Slashdot Mirror
Brazilian Judge Shuts Down WhatsApp In Brazil
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.
By shutting down companies who don't provide user data to the government whenever it's just requested?
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 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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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 as providing a means for the attackers there to communicate.
[sarcasm]If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.[/sarcasm]
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
It seems to me that Brazil is trying to follow China's example, but without a "great firewall"? How will they enforce this? Was this action sponsored by Cisco?
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
> the service of course remains accessible through Wi-Fi.
Wrong. The service is only available in Brazil if you use VPN or if your multinational company's internet goes trough an overseas firewall.
Brazilian here. This country is a dump.
My cellphone ringtone is a ring tone.
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?
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.
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?
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. :(
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.
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)?
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.
"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...
I would guess that tens of millions of Brazilians are going to have something to say about this the next time they vote.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Already overruled.
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/m...
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 ruling from a single judge that pleases the ones executing the order and, therefore, wasn't questioned.
No, the judge shut down part of the internet, not the company.
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Sounds to me like the Brazilian telecom companies that were so happy to shut down the service may have had some part in constructing the ultimatum demand for user data that led to that action. I don't think we are looking at a judicial ruling on civil rights / privacy here so much as an orchestrated power move to maintain a monopoly.
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, in one country, by blocking internet access.
I don't use WhatsApp and prefer XMPP and IRC, but if WhatsApp were using either protocol, the effect on users would have been exactly the same. That's why TFA says "cut off access to WhatsApp" and "blocking of WhatsApp" rather than pretending the company was actually shut down.
If WhatsApp were using XMPP, blocking access to their servers would have had the same result. Ditto for IRC.
That didn't last long -
"Brazil judge lifts WhatsApp suspension"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Now where have I heard that before and people claimed it was impossible?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Tim invented the World Wide Web(web pages) which is part of the internet not the whole thing.
Telegram is the encrypted messaging app used by Daesh to do recruiting and plan missions.
Are Brazilians allowed to use Skype for voice calls?
I am not a specialist in laws, but, I follow many movement about Internet Freedom, and I got a copy of the Brazilian Marco Civil (https://www.apc.org/en/blog/marco-civil-brazilian-internet-bill-rights-english), and its not so bad like you express. Guy, have you read the Marco Civil? Have you read the laws in Europe, where for example people can ask to be not founded by search engines?. Where I understood, courts and policy around the world has many requests about information access. And this is one of many cases. This is a very complicate question. While as a citizen no one likes to be scout. Every one likes the hand of justice to catch offenders and terrorists. To my point of view, the judge could rise fines first. Since, every one people or Co, dislike loose money. Reply to This Parent
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
Which is great news since Telegram encryption is utterly compromised:
http://cs.au.dk/~jakjak/master...
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.
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.
Like many, I am violently opposed to warrant-less wiretapping. That is NOT what is happening in this case. This is the case of an arrogant internet company assuming that they are above the law. Smuckerbag may have a gazillion dollars but society has never granted upon him the honor and duty that is granted to judges. He should learn his place which is below the law like the rest of us.
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 without a safety net: maybe you'll succeed without falling, but you really have to ask yourself whether it's worth the risk.
well, yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA is actively helping Brazil stop Whatsapp.
I too use various clients, just need them to support OTR encryption. Then I'm not tied to any particular technology...like with IM+, there are a dozen different chats to use with OTR, good luck following my conversations that jump across various providers.
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?
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 it should, it means that there's en end-to-end encryption that indeed *cannot* be decrypted and handed over like judge ordered. It's technically impossible for them to intercept any traffic.
If WhatsApp hasn't lied about implementing encryption correctly as it should, and hasn't left hidden backdoors, they really are completely unable to comply and provide the data.
- Skype, even before the acquisition by MicroSoft has always stated, burried somewhere in their EULA, that they will collaborate with authorities when asked, according to local laws.
Since the Microsoft acquisition, they've been slowly changing from the distributed network with super nodes structure, to a newer more classical client/server architecture.
(Which among other makes the servers a good candidate to make a wire-tapping point).
And, although the skype protocol is still secret (although there are lots of efforts to reverse engineer it), one can guess that skype has organised its traffic in a way that makes wiretapping possible (as they are openly ready to collaborate with law representatives).
That's one reason why some of the corrupt overlords hate WhatsApp more than Skype.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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 ?)
There's even a bigger problem:
THE JUDGE ORDER MIGHT NOT EVEN BE POSSIBLE TO OBEY.
You see WhatsApp has been rolling this technology called TextSecure by OpenWhisper, a form of End-to-end encryption (think of it as functionnally similar to Off-The-Record by Cypher Punks).
If WhatsApp/Facebook haven't been lying (that they have correctly implemented it and that there's no hidden backdoor) they simply can't hand over any messages. They have no access at all to the clear-texte.
No matter what the judge orders, it might be mathematically impossible for them to comply.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
IM+ does, just not the "free version". But it's only $5, and the OTR seems to work pretty well...but both parties must have a client that supports it.