[msh]

But its not a lawful subpoena.

What's app is a America n company, so it should only respond to American supoenas. Just as a American judge should not be able to order a Brazilian company to do anything before having it go though the Brazilian courts.

[bjt]

A Brazilian company with a presence in the US could absolutely be subject to a US court order without any court in Brazil needing to be involved. You don't get to dodge the laws of a country you're operating in just because your HQ is in some other country.

[msh]

But whatsapp don't have a business presence in Brazil.

Just because they have users there is not the same as a business presence.

[hhandoko]

Good point.

I suppose this could be a reason why they require a third party (the telcos) to block access to WhatsApp, as they are operating under Brazilian law.

[sdm]

Does whatsapp make money from users in Brazil? Then yes, it has a business presence in Brazil.

[msh]

No, that's not the international legal definition for a business presence.

My point is that Brazil should follow legal procedures and have a American judge issue a supena. That's what a MLAT is for.

[lagadu]

They are following legal procedures. Brazilian ones, which are the only ones they have to care about. Why would they possibly care in the slightest what American courts have to say?

[msh]

Because they want to enforce their law against a american company.

There are a reason many countries have MLAT's

[Daishiman]

They have paid users.

[gotchange]

> What's app is a America n company, so it should only respond to American supoenas.

American exceptionalism and supremacy at work.

[msh]

I am not American.

I expect it to work the other way around too. Brazilian companies should not respond to foreign subpoenas unless validated by Brazilian courts.

[gotchange]

Does WhatsApp have any physical presence in Brazil? Did they incorporate any subsidiary there?

[andreyf]

I don't know, but for the sake of argument, I think it's OK to say no.

If I have a website that is reachable on the internet that hosts a wiki and logs access, does that mean I am doing business in all countries that have internet access? Can any of their courts compel me to disclose visitors from their country? What if I refuse to provide visitor logs, is it OK for them to block my site at the border? What about to order a private teleco to block my site?

I have opinions, but I don't see any obvious answers one way or the other.

[sangnoir]

It looks like you want to have your cake and eat it:

> If I have a website that is reachable on the internet that hosts a wiki and logs access, does that mean I am doing business in all countries that have internet access?

I'm guessing your answer to this question is "No". However, since you feel you are not doing business in Brazil (for example),then why complain when Brazil blocks your site? If your answer is "Yes" and you agree that you are in business in all countries, then you should be compelled to follow the laws of the countries whose populace are earning you wealth.

Morally and pragmatically, I feel that if you gain financial benefit from a country, you should follow their laws. If you find the laws unconscionable - refuse to do business there.

[lagadu]

> What if I refuse to provide visitor logs, is it OK for them to block my site at the border? What about to order a private teleco to block my site?

That depends exclusively on the laws of the country in question, not on the laws of the country the offender is based on. That's what a sovereign state does, it determines its own rules.

[gotchange]

All the points you raised are legitimate but if WhatsApp or any other company has a physical presence in a certain country, that country authorities have the SOVEREIGN right to uphold the laws of the land and bring transgressors to justice and offering & guaranteeing them a fair trial.