by sultansaladin on 12/17/15, 10:16 AM with 260 comments
by pqdbr on 12/17/15, 12:15 PM
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 is not me saying; this is our Constitution saying it (and the Constitution of every Western country that I know).
We are biased to see all measures against privacy with bad eyes, specially after Snowden. But that's because you are good people and see the matter with those eyes, not with the eyes of a criminal. Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? I don't.
Also, what the NSA was (is?) doing is a complete absurd, with no judicial oversight, mass collecting everything they can get in secrecy. This has nothing to do with what we have here. In Brazil, only a judge can authorize someone to be wiretapped, it can only be done in criminal cases with jail time (no civil cases). 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.
WhatsApp and Facebook are not, by any means, above the law. If they want to provide a communication service here, the law is clear that they must abide by judicial orders that allow wiretapping in very specific cases.
by caio1982 on 12/17/15, 11:20 AM
To be fair, some Brazilian judges are pretty stupid and have no idea how the internet works so it's quite possible the original users data request was super broad and that's why Facebook and WhatsApp just ignored it. On the other hand, it's only through very effective wires and digital data examination in recent years that the Brazilian justice is finally putting some big sharks into jail. That's why I have mixed feelings about all this (and I'm a Telegram user myself).
Source, in Portuguese: http://gizmodo.com.br/investigacao-trafico-droga-bloqueio-wh...
by etiam on 12/17/15, 10:25 AM
by soneca on 12/17/15, 4:30 PM
"In face of the constitutional principles, it does not seem reasonable that millions of users are affected in result of the company (whatsapp) inertia"
In portuguese:
"""em face dos princípios constitucionais, não se mostra razoável que milhões de usuários sejam afetados em decorrência da inércia da empresa"
The judge also said that a fine would be more appropriate.
source (in portuguese): http://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2015/12/whatsapp-just...
by dheera on 12/17/15, 2:49 PM
It seems like we've taken a step back in technology.
by hamhamed on 12/17/15, 10:43 AM
by lenlorijn on 12/17/15, 11:47 AM
by pedrodelfino on 12/17/15, 11:07 AM
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.
by rplnt on 12/17/15, 11:02 AM
by jdahlin on 12/17/15, 2:28 PM
Three of the major phone operators (Vivo, Claro, TIM) implemented the ban, while the fourth (Oi), did not. The CEO of Vivo, one of the major phone operators, came out a couple of months ago saying that WhatsApp is "piracy", since they are not affected by the same regulations as the normal phone operator.[1]
[1]: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2015/08/1666187-whatsap... (portuguese)
by junto on 12/17/15, 11:00 AM
by nasir on 12/17/15, 10:52 AM
by Grazester on 12/17/15, 2:02 PM
by lordnacho on 12/17/15, 12:45 PM
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.
by hidingfromherd on 12/17/15, 11:03 PM
This boils down to the fact (for me, and by proxy, my community) that I (and by proxy, my community) will not use insecure communication because someone or someones wants me to do so.
Shake your fist, rattle your sabres, put me in your sights, it will not change my (and by proxy, my community's) resolve.
And if I (and by proxy, my community) is to be prosecuted for using secure channels, then I (and by proxy, my community) will resort to steganography. Exact circumstances aside, there's no getting around the effects of a dedicated mind and an overwhelming power (of math) on my communications' transit.
The only means by which a paternal element can mediate the policies of my interactions would be to mediate the interface by which I (and by proxy, my community) communicate (in this case -- electronic/digital computer<->human), and enforce this with vigilant, and economically costly violence.
This matter-of-factness is similar to that in traffic stop interactions. I'm not happy that men with guns can systematically stop my transit, search my belongings, and steal my assets (at least in Texas), with ex post facto logic applied to the inherent justice, and I have no way of stopping this. The exact circumstances aside, there's no getting around the effects of a dedicated mind and an overwhelming power on my transit.
So I work around it, I try not to get stopped, and I deal with it when I do get stopped. I don't shake my fist or pout, beyond for the benefit of opening doubt in the minds of those ignorant of the underlying physical process.
by Dolores12 on 12/17/15, 2:19 PM
by kamilszybalski on 12/17/15, 3:03 PM
by AndrewKemendo on 12/17/15, 2:24 PM
Your comment history says otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4167143
Seem to be a run of the mill dev to me. I'm surprised you got as many credulous responses as you did.
by dataker on 12/17/15, 11:03 AM
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/057c1240-a40f-11e5-b73f-95454...
Anti-technology culture tells a lot about an economy, group or nation.