Brazil Facebook Head Arrested For Refusing To Share WhatsApp Data (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Diego Dzodan, an Argentine national and Facebook's vice president for Latin America, has repeatedly refused to comply with court orders to hand over data for use in a criminal investigation of a WhatsApp user suspected of drug trafficking, police said. His arrest relates to the messaging service WhatsApp, owned by Facebook. In a statement, Facebook called Mr. Dzodan's arrest an "extreme and disproportionate measure." The company said, "Facebook has always been and will be available to address any questions Brazilian authorities may have." Judge Marcel Maia Montalvao had in two previous instances issued fines against Facebook for refusing to release WhatsApp data. In December, a judge in Brazil suspended WhatsApp for 48 hours in a similar case.

Comments

didn't expect this

[deadwill69]

Nice change of events for Facebook. Never expected them to not gush all the data they collect.

Re:didn't expect this

[Edis Krad]

Not for free, they won't ;3

Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[NotInHere]

He is rich, insanely rich. Its all just the facebook brand, some servers, some code, some employees. Nothing much. Still he is #6. Why? Because he keeps his brand relevant. If it came out he cooperates with the authorities, who will use facebook?

Do you think he will ever cooperate with the state authorities again? It will hurt his image. It will lower the valuation of the company. He doesn't want that. So at least to the public he acts like he refuses to let the states spy on their people. What happens in the NDA covered parts is a different matter, but it doesn't affect facebook stock negatively. In fact perhaps even positively because it may allow him enter markets that were closed without cooperation with the authorities.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[penguinoid]

Dunno about you, but I don't have a bunch of crimes to hide,

Are you sure? What country do you live in?

and I don't mind court granted access to suspected criminal communications.

As if it would end there.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[NotInHere]

Probably most people don't care, same as most people don't get influenced in their decision which jeans to buy by allegations that one brand destroys the environment, has insecure working standards with lots of accidents and exploits workers while the other (with a far higher price tag) doesn't have those allegations.

Still, it does not prevent the brand with the dubious image to improve it by adding some big self-designed labels that certify how great the company is at fighting all these things.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

If it came out he cooperates with the authorities, who will use facebook?

The same morons who already use it.

The same morons who already regurgitate the "I've got nothing to hide. I don't care if the government looks at every details of my life all the time." line when you press them about illegal mass surveillance.

That's who!

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[gl4ss]

but usually they do.

depends on the locale though as well. there's some countries where it's safer to use fb/whatsapp than say LINE for example.

LINE is a whatsapp like app thats popular in asia... and there's money changing hands in exchange of information for govs.

Re: Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me correct it for you:

First they came for the Drug traffickers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Drug trafficker.

Then they came for the Pedophiles, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Pedophile.

Then they came for the Credit card fraudsters, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Credit card fraudster.

Then they came for the Terrorists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Terrorist.

They never came for me—because I wasn't a criminal, and there was no criminals left.

.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[JaredOfEuropa]

Stole what idea? The idea of an electronic facebook? When Facebook started there were already similar services out there. He implemented a competing service that people liked better for whatever reason, and was able to raise capital and expand FB into a global service, which is not a mean feat, despite the fact that indeed copious amounts of luck were involved. Most successful startups involve luck, but you have to position yourself well in order to take advantage of a lucky strike when it comes your way. You and I would not have done better in his position, I bet.

Don't get me wrong: I hate FB as much as the next guy here, and Zuckerberg does seem like a giant douche. I'm not sure what the deal is with that guy he allegedly screwed out of a partnership. He is known for similar stunts, like when he fired a whole bunch of people who had been there from the start, just before their stock options were to vest. But other than that I have no issues with the guy. What pisses me off is that FB once again proves that our entire economy evidently evolves around eyeballs and advertising.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[buck-yar]

Just more anti govt haters. The police are after the bad guys. Sorry to break it to you, nobody is spying on you. You're just not that interesting.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[buck-yar]

People like to feel important by thinking govt is spying on them.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[Midnight Thunder]

What are your Facebook privacy settings set to? All information public? If not, surely you don't having anything to hide? They may not be crimes, but still.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[fuzznutz]

Just more anti govt haters. The police are after the bad guys. Sorry to break it to you, nobody is spying on you. You're just not that interesting.

Snowden revealed facts which do not support your assertions. Whether or not a human being manually reviewed your individual data does not obviate the fact that you were spied upon by your own government without cause if you made any phone calls in the past ten years.

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[fustakrakich]

The police are after the bad guys.

With a total lack of introspection

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[phantomfive]

Stole what idea? The idea of an electronic facebook?

Someone hired him to build their idea into a website, and he told them he was building it, but instead was building his own. That's lies and stealing right there.

I'm not sure what the deal is with that guy he allegedly screwed out of a partnership

So you are ignorant and still defending him? Sounds like your post has a strong basis in rational thought there.........

But other than that I have no issues with the guy.

It doesn't bother you that he stole people's passwords so he could read their email?

Re:Mark zuckerberg is #6 richest man in the world

[Sir Holo]

Dunno about you, but I don't have a bunch of crimes to hide,

Are you sure? What country do you live in?

and I don't mind court granted access to suspected criminal communications.

As if it would end there.

Kangaroo allegations and frame-ups occur. You DO have something to fear. It is done, frequently, to whatever person is handy. No real dirt needed.

Why are people unable to understand this point?

"First they came for the Jews, but I was not one, so I did not say anything.
...
And then they came for me, but there was no one to speak on my behalf"

What data did they want?

[penguinoid]

The article does not mention what data they asked for, only that FB refused to give it.

Re:What data did they want?

[morcego]

It is data for an specific users, based on specified phone number, relating to an on going criminal case.
This is not a police investigation, but a court order, so there is at least enough evidence that there is a crime and who committed it to to warrant a criminal prosecution.

According to Brazilian law, law enforcement agencies can not request this kind of information without a court order and, to get that order, they have to show "just case", meaning evidence of authorship and materiality (that a crime really happened).

I don't agree with the prison order, which was disproportionate. But the request for data was legal and legitimate. Facebook is hiding behind the "the servers are not physically located in Brazil, so we don't have to comply" argument.

Re: What data did they want?

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't legal or legitimate. WhatsApp is a distinct entity from Facebook, and even more distinct from Facebook Brasil. The proper way to get this data is to sub poena it on a Californian court. Unfortunately Brazilian judges neither understand how the Internet works and, more often than not, their own country law. The decision is going to be overturned in a higher court.

Re:What data did they want?

[Mal-2]

This is analogous to U.S. authorities trying to order access to e-mail stored in Ireland, and Microsoft said no in that case. So the precedent has been set in motion, though the Microsoft case is far from decided. Facebook is playing a slightly different game though, because the user in question resides in the country making the request, whereas in Microsoft's case, the DoJ wants e-mails from an account that belongs to a non-American.

Re: What data did they want?

[TheDarkMaster]

You should know that brazilian judges are usually ignorant dickheads with megalomania problems.

Re:What data did they want?

[Bert64]

The servers in Ireland ultimately belong to an american company so an american court is demanding that an american company hand over data that they have access to, facebook is not a Brazilian company and the servers in question are not hosted in brazil, and i doubt wether Diego Dzodan actually has sufficient authority within the company structure to do what the courts are demanding.

Re: What data did they want?

[Zocalo]

So what? If Facebook doesn't agree with that aspect of Brazilian society then they could always choose not to do business in the country. Ultimately this is a presumably valid court order, targetted against a specific individual that is being investigated for a crime in an on-going criminal case. That's about as good as it's going to get in terms of personal data requests, and it's certainly not even close to the kind of wholesale data grabs that are becoming the norm (and really ought to be challenged). If Facebook thinks that it's an over-reaching request or there is some other issue then there are almost certainly legal avenues to challenge the ruling that would put a stay on handing over the data, or at the very least place it in escrow until the matter is resolved / render the data inadmissable later. Simply ignoring it is contempt of court and that generally involves the court instructing law enforcement to go and arrest someone, Diego Dzodan presumably being the person they determined was where the buck stopped and the person to arrest. Arrest usually results in some form of incarceration, at least until suitable terms/bail can be arranged, which (big surprise) is what happened here.

Based on the evidence at hand, I'd say that yes, there's a time and place to oppose such data requests for user/customer data, but this sure as hell isn't one of them. If anything, doing so in instances like this just adds weight in the public eye to the line that tech companies are protecting criminals and terrorists and is more than likely going to result in the bar for demanding data being lowered even further that it already is.

Re: What data did they want?

[esperto]

It maybe distinct but it hasn't offices in brazil, but its parent company, facebook, has and it is the next best thing. I don't agree with locking up the executive, because he has nothing to do with it, but facebook was just ignoring the orders, so the judge, in its weird logic, just ordered to get someone high up in jail to show he means business.

There is another issue that, since the "marco civil da internet" (internet civil framework) companies like facebook and whatsapp were supposed to keep the data in servers located in brazil, so the excuse that the data is not here is a violation of that. But according to some news outlets, whatsapp doesn't have the messages, barely the contacts, so they couldn't give that information anyway.

As the said by the GP, this is not a fishing expedition, is a court order in principle based on a investigation with evidence and should help get information about a drug cartel's network. So it is a complicated issue, kind in the same way like San Bernardino case, it is a balance between privacy and justice.

Re:What data did they want?

[N1AK]

I'm not sure how much the company's ownership by a foreign or domestic firm makes, or that it should make much difference. We typically expect companies to follow the laws of the countries they operate in; a British firm operating in the US is expected to follow product quality regulations, employee rights regulations etc for example.

I have no intention of defending the arrest (though it might theoretically be justifiable) but if you take the view it would be fine for the US to demand this information for an American user I see no compelling argument that makes it unacceptable for Brazil to do so for a Brazilian user.

Re:What data did they want?

[Parker Lewis]

But laws in Brazil allow court to give an order to have access to this data in this specific case (specific person, specific phone number, evidence exists). On US, not.

Re:What data did they want?

[AmiMoJo]

It's not really the same, because in this case Facebook Brazil is only a subsidiary. Brazil can pass any laws it likes, but they only apply to the subsidiary. In Microsoft's case it's the parent company that is in trouble, with the subsidiary simply applying Irish law to its own operations.

Re: What data did they want?

[TheDarkMaster]

You need more context. You're right, the request is reasonable. The problem was the judge's reaction when it was not obeyed. Here the judges find themselves gods and believe that they must be obeyed without hesitation for more absurdly wrong they are, and usually they are absurdly wrong. Add in the equation that here in Brazil judges have too much power and that we are a corrupt country where it is easy to buy judges, and then you will understand why judges are so frowned upon here.

Re:What data did they want?

[SvnLyrBrto]

More to the point, does the VP who was arrested actually have the access or authority within Facebook to provide the data in the first place? WhatsApp is a fairly recently acquired subsidiary that previously had no business presence in Brazil. It's not likely that the business units have been integrated with Facebook itself yet, much less the servers and the data. So, in addition WhatsApp data not being stored in Brazil in the first place, it's fairly likely that neither Diego Dzodan, nor anyone in his chain of reporting employees, had the ability to access to the data he was being ordered to turn over. So basically, what it looks like is Brazil just picked some employee who's not at all the responsible party and is holding him hostage in order to extort someone over whom they don't have any legitimate authority.

Re: What data did they want?

[SvnLyrBrto]

I'm not convinced that the request *IS* reasonable. If the news reports are accurate, the data in question is not, and never was, actually stored in Brazil at all; and WhatsApp stored its data on servers in the US. And I think the current trent of governments to presume that they have universal global jurisdiction over everyone, regardless of where the person or data they're seeking resides, to be more than a little bit disturbing. And yes, I include the US government's own abuses in that regard as a problem as well. It really is unfortunate that the exemplars of the problem have thus far turned out to be douchebags like Kim Dotcom, Microsoft, and these drug traffickers. But this sort of overreach is something that should be stopped before it really does get out of hand. If enough precedents get set... remember that China and Saudi Arabia have judges that can issue warrants as well.

Re:What data did they want?

[Sir Holo]

... Facebook is hiding behind the "the servers are not physically located in Brazil, so we don't have to comply" argument.

So this strategy means that not only is FB is aggregating information on you, but so is the US's NSA.

Any internet traffic crossing US borders, even in transit to elsewhere, is potentially stored. They built a giant (redundant) data center, and per the Snowden leaks, their intention is "Full Take" and storage thereof for at least 30 days. (Probably more now.) Sure, the NSA claims that because computers storing, indexing, and/or term-searching is not an illegal "Search and Seizure". That is the wall that they are hiding behind.

Note that indexing is, by definition, a "Search". And Seizure? Well, if the law says that copying an .MP3 file or DVD's contents is considered stealing, then the same ought to apply to the NSA. Right? Or, more technically, you own the Copyright to any 'work' that you create, by definition, in the US. Emailing it gives the recipient reproduction rights (w/o disclaimer), but does not forfeit your Copyright. Anything that you write can be considered a 'work', and you can file for a certification of your Copyright. An email must certainly be a work—Some poems are three lines long. IANAL, and tons of case law exists, so I know only what an IP-creator & holder needs to know. (And of course, the MP3 & movie copying stuff is still being worked out in the courts, yes. The NSA might have some 'carve-out' law to exempt them, but the Constitution trumps all.)

Wherefore have the Supremes not taken this up? ( recall them declining at least a couple of Court cases for reasons unrelated to the meat of the case, like 'No Standing' for example.)

Anyone with a law background, please chime in. Correct me. I want to know. Everyone does.

Re:Hmm...

[NotInHere]

By the way he is from Argentina. Same continent, different country, different language.

Re:Hmm...

[Dog-Cow]

Do you really expect an anti-religion or anti-catholic bigot to understand nuances like that?

I do like the punishment

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Not going to say that I like th courts trying to force data collection (although this seems to be targetted at a single suspect with a warrant), but I do like shutting down a company for two days to punish it. If Wall Street firms weren't allowed to trade for a few days, with their positions locked, as punishments, maybe we would start seeing better behavior.

Wait - why?

[CurryCamel]

I'm confused. There was a (several?) court order(s) to give up data. The company policy is to comply with such ("Facebook has always been and will be available to address any questions Brazilian authorities may have,").

So why did he refuse to hand it over? I even tried to RTFA. This blazingly obvious (to me) question wasn't answered even there. Why is Facebook disappointed with an employee who neither follow law or company policy?

Re:Wait - why?

[RockDoctor]

I didn't RTFA from the BBC, because I came here to check if the story had been posted after I saw it in the Guardian. (Link).

When I read that, it was pretty clear to me that the application in question was Whatsapp (whatever that is), which has only recently been brought by Facebook. So I took it as meaning that the process of integrating the two companies hasn't been completed, and either Facebook needs to update it's policy statements to clarify that it physically/ logically can't release data from Whatsapp, or they need to change Whatsapp so that they can get hold of the data (presumably, store it and decrypt it).

But even when Facebook have made what changes it wants to, there's still nothing that would enable them to decrypt any data stored under the previous system, if the keys don't exist any more, or never existed. and of course, if data wasn't stored in the first place, there would also be nothing they can do.

Sounds to me as if someone is doing a poor job of explaining technical details to the court. "Film at 11."

Re:Wait - why?

[fbobraga]

Sounds to me as if someone is doing a poor job of explaining technical details to the court.

maybe, you are right, possibly

Re:Hmm...

[houghi]

By the way he is from Argentina. Same continent, different country, different language.

I assume you are talkig about the pope here as a reaction to someone else hoping the pope would be the last problem from that country.

He was correct on the country part as they are BOTH from Argentina.

Diego Dzodan, an Argentine national

So there's that.

Not really unexpected and no the arrest isn't much

[aepervius]

Refuse to comply to the court repeatedly, and sooner or later you will face court contempt and arrest. In some case indefinite arrest : there was the case of this guy int he US which was found in contempt of the court and spent what, 14 years there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ? He was only released recently because the court found he would never comply and it was not in the society interest to keep him longer. And that was only money evasion NOT drug trafficking which is arguably a stronger offense.

I'm a Brazilian...

[fbobraga]

and hear this for the first time, here * it smells a defamatory campaign...

It was mistake...

[fbobraga]

occurred on a very small state here: some judges in there will lost their jobs :-)

Misleading subject

[fbobraga]

and the judges alleged the info is about an interstate drug-traffic related case, so, there's some real-world motivation...

Nothing to do with encryption

[fbobraga]

The problem is legal jurisdiction: there's laws here in Brazil covering this cases, but the data was hosted in servers worldwide: if the data was stored in Brazil, the judges where legally correct

Re:Nothing to do with encryption

[fbobraga]

judges were incorrect

not here, on the "bananas republic" :/

Re:Another victim of encryption

[fustakrakich]

balancing justice with privacy

They are not in opposition. You can't have one without the other.

Wut?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Ok I need a WhatsWhatsApp app.

Re:Support to drug dealers

[fbobraga]

"Support to drug dealers" it's Facebook modus operandi, maybe (just saying ^^)