Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WhatsApp Blocked in Brazil for 72 Hours Over Data Dispute (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the battle-over-data dept.

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."

36 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. should i laugh? by zlives · · Score: 4, Funny

    people trust facebook for privacy?!!

    1. Re:should i laugh? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      http://vignette1.wikia.nocooki...

    2. Re:should i laugh? by Aaden42 · · Score: 2

      Marginally more than I trust the telco’s & government of Brazil, yeah.

      I know, high bar I’m setting there.

  2. Re:Yawn... by sexconker · · Score: 2

    What does this have to do with "outside their own country"?

  3. 91% makes it an election issue by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, 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

    1. Re:91% makes it an election issue by tom229 · · Score: 2

      Naturally, you're attacking the tail of the snake while the head devours you from the legs up. Your post being moderated 5: Insightful is evidence of how common this mistake is. The core problem, of course, is centralizing communication through Whatsapp (aka. Facebook). Any consequence of that should be the natural expectation of highly centralized communication services. When you put all your eggs in one basket, and trust that basket to someone else, it's just a matter of time before they drop it. Nobody did this to Brazil, but the free market decision making of the Brazilian population. There are plenty of open communication standards like XMPP they could have chosen.

      Of course every country in the world makes these same mistakes. Look in your pocket for proof. We choose walled gardens, centralized social media platforms, and telecom oligopolies. We naively assume for-profit companies are the good guys because they say so in their TV commercials. It's commonplace to allow a company like Apple to encrypt your data by default, and then expect you to use their cloud services to make sure you don't lose it because of that. This is widely championed as a good thing - as a victory of a free society - that consolidating your data and IT needs into the walled garden of a for-profit company is somehow better than the minuscule chance of a government agency ever looking at it. So the house of cards is starting to come crashing down and you're looking for someone to blame? Try a mirror. Not you specifically of course, but everyone.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    2. Re:91% makes it an election issue by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      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, but most users will not -- which is why all of these attacks are really to the detriment of the common man while not touching the real targets (terrorists/paedos/master-crims/...) who can pay/organise round the attacks.

    3. Re:91% makes it an election issue by tom229 · · Score: 1

      The judge can attack encryption all he likes, it's math. Why he's having an effect is because people use encryption through a centralized source that is controllable. In my rant I mentioned XMPP. XMPP works like email, except better. You think a government would have any luck shutting off email? Perhaps he could force ISPs to close SMTP ports? XMPP allows you to define custom ports in SRV records so that doesn't apply. It's literally impossible to shut off (quickly anyways) without shutting off the entire internet. We don't need to centralize everything in big companies to communicate effectively, to have secure devices, or to have things that work conveniently. We think we do, because we're told that. And ultimately it becomes true, because we don't care enough to make it otherwise.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  4. Block or Shut up. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Block or Shut up. by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      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 a higher jurisdiction may reverse the order of a lower judge if that order was in fact not authorized by any law (or specifically forbidden by one). Until such time as an appeal is filed and won, the original judge’s word is for all intents the word of god in that jurisdiction. If higher judges rule the same way as the lower judge, it still doesn’t matter if any law authorizes the action ordered by the original judge. The law plays no role until such a time as a judge in higher authority leverages the law as a reason to reverse a ruling or vacate an order.

      In certain high profile cases, it’s possible that either the executive or legislature might take an interest in a judge’s actions. In such situations, political pressure, fear of humiliation by the press, etc. may force the hand of some judge along the chain. Even in those cases, it’s up to the original or higher judge to “voluntarily” reverse the ruling, even if there’s some element of duress to it.

      Short of that, the executive might send in the armed forces or other policing forces that are directly under the executive’s control, but then you have something very close to civil war and a break down of any semblance of rule of law. Nobody’s eager to push things that far. More likely in that case some dirt may be “found” on the uncooperative judge, impeachment proceedings started, etc. Most judges are fairly politically minded however and will tend to back down when they see the writing is on the wall for a particularly unpopular ruling. Better to save face, live to fight another day, etc.

      That of course is the situation in the US. I can’t imagine it’s anything but worse in Brazil. At least in the US, open bribery of judges and other politicians is generally frowned upon.

    2. Re:Block or Shut up. by Threni · · 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.

    3. Re:Block or Shut up. by xvan · · Score: 1

      The congress can issue laws clear enough to not be subject to interpretation by the judges. In that case, judges that don't enforce the law may be removed by the Congress.

      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.

    4. Re:Block or Shut up. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > 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

    5. Re:Block or Shut up. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Block or Shut up. by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      What you've said is technically correct and is right in a nation run by rule of law. In reality, it very rarely happens. Congress critters are politically minded too. They rarely interfere with judges as it hurts their own political standing.

  5. Re:Yawn... by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

    ... 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.)

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  6. Re:Unleash the Mobs by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  7. Re:Yawn... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    He is saying that if the company does not comply with his orders, it cannot do business within his jurisdiction.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  8. It's not a "new" thing... by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    It's just a new enrollment of this case: http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/...

  9. Re:Unleash the Mobs by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    this is why they say "not feed the trolls" (here, on Slashdot, this means: "don't reply ACs" :P)

  10. It should be lifted soon by dafradu · · Score: 1

    Last time this happened a higher court judge quickly reestablished the service, i'm sure the block will not last that long...

    1. Re:It should be lifted soon by dafradu · · Score: 1

      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!

  11. Whatsapp should have given it to them by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

    [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??

  12. The bigger story here by bretts · · Score: 1

    Corruption is endemic in Brazil. This is a classic red herring to conceal the fact that every aspect of Brazilian life is permeated by corruption. This case lets the judge posture at being a brave social justice crusader, when really, Facebook probably failed to pay the right bribe. The third world is a terrible place and if you are not there, be thankful for your fortune.

  13. When has Brazil been functional? by bretts · · 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...

  14. Easily fixed by bretts · · Score: 1

    Nothing a quick B-52 strike couldn't fix.

  15. Lol Brazil u so funny by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Can insist on data from Facebook and Whatsapp and threaten and put people in jail, but can't even impeach their own corrupt President.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  16. What a shame by fustakrakich · · 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?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  17. It is always one judge by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    That is how the courts work. If Brazilian law, as interpreted by a duly appointed judge, allows the government access, the judge must enforce that law. Just because it is inconvenient to 100 million Whatsapp users does not matter.

    Those users can contact their representatives and change the law.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:It is always one judge by dmesg0 · · Score: 1

      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."?

    2. Re:It is always one judge by zedaroca · · Score: 2

      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.

      The judge ordered the internet providers to block Whatsapp, witch is only possible through violation of the law. He choose to ignore part of the law and use other parts to give the order.

  18. Re:Yawn... by fustakrakich · · 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.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  19. Re:Unleash the Mobs by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Well cock used for fucking is better than one that just gets rubbed by its owners hands.

  20. Great law, judiciary dictatorship by zedaroca · · Score: 2

    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:
    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.

  21. Stupid people make stupid judges by tom229 · · Score: 1

    So... A judge blocked the use of a service because they can't do the impossible and reverse overwhelmingly complex math algorithms? Sounds like a brilliant judge. When I read this article I don't see a problem with stupid judges though (that's to be assumed), I see a problem with a population using a centralized communication source. Why the world keeps choosing this model for communication I don't understand. We have decentralised open standards like xmpp and pgp encryption. I suppose that stuff is hard to monetize though, and armchair activists find real solutions to simple problems too boring to get behind. Ah fuck it, where's my guy fawkes mask?

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  22. Do it the facebook way by allo · · Score: 1

    Allow using tor. Get users to connect via tor. Good luck blocking this. the tor project is expert in being unblockable.