Brazil Judge Orders Phone Carriers To Block WhatsApp Message App (reuters.com)

monkey business by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 05:24 · Score: 0

They do not understand how it works and do these blockades to intercept communications. Every time that happens I am ashamed of the ignorance our State shows in every aspect of the country's management. Fun times to be a Brazilian.

Re:monkey business by fustakrakich · 2016-07-19 06:14 · Score: 1

You may call it "ignorance" all you want, but is the blockade working? If so, then what is ""ignorant" about it?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:monkey business by BarbaraHudson · 2016-07-19 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Probably not. Everyone knows you can run your apps over wifi. Blocking it at the carrier won't work. Now are they going to block ALL internet access? Good luck with that.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:monkey business by fustakrakich · 2016-07-19 06:39 · Score: 1

Everyone knows you can run your apps over wifi.
OMG!

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:monkey business by flargleblarg · 2016-07-19 07:35 · Score: 2

As you know, our blockade is perfectly legal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

How? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 05:26 · Score: 0

WhatsApp uses XMPP, right? Are they going to block a long list of IP addresses?

Re:How? by Githaron · 2016-07-19 05:52 · Score: 1

They use the Signal protocol: https://whispersystems.org/blo...

"The reason for the order was not known" by by+(1706743) · 2016-07-19 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sure this doesn't have anything to do with it...

Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 05:31 · Score: 0

Facebook owns it now. It is US government datamined regardless. who-to-who and what-on-the-servers.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by aristofeles · 2016-07-19 05:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Indeed. From http://convergenciadigital.uol... "More than that, the judge considers that if it is not possible to break the encryption, the service itself must be prohibited, since it does not lend itself to the enforcement of judicial decisions."
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by rwiggers · 2016-07-19 05:36 · Score: 4, Informative

From a Brazilian news, the order was to offer a backdoor to the encrypted messages and/or to redirect the messages to the authorities before encryption.
http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/n...
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by frovingslosh · 2016-07-19 05:38 · Score: 3, Informative

The reason for the order was not known due to legal secrecy in an ongoing case
That's strange, because I know what the article author claims not to know. Brazil wants information that they can't legally get. So they are (illegally) forcing a shut down of Whatsapp to put pressure on Facebook to try to get the information. If that works Watsapp will be turned on again. If it doesn't work and there isn't a lot of blow back from the population, then Facebook itself may be next, but in reality they expect that shutting down Facebook would draw too much attention to their tactics so it is unlikely to occur.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by morcego · 2016-07-19 05:43 · Score: 2

Brazil wants information that they can't legally get.
Actually, they CAN legally have (I can provide you with the relevant laws, if you want).
However, they can't TECHNICALLY have. And thus, the judge, in a sadly usual display of technological ignorance, wants to force a square peg into a round hole.
As all other times before this, this decisions will soon be overthrown.

--
morcego
Re: "The reason for the order was not known" by easyTree · 2016-07-19 05:45 · Score: 1

Maybe the order-details were encrypted? Good for them - they don't want the public nosing into their private business...

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by fox171171 · 2016-07-19 05:51 · Score: 2

Indeed. From http://convergenciadigital.uol... "More than that, the judge considers that if it is not possible to break the encryption, the service itself must be prohibited, since it does not lend itself to the enforcement of judicial decisions."
Should ban curtains (or any other window coverings) on windows too.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Githaron · 2016-07-19 05:55 · Score: 1

I predict massive blowback from the population. 90%+ off the Brazilian population uses WhatsApp.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 05:58 · Score: 0

I wonder what this judge will go after next? Some cars don't have built in tracking or remote disable (like OnStar), so lets ban all cars that can't be tracked "since it does not lend itself to the enforcement of judicial decisions."
Re: "The reason for the order was not known" by Opportunist · 2016-07-19 06:06 · Score: 3, Funny

"Hello Brazilians,
Unfortunately we cannot provide our service to you anymore. In case you're wondering why, it's because of this judge. He lives here. This is his phone number. If you don't agree with his decision, maybe tell him how you feel about it.
--signed, Mark Z."

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Rakarra · 2016-07-19 06:13 · Score: 1

Indeed.
From http://convergenciadigital.uol...
"More than that, the judge considers that if it is not possible to break the encryption, the service itself must be prohibited, since it does not lend itself to the enforcement of judicial decisions."
Should ban curtains (or any other window coverings) on windows too.
Unnecessary, there are many, many ways around that.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Rakarra · 2016-07-19 06:14 · Score: 0

I wonder what this judge will go after next? Some cars don't have built in tracking or remote disable (like OnStar), so lets ban all cars that can't be tracked "since it does not lend itself to the enforcement of judicial decisions."
You can follow a car. You can track one quite easily.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by fustakrakich · 2016-07-19 06:21 · Score: 1

Some cars don't have built in tracking or remote disable (like OnStar), so lets ban all cars that can't be tracked
You should maybe talk to the Germans about that... You gotta start small.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re: "The reason for the order was not known" by fustakrakich · 2016-07-19 06:30 · Score: 1

I would prefer he just offer a VPN service, or some other way to make blocking much more difficult. In the meantime, I would like to see the engineers develop robust ad hoc networks that don't require service from the phone carriers. The state has too much power over communications.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by brazilian+rabbit · 2016-07-19 07:18 · Score: 2

And only FUTURE messages to/from subject being investigated.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 08:08 · Score: 0

You can also physically follow phone users most places, even spy on their texts to some degree with the proper equipment (high res camera, EM reader, etc) but both take significant time and resources. What governments/law enforcement seem to want these days is arm chair investigations, if there is a serious crime they just hit a few keys on their computer and the magical "cloud" tells them who did it. Or in more nefarious circles if someone is "stirring up trouble" (demanding prosecution of officials for misconduct, bringing waste/corruption to the public attention, etc) appropriate dirt can be dug up on the troublemakers to arrest/discredit them.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 08:14 · Score: 0

Don't worry, the US isn't far behind. I know that they've been trying to get all kinds of "useful" features integrated into the OBD-III standard (US vehicle black boxes). I know at least one police department asked for a kill switch to be integrated, and there was a pretty big push to get GPS logs with remote access (for "road taxing" of course) integrated.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 12:17 · Score: 0

You are mistaken. In Brasil, a judge can legally require a communications provider to wiretap a suspect in an ongoing criminal investigation. Whether you agree that this is good or not good, it is the law. A judge gave WhatsApp this order, but WhatsApp did not comply. What we see then is a situation which is getting more and more common in today's interconnected world: people blatantly breaking the law in one country, using their physical location in another country as a shield. So what is a judge to do? Eventually we will have to find some sort of solution to this problem, because as it is countries are losing the power to legislate within their own borders.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 18:49 · Score: 0

mod parent up.
Re: "The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 00:23 · Score: 0

(FYI: "she", the order came from a female judge)
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by beastofburdon · 2016-07-20 06:52 · Score: 1

I'm pretty certain that is the reason why Windows 10 includes a key-logger. That way it doesn't matter how well encrypted your communications are, they can just ask Micro$oft what you typed while that application was active.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:24 · Score: 0

What we see then is a situation which is getting more and more common in today's interconnected world: people blatantly breaking the law in one country, using their physical location in another country as a shield. So what is a judge to do? Eventually we will have to find some sort of solution to this problem, because as it is countries are losing the power to legislate within their own borders.
So what you are saying is that I, as an American citizen living in the US - never having set foot in Brazil and with no plans to ever do so, am somehow subject to the laws of Brazil?
Here's a clue I am not subject to the laws of Brazil or any other country unless I am physically present in that country!
Re: "The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:29 · Score: 0

just goes to show that women inherently lack intelligence.
Re:"The reason for the order was not known" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 13:16 · Score: 0

‘never having set foot in Brazil and with no plans to ever do so’ -- but even so performing actions (like offering web services, advertising, trading) in Brasil.
If you do so, then yes, you should be subject to Brasil's laws.

One word "whack-a-mole" by mark-t · 2016-07-19 05:33 · Score: 1

[nt]

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

US surrendering control of the Internet by mi · 2016-07-19 05:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just a reminder, that the US seems on track to surrender its control of the Internet to an "International Body" — despite some lawmakers trying to prevent the Administration from doing it.

Countries like this — and even worse ones, where citizens' access is already tightly controlled or where "hate speech" is illegal — will now have more say over how the Network is run.

(If you were going to reply pointing out, FBI's attempt to unlock a dead terrorist's iPhone is "just as bad" — don't...)

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:US surrendering control of the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 06:33 · Score: 0

Just a reminder, that the US seems on track to surrender its control of the Internet to an "International Body" — despite some lawmakers trying to prevent the Administration from doing it.
Countries like this — and even worse ones, where citizens' access is already tightly controlled or where "hate speech" is illegal — will now have more say over how the Network is run.
(If you were going to reply pointing out, FBI's attempt to unlock a dead terrorist's iPhone is "just as bad" — don't...)
Allow me to point out that this order is not issued from the Executive branch. It is from the Judiciary branch. Nothing to do with little tyrants elsewhere. Brazil is one of the most democratic countries in the world.
Re:US surrendering control of the Internet by BlueCoder · 2016-07-19 08:28 · Score: 1

The "Internet" isn't controlled by any country.
There are only two two things that are somewhat regulated and no one needs to obey them.
The first is DNS. No one needs to obey any root servers or organization. You can choose or form your own. It's just getting people to follow your system that is hard. You can also alias domains from different systems under your own tld's. There are also ideas and prototypes floating around for a decentralized naming system that could replace it.
Second is network numbering. And again you don't have to obey it. Might be inconvenient at first which is why no one does it. There is no reason the "internet" has to be one uniform network. It's like a phone number directory. You can belong to different network/directories. And again that are thoughts on new protocols that would make TCP/IP/DNS obsolete and decentralized. Connections across different networks just need extended address information and connect through NAT or a proper proxy.
All any system needs really is a GUID and a cryptography system to verify a computers identity.
I actually expect China at some point to completely split it's internet from the rest of the world such that there would be no need for a great firewall. External communications will have to go through filtered proxies. And those governments will require man in the middle encryption through them if you need encryption.
But fear not. Over the next 30 years there are going to be laser communication satellites that will be near impossible to block. The technology already exists and is how spies communicate now.

Just plain extortion by randomErr · 2016-07-19 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

My guess is that Brazilian authorities want personal information on a citizen from Facebook and Facebook will not comply. I hope the judge is ready for the repercussions of his decision. If this goes through I look for mass protests and the call for the removal of the judge. There is almost no way Facebook can't come out this smelling like a rose.

--
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?

Re:Just plain extortion by morcego · 2016-07-19 05:53 · Score: 1

Your guess is wrong.
The legal documents are available for your perusal, so you don't have to guess.
Be my guest.

--
morcego
Re:Just plain extortion by randomErr · 2016-07-19 05:56 · Score: 1

Not the first time. Where are these documents?

--
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Re:Just plain extortion by morcego · 2016-07-19 06:06 · Score: 2

You can start here:
http://grupocienciascriminais....
And then go from there. There is even the number of the investigation.

--
morcego
Re: Just plain extortion by easyTree · 2016-07-19 06:14 · Score: 1

OR (in an alternate universe), every tech company's price for giving governments access to users' data is lots of publicity implying that they won't play ball.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:Just plain extortion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 07:59 · Score: 0

Well, a judge ordering someone to jail because he's pissed off is already an abuse of authority.
Not even judges are above judgement.
Re: Just plain extortion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 12:43 · Score: 0

You are not wrong.
A few months back, another judge from another state has issued a similar order. He was acting upon the DA's request on a case involving a drug dealer. It's likely to be the same thing now.
Problem is, police and judges see Brazilian net neutrality laws as a unnecessary nuisance that "gets in the way of justice". So that when police fail to do their job it's justifiable to mess with everyone else's rights and even with another state's court's business, hindering a new subpoena delivery procedure that uses Whatsapp as a means to reach plaintiffs.

On the contrary by easyTree · 2016-07-19 05:42 · Score: 1

It's Brazil that's being blocked. Doh!

--
Requiem for the American Dream

Re:On the contrary by Z00L00K · 2016-07-19 06:02 · Score: 2

Just block internet for Brazil during the Olympic Games and it would make a great point.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re: On the contrary by easyTree · 2016-07-19 06:16 · Score: 1

I think there is still some traffic that doesn't go directly through fb HQ

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re: On the contrary by Z00L00K · 2016-07-19 06:54 · Score: 1

Well, I was considering ALL internet traffic. Not just Facebook stuff.
It would annoy a lot of media quite a bit during the Olympic Games.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re: On the contrary by BarbaraHudson · 2016-07-19 07:25 · Score: 2

It would give the media an excuse not to go to the open sewer that is the Olympics. I'm surprised that anyone is willing to compete in the aquatic events.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 08:53 · Score: 0

Storm over the Channel. The Continent is isolated
Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 09:26 · Score: 0

It would give the media an excuse not to go to the open sewer that is the Olympics. I'm surprised that anyone is willing to compete in the aquatic events.
And you are a silly ignorant bitch. Go educate yourself. Appreciate what this country is doing amid enormous difficulties. And while you're at that, focus on your immense domestic problems before going around bashing other countries. If you have a solution for our problems, I'm all ears. You don't have a solution? Then shut up.
A Proud Brazilian.
(*) Posts like yours will never get away under my watch, as I never bash other countries. I think it's fair.
Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 11:15 · Score: 0

We think your government sucks monkey balls, not your people and soil. Heck, your country is probably really beautiful. The problem is you have really shitty politicians and they are fucking you over.
Welcome to the club. We in the USA also have a shitty government and it gets worse every election.
Don't take attacks against your country personally as they aren't directed at you personally unless you happen to be one of those scumbags.
Re: On the contrary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:34 · Score: 0

Then quit shitting and dumping medical waste in your bay, America definitely has problems, as do most countries, but we can swim at the beach without worrying about catching and STD or worse just from the water.
Stupid 3rd world countries.
Re: On the contrary by BarbaraHudson · 2016-07-20 14:52 · Score: 1

You have hospitals that can't provide proper care because of a shortage of latex gloves and syringes and basic medicines. And now the biggest riots in decades over waste, corruption, and spending billions on the olympics while cutting education funding and having teachers who haven't been paid in months going on strike.
Also, you're a liar. You wrote:

focus on your immense domestic problems before going around bashing other countries.
and then wrote

Posts like yours will never get away under my watch, as I never bash other countries.
You just did exactly that. BTW, my country has fewer domestic problems than either the US or the UK., The schools are funded, there's free healthcare for all, the police aren't going around shooting people with real bullets (the US) or the Brazil riots (rubber bullets). And we stand to benefit from global warming. The only actic nation that won't is the US. For the 7 others (Canada, Denmark (Greenland & The Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia) life will get better. Brazil will get worse.
This does not mean I am in favour of global warming. I'm not - and there is no way that the world will meet the 2 degree limit, never mind the 1.5 degree limit, so we're all kind of screwed. Just some places will be less screwed.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

96% ! by ramriot · 2016-07-19 05:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

In consideration of:-

1/ the fact that due to massively expensive texting costs that Brazilian carriers place on customers ~96% of them use Whatsapp.

2/ Whatsapp just happens to offer full e2e strong encryption.

3/ Criminals want to save money also.

So criminals use whatsapp to communicate, thus thwarting legal interception.

I would suggest to the Judge that the root problem is not Whatsapp but the government supported telecoms carriers who forced this situation to exist.

Also, seriously Judges. Someone needs to go down there and teach them the meaning of impossible.

Re:96% ! by Opportunist · 2016-07-19 06:10 · Score: 1

Of course not. But they're happy with the (quite important) data of knowing who is talking with whom. They know exactly, though, that if they start reading the content they get some more (quite unimportant and practically useless) data, but at the same time the moment this gets out a lot of users will jump ship and use a different messenger.
So the very LAST thing they'd want is to comply with this order, knowing that it costs them users and thus mineable data.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:96% ! by brazilian+rabbit · 2016-07-19 07:15 · Score: 2

The request is only for FUTURE messages to/from the subject of the investigation.
Re:96% ! by BarbaraHudson · 2016-07-19 07:27 · Score: 1

They also can draw a lesson from what happened to Blackberry when they started giving governments access to messages. Nobody wants to be the next Research In Motion.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:96% ! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 09:00 · Score: 0

The e2e encryption means that you need to trust the keys provider, The keys provider is Whatsapp so it's technically possible for them to MITM every conversation.
Re:96% ! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 11:24 · Score: 0

Facebook & WhatsApp previously provided a messaging service that wasn't end-to-end encrypted and there was no outrage or concernn about this previously.
The end-to-end encryption is in response to the NSA sniffing everyone's data and the engineers at WhatsApp/facebook being pissed off by this.
There's no other altruistic goals here.

"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this case? by idontgno · 2016-07-19 05:59 · Score: 3, Funny

How are they going to "block" this app?

Prevent WhatsApp traffic from transiting phone carrier networks? Doesn't affect Wi-Fi, then. Prevent WhatsApp traffic from transiting any network? That would need the Great Wall of Amazonia, which doesn't exist. Any traffic to WhatsApp servers? By IP block? By routing blackhole? By DNS block? That might work if they can get every net provider to agree. Until the next version incorporates a workaround.

Maybe the judge has no idea, and neither do the folks who are supposed to implement it.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Re: frist pst0 by easyTree · 2016-07-19 06:09 · Score: 1

"Slow snakesssss missed their flight so aren't on a plane"

--
Requiem for the American Dream

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by thoriumbr · 2016-07-19 06:13 · Score: 4, Informative

All telecom carriers on Brazil must block access to WhatsApp servers. 3G/4G, and cable are affected. The only Brazilian users still with WhatsApp access are those using a proxy or VPN server outside Brazil. Like me.

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by Opportunist · 2016-07-19 06:13 · Score: 1

It's blatantly obvious that the judge has no clue. Because yes, in theory Facebook could implement what he is asking for. But it would accomplish exactly nothing. end-to-end encryption can be done before and after data enters that stream (you just have to add another layer), it would piss off other customers (which is certainly not in FBs interest) and in the end nobody wins. The judge doesn't get his data despite causing a lot of backlash against him (because the people will NOT like this ruling) and FB loses customers.

Just another example of people making rules over things they don't even remotely understand.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 06:23 · Score: 0

with many folks using whatsapp to *voice* call their relatives while toristing (data rate is cheap, international voice rates are still kinda outrageous), they're just alienating tourists.

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by fustakrakich · 2016-07-19 06:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Prevent WhatsApp traffic from transiting phone carrier networks? Doesn't affect Wi-Fi, then....Maybe the judge has no idea, and neither do the folks who are supposed to implement it.

Neither do you if you think the wifi networks aren't connected to the internet through the phone carriers.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 06:45 · Score: 0

On a totally unrelated note (yeah, right), does anybody sell or have plans for a voice scrambing/descrambling circuit that would sit between a phone and a bluetooth headset? Seems like a potentially lucrative market.

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by idontgno · 2016-07-19 06:52 · Score: 1

Well, let's get specific.

The decision by Judge Daniela Barbosa Assuncao de Souza in the southeastern state of Rio de Janeiro applies to Brazil's five wireless carriers.

Are the "five wireless carriers" also significant land network providers? Primary long-haul infrastructure? I could imagine it, given how networks and network ownership tend to consolidate, but is it the case here? Because if my home network isn't provisioned by one of the five carriers under orders, to stop my use of WhatsApp they'd have to block it within the core network, and not just at the "wireless carrier" level.

The devil is always in the details. As pointed out in another reply, it appears this judge hasn't heard of VPN, so there is that.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

New servers by butchersong · 2016-07-19 07:06 · Score: 1

It would be amusing if Whatsapp were to stand some servers up on all the major cloud services and use dynamic IPs. I wonder how large a range of the internet Brazil would be willing to block.

Re:New servers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 07:35 · Score: 0

Let's see if these new servers are any of the following (newly sponsored) root servers:
a.root-servers.net VeriSign, Inc.
j.root-servers.net VeriSign, Inc.
b.root-servers.net University of Southern California
c.root-servers.net Cogent Communications
d.root-servers.net University of Maryland
e.root-servers.net NASA
f.root-servers.net Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
g.root-servers.net US Department of Defence
h.root-servers.net US Army
i.root-servers.net Netnod
k.root-servers.net RIPE NCC
l.root-servers.net ICANN
m.root-servers.net WIDE
and that they happen to use DNS (UDP 53) as an additional (backup) transport mechanism for Whatsapp.

Way more information available... by brazilian+rabbit · 2016-07-19 07:12 · Score: 3, Informative

This link - http://exame.abril.com.br/tecn... - (In portuguese) - Has way more information about this issue. Some interesting points from it: -Suspension will occur because Facebook didn't provide messages for an investigation still underway. -The judge says that Facebook responded the request in English, not an official language in Brazil. -Important: THE REQUESTS ARE ONLY FOR FUTURE MESSAGES. (Justice seeks only to obtain copies of future messages of the investigated). -The company argues that providing the messages will make its users lose faith in the app. The Judge calls it BS: Phones are recorded all the time and people didn't lose faith / stopped using their telecom providers. -There is a fine of ~15K USD/day until the order is followed.

Re:Way more information available... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-07-19 07:30 · Score: 2

So remove all servers from Brazil. It's the internet - you can work from anywhere.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Way more information available... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 09:20 · Score: 0

Nope. Brazilian laws says that servers must be in Brazil.
Re:Way more information available... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 18:47 · Score: 0

Nope. Brazilian laws says that servers must be in Brazil.
Or What? WhatsApp is an American company. Why not tell the Brazilian government to get bent. What are they going to do about it?
Re:Way more information available... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 21:56 · Score: 0

Uh... They will block your service in Brazil.
Re:Way more information available... by MiSaunaSnob · 2016-07-20 07:44 · Score: 1

They just did... seems like they played there only card already.
Re:Way more information available... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:45 · Score: 0

So we lose one third world country, no big loss. Let the neanderthals down there get their government sorted out and they can re-join civilization. Not that they have anything to offer the rest of the world anyway.
Re:Way more information available... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-07-20 14:17 · Score: 1

Exactly. The Internet routes around damage.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Way more information available... by BarbaraHudson · 2016-07-20 14:23 · Score: 1

And it didn't stay blocked. Now Brazil is considering a law to end such bans.

A Brazilian congressional commission on Wednesday recommended a bill that forbids authorities from blocking popular messaging applications, just two days after a judicial order left 100 million Brazilians without Facebook Inc's WhatsApp.
Brazilians have this judge to thank for that. Award the judge today's Law of unintended consequences prize.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by fustakrakich · 2016-07-19 07:16 · Score: 1

The devil is always in the details.

More likely the story is obfuscated by the details, like that old lawyers trick, comply with a discovery order by drowning them in paperwork.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by BarbaraHudson · 2016-07-19 07:17 · Score: 1

The telcos aren't the only suppliers of internet services. Last I checked, the local cable company, who also supplies internet, isn't a telco.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.

They did this twice before by johanw · 2016-07-19 07:20 · Score: 1

And every time it got overruled by a higher judge a few days later. Is this still the same idiot judge as before or is it another one this time? I can't find the name of the judge that ordered the other 2 blocks.

Re:They did this twice before by johanw · 2016-07-19 19:12 · Score: 1

Ah well, the Brasilian supreme court has removed the block already.

Fuck Off by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 07:33 · Score: 0

Tell him to fuck off and die.

Just in time for the Olympics! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 07:39 · Score: 0

Just when Amateur Night in Brazil can't get any worse, along comes their justice system to get in a few Lulz of their own.

Brilliant. What makes this judge think that their ruling is going to stick when the last two didn't? Bribes?

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by fustakrakich · 2016-07-19 08:05 · Score: 1

:-) That's almost pedantic.. They are businesses subject to any government whim. We need a way around them all to defeat the blockade.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 08:06 · Score: 0

For an encrypted stream you're going to have trouble determining if it's a WhatsApp message. Deep Packet Inspection shouldn't work if the protocol is engineered correctly. It's also worthwhile making your protocols DPI resistant for precisely these reasons - it defeats attempts at censorship, and that's really all this is.

The judge is throwing a hissy-fit and censoring the world because he can't have an ice-cream. Boo hoo.

Sounds like a crap decision by Crashmarik · 2016-07-19 08:13 · Score: 1

But somehow I enjoy the idea of Facebook being hurt.

Re:Sounds like a crap decision by ArtemaOne · 2016-07-20 11:00 · Score: 1

You're such a hipster. Popular stuff needs to be punished? That's pretty extreme.

FTA... by maz2331 · 2016-07-19 08:17 · Score: 1

"The office of Brazil's attorney general reiterated its position that judges who suspend WhatsApp are incorrectly interpreting a 2014 law meant to provide a legal framework for the internet.

"Still, that guidance has not stopped judges frustrated with the modern limits of wiretaps in drug-trafficking investigations from going after the service and even briefly jailing a senior Facebook executive in March."

It sounds like we have a judge who is violating the law and should be arrested herself.

Re:FTA... by xvan · 2016-07-19 09:11 · Score: 1

Why? Do you think it's any different in US land of the free?
Do you really believe that, for even one second, Google and Facebook refused to provide data requested by US judges? O wait, they didn't even need to ask because the NSA has a cart blanche on their servers.

Re:whatsgay by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 08:37 · Score: 0

People still think that call something "gay" is really a offense?

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by fustakrakich · 2016-07-19 08:41 · Score: 1

It's far simpler to simply drop encrypted packets that can't be read. All the "official" channels, like banks and other businesses, have the built in back doors.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Brazilian judges are egocentric ignorants by TheDarkMaster · 2016-07-19 08:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

A judge in Brazil usually are an ignorant and (very) egocentric monkey, unable to understand the logic and reason do not bend to the whims of it. They are the picture of a country still in the Middle Ages where authority think his word is divine law and can never be questioned.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time

Re: Brazilian judges are egocentric ignorants by TheDarkMaster · 2016-07-19 23:40 · Score: 1

For those who think that what I said is flamebait: I am Brazilian, and you have not seen nothing yet. Judges here think they are God and that must be obeyed as such. And my country is medieval, do not be fooled by appearances. Many here still behave as if they were 19th century slaveholders.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by Opportunist · 2016-07-19 08:43 · Score: 1

Don't laugh, I started toying with this a few weeks ago. It's not really as hard as it looks at first glance.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

If they block WhatsApp... by tlambert · 2016-07-19 09:06 · Score: 1

If they block WhatsApp... how is my Uber driver going to tell me they're running late?

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by xvan · 2016-07-19 09:16 · Score: 1

That would need the Great Wall of Amazonia, which doesn't exist You don't need a Great Wall, just a court order directed to each ISP.

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by dafradu · 2016-07-19 09:33 · Score: 1

From the article:
"Telefonica Brasil SA" - Land (fiber/dsl) and Mobile lines, check.
"America Movil SAB's Claro - Land (cable) and Mobile lines, check
"TIM Participacoes SA" - Land (dsl/fiber) and Mobile lines, check.
"Oi SA" - Land (dsl/fiber) and Mobile lines, check
"Nextel Participacoes SA" - mobile only

That probably covers over 95% of residential and a little less of commercial connections in Brazil.

So there is no point in trying to use 3G/4G or your land/wifi connection, you'll have close to no one to talk to.

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 10:44 · Score: 0

That would need the Great Wall of Amazonia,

Please, pretty please, don't ever confuse Brazil and Amazonia. Amazonia is an international territory/biome. Brazilians [most - the ones that count] live in the subtropical/temperate south [and it's damn cold right now].

Just in time by Archfeld · 2016-07-19 11:04 · Score: 1

Just in time for the Olympics. I am sure the idea of major social network block is making NBC giggle with joy. The more social media is blocked the better NBC's Olympic monopoly will become.
It is bad enough they don't cover half the events to begin with but the times they broadcast the ones they do cover is horrible. We'll get hours and hours of floor exercises and 20 minutes of judo. By the time the track and field is done we'll know about every cousin of 'John Doe' the 200 m sprinter but not have seen 5 minutes of Archery coverage. I can't believe they are having golf in the Olympics this time...

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

Legal Complaince Question by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 11:21 · Score: 0

This is not extortion.

This is called complying with the law.

If WhatsApp doesn't want to comply with the law in Brazil then WhatsApp are free to stop operating in Brazil.

Re:"Blocked". What does "blocked" mean in this cas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 12:09 · Score: 0

humbug it would accomplish nothing.

The point of e2e encryption in your phone that it is really difficult to do it when it is not in the app - and not in any manner nearly as convenient.

WhatsApp worked before e2e encryption so it can definitely work without e2e encryption.

Nobody was pissed before e2e was possible and most people don't care (exception likely being criminals) now that it is.

With the Olympics just 2 weeks away by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 12:28 · Score: 0

With the Olympics just 2 weeks away I'll sure a significant number of the expected visitors will be pleased with this sort of Government intrusion.

Mimic HTTPS over SSL? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-19 18:43 · Score: 0

What will this judge do when app makers offer a mode that makes setting up and running the secure connection look like HTTPS over SSL? Ban all encrypted connections? Goodbye all electronic commerce. The Brazilian economy is already in the tank. If the Olympics don't bankrupt them first, stuff like this surely will.

WhatsApp had it coming. by Remote · 2016-07-29 08:44 · Score: 1

I am Brazilian, I am in favor of privacy and access to strong crypto for everyone, I think most judges don't have a clue about how WhatsApp works.
Having said that, you don't answer a Court Order in a country where you operate and have offices over e-mail, in a foreign language, asking for details about the ongoing investigation (in English, please)!

Quote from the e-mail, contained in the decison:

"If possible, please provide responses in English as that will significantly improve our ability to analyze and process your request in a timely manner.
1. Is this a criminal matter?
2. What organization is conducting the investigation (Federal Police, Civil Police, Prosecutor's Office)?
3. What is the nature of the crime being investigated (corruption, drug trafficking, gun violence/homicide, child exploitation, terrorism, etc.)?
4. What are the specific WhatsApp accounts that are the target of this legal process (including all applicable country codes)?
5. What data are you requesting for each of the targets listed above?"

Unquote

The reason the appeal was granted is not simply because the higher court disagreed with the judge's decision. It was granted because it was done in writing, by lawyers, respectfully and in Portuguese. It is that simple!

Slashdot Mirror

Brazil Judge Orders Phone Carriers To Block WhatsApp Message App (reuters.com)

110 comments