|
|
|
|
|
|
by rubidium
3844 days ago
|
|
|
First time I've read something by you I completely disagree with. "If they want to provide a communication service here, the law is clear that they must abide by judicial orders that allow wiretapping in very specific cases." I didn't the grandparent to be complaining. Simply stating that they are upholding the law of the country, which WhatsApp decided to ignore. The fact that it had massive popular adaption means WhatsApp may decide it should play ball, or the citizens of the country will get the laws changed. All of this is GOOD and indicates a WELL functioning society. Nothing is broken or bad because an App gets banned. |
|
|
That's scary. Well, there is a first time for everything.
> Simply stating that they are upholding the law of the country, which WhatsApp decided to ignore.
Have a read:
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/brazi...
Brazil is not exactly a paragon of virtue when it comes to police force and legal affairs. Let's give the GGP a free pass for being entirely of 'good intentions', that still leaves you with a police apparatus that is involved in, amongst other things, unlawful killings and the use of torture, they rank 69th on the world corruption index, roughly around the region of such examples of upstanding morality with the authorities of Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Italy.
If this were North-Korea or China everybody would be cheering on Whatsapp and FB for making a stand and not cooperating with the authorities.
Companies can make it easy on themselves by avoiding hard choices on which regimes to support in their quest for wire-tapping and which not by not having a footprint in a jurisdiction where such abuses are common and at the same time make it has hard as possible technically to actually cooperate in the first place. What you can't do you also can't be compelled to do.
The people of Brazil then have the option to make the use of such software illegal or not.