin America, Diego Dzodan, in March. Facebook has said that WhatsApp operates with relative independence and that Dzodan has no control over WhatsApp data.American lawyer and journalist Glenn Greenwald said: "WhatsApp shut down again in Brazil as of 1 pm ET today: used by 100m people, 91% of those online: all from 1 judge."
Re:Unleash the Mobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone just needs to post the Judge's home address and let those users show up at his door.
Internet Tough Guy likes the idea of mob justice when he's comfortably behind his computer and only has to imagine the scenarios where this plays out in his favour.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
this is why they say "not feed the trolls" (here, on Slashdot, this means: "don't reply ACs" :P)
Most trolls are ACs, but most ACs aren't trolls; I've been around here long enough to know that. (#) It's not even clear that the AC replying was the same one who made the original comment anyway. Who cares?
Believe me when I say that I've seen enough people posting cod-macho drivel like the original comment where it's clear that at least some of them believe it.
(#) Talking of which, the second AC must be a relative newcomer. I couldn't see it even occurring to an established user to call something in th
Re: (Score:2)
Well cock used for fucking is better than one that just gets rubbed by its owners hands.
should i laugh? (Score:5, Funny)
people trust facebook for privacy?!!
Re: (Score:2)
http://vignette1.wikia.nocooki... [nocookie.net]
Re: (Score:3)
Marginally more than I trust the telco’s & government of Brazil, yeah.
I know, high bar I’m setting there.
Re: (Score:3)
What does this have to do with "outside their own country"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
... there are international laws against all kinds of crap, so why the fuck is there none agains stupid judges who feel their world-view is relevant outside their own country...
The judge is based in Brazil. The block is restricted to WhatsApp's activities within Brazil; nowhere else.
What point are you trying to make?
(Disclaimer; picking fault with apparently half-baked or ill-thought out arguments doesn't mean I agree with the judge's decision. I shouldn't have to explain that in advance, but I know there'll always be at least one halfwit who doesn't understand this.)
Easily fixed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, one point to be made is that it is too easy to block the ability to communicate on the internet. Domestic or otherwise, I am very interested in rendering the state, or anybody else, absolutely powerless in that regard, and in seeing the discussion revolve around how to do it, instead of whether we should. Start with overcoming the greatest single point of failure we are all under, the Internet Service Provider. Once we are past that obstacle, the state will lose a great deal of its advantage.
91% makes it an election issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble with most stories of government attempts at grabbing data and hindering those who try to protect the individual is that it is generally seen as "someone else's problem". This means that politicians can ignore those who it affects and continue eroding freedoms. If it affects a large proportion of the population then some aspiring politicos will see it as one way of getting up the electoral greasy pole; if (and a big "if") they keep their promises when elected we could see legislation to curtail the likes of Judge Marcel Montalvao. I certainly hope that this happens, it might make politicians in the USA and Europe think twice before they grab more privacy from us.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Supposedly Thomas Jefferson
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What is being attacked by Judge Marcel Montalvao is not a centralised communication mechanism but encryption. His target was Whatsapp since that had provided the means for private messaging. A peer-to-peer messaging system would be nice but it still needs: (a) a software/app provider (or several); (b) a means of directory lookup and; (c) perhaps a store and forward mechanism. Each of these points can be attacked by a judge or government.
Techies (or those employing them) may be able to do some themselves, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Block or Shut up. (Score:2)
If a country wants there to be no encryption, then it should declare encryption to be illegal, block any service that allows it, and that should be the end of it.
But letting them continue their business and try to press charges against them for violating the law is just STUPID.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a fundamental (though common) misunderstanding of the relationship between “laws” and “judges.” A single judge is for all intents & purposes above the law. A judge may order anything they see fit, and command the police or other arms of government at or below their level of jurisdiction to do anything the judge sees fit to enforce their orders. There is no (effective) law that constrains the orders of a single judge.
When you include other judges in the mix, a judge at
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme Courts are not Gods, nor are above the Law. They only have the last word on law interpretation, and the duty to protect the constitution form the Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> A single judge is for all intents & purposes above the law.
You keep using this word judge. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
A judge doesn't make the law; the judge enforces the law, based on their interpretation of the spirit vs the letter.
> There is no (effective) law that constrains the orders of a single judge.
Uh, Hello McFly. The constitution. Federal Law and State Law.
A judge just can't make up an illegal orders -- the courts MUST follow due process [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
If they block it millions of people will go "huh? whatsapp isn't working"; facebook will say "government did it" and people will get upset. Threaten/sue facebook but keep whatsapp going and no-one will know; very few will give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If an ISP wants there to be no traffic past a limiting value per billing period, then it should block traffic exceeding this. Letting the traffic continue while collecting fines for excess traffic is just stupid.
It's not a "new" thing... (Score:1)
It should be lifted soon (Score:2)
Last time this happened a higher court judge quickly reestablished the service, i'm sure the block will not last that long...
Re: (Score:2)
And in the case he is judging the drug dealers used ONLY Whatsapp? They didn't make a single phone call? He should block all mobile and fixed lines in the country... Oh, the phone company didn't save all their conversations? Guess what, neither did Whatsapp!
Whatsapp should have given it to them (Score:2)
[hands over the (encrypted) chat logs]
'Here you go, your honor, these are all the requested records that we have access to'
But in all seriousness, what kind of court thinks it can compel companies or individuals to produce something they have never had access to? The United States, Brazil, what is this world coming to??
When has Brazil been functional? (Score:1)
The lapdog media tells us that Brazil is a multicultural paradise, but in reality, it's a third world abyss.
Too bad, because they have some great metal bands: Sarcofago, Sepultura, Vulcano...
The bigger story here (Score:1)
Lol Brazil u so funny (Score:2)
What a shame (Score:1)
Not the blocking per se, but the lack of active circumvention. On the other hand, maybe the press isn't covering that. I would hope that word gets around that there are various other services besides WhatsApp.
And by the way, Brazil is under a coup right now with this phony "impeachment" thing going on. Just look at the accusers' own yellow sheets. This is what the block is about. They make our politicians look saintly by comparison. Anyway, somebody is trying to sabotage BRIC. Who could it possibly be?
It is always one judge (Score:2)
Those users can contact their representatives and change the law.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of law requires someone to provide something it doesn't have?
And what should the modified law say? Something like: "If a person or an entity doesn't have something, such person or entity doesn't have to give it to anyone."?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the law is pretty clear:
Art. 9 - The party responsible for the transmission, switching ou routing has the duty to process, on an isonomic basis, any data packages, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application.
(...)
Paragraph 3 - When providing Internet connectivity, free or at a cost, as well as, in the transmission, switching or routing, it is prohibited to block, monitor, filter or analyze the content of data packets, in compliance with this article.
Th
Great law, judiciary dictatorship (Score:3)
The problem is that this is not about the law, it's about judiciary doing whatever they want (and maybe not understanding the meaning of the law).
The law is pretty clear for us [publicknowledge.org]:
CHAPTER III PROVISION OF CONNECTION AND INTERNET APPLICATIONS
Section I
Of the Network Neutrality
Art. 9 - The party responsible for the transmission, switching ou routing has the duty to process, on an isonomic basis, any data packages, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application.
(...)
Paragraph 3 - When providing Internet connectivity, free or at a cost, as well as, in the transmission, switching or routing, it is prohibited to block, monitor, filter or analyze the content of data packets, in compliance with this article.
The judge ordered the internet providers to block Whatsapp, witch is only possible through violation of the law (and not for Whatsapp to stop working, that order would actually be legal).
The other time this illegal order was given, a higher court overruled it based on public interest, not on net neutrality grounds. I bet the same will happen again. Judges are routinely stepping over the law in Brazil, they like to have that power.
I cannot sue the judge for violating my rights, I can sue the government. If I sue, a judge will evaluate my damages (and he/she will say it was nothing if there were no lost businesses), and order the state to compensate me with our tax money, carefully so that I don't have "illicit enrichment".
I work in the judiciary, and I talked to my judge about the subject the other time this shit happened. Legally that's our situation down here. He clearly though the order was abusive the other time, but also based on public interest. It was a little hard to explain to him the meaning of net neutrality and the above article in our law.
Stupid people make stupid judges (Score:2)
Do it the facebook way (Score:2)
Allow using tor. Get users to connect via tor. Good luck blocking this. the tor project is expert in being unblockable.