
Brazil court blocks Facebook funds over WhatsApp dispute - ilarum
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-facebook-whatsapp-idUSKCN0ZH3EX
======
rmsaksida
This isn't as simple as it seems:

1) The investigation that led to these fines (and now to freezing Facebook's
funds) begun in January 2015, way before widespread encryption was implemented
in Whatsapp. Whatsapp received several requests to cooperate from the first
month, apparently without reply. So the argument that E2E encryption is the
reason why they do not cooperate doesn't really hold. [1]

2) On the other hand, our judges and the police have flirted with the
ridiculous notion that Whatsapp should "disable encryption for some users" or
"find a technological solution to get around encryption" (meaning: a
backdoor). [2] While this is obviously _possible_ , it is also clearly
unethical and a judge shouldn't punish the company over this possibility
without there being a large discussion - possibly laws - on the subject.

People have been quick to blame the judges because of extreme court actions,
but the truth is Whatsapp is no saint; some of these investigations could hit
high profile criminals and obviously getting to their communications would
have been a lot of help to the police, and this was possible at some point. It
isn't possible anymore, so I think what we're seeing now is a backlash from
those early requests.

[1] [http://paranaportal.uol.com.br/geral/justica-de-londrina-
blo...](http://paranaportal.uol.com.br/geral/justica-de-londrina-
bloqueia-r-195-milhoes-por-segredo-de-dados-no-whatsapp/)

[2]
[http://m.convergenciadigital.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start...](http://m.convergenciadigital.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?UserActiveTemplate=site&infoid=42533&sid=4)

~~~
madballs
behind a highly criminal drug cartel operation, there is a CIA connection...
most likely the company is being forced to cover it up to protect criminals in
high places... but that is just my conspiracy theory...

------
akerro
Does anyone think if it might have second background related to this:
[http://www.latinpost.com/articles/116806/20160226/brazils-
ns...](http://www.latinpost.com/articles/116806/20160226/brazils-nsa-avoiding-
underwater-cable-to-europe-could-be-catching-silicon-valleys-eyes.htm)

and it could be just a nasty attack on US corporation that cooperates with
NSA?

~~~
lanevorockz
I might as well be that, NSA is so unethical that it will be always polemic
and a pain for any US company. In the end apart from trillions of cost it
might as well have the same economic impact on top of that.

------
type0
> Facebook said WhatsApp does not store client messages and could not read
> them if they did because they are encrypted.

I wonder if the response would be the same if this request was coming from the
US authorities.

~~~
williamscales
One would hope so. If WhatsApp isn't lying horribly, it would be. But I
suppose we'll never know.

------
afswashere
As a Brazilian I say sorry for all the brainless judges and law makers that we
have.

~~~
meira
As a software Engineer and tech founder (and Brazillian), I say sorry for all
the brainless sh*t people from silicon valley think is right to do to other
countries systems, laws and regulations to get more rich and make you all more
poor.

~~~
rglullis
How has whatsapp/fb made you more poor?

~~~
meira
collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech
industry. Big money flowing straight to uncle sam's pocket. The worst part of
it is that FB/WPP uses the same technology to maintain an huge army of
brainless evangelists of their (and us govt) interests, making FB users think
they get more from using facebook than would receive in a local social
network. But Baidu and WeChat proves that this way of thinking is wrong: with
millions of users, is not that difficult to compete with FB, WPP or Google.

~~~
gruez
>But Baidu and WeChat proves that this way of thinking is wrong: with millions
of users, is not that difficult to compete with FB, WPP or Google.

Kinda helps if you're the only option because your foreign competitors are
blocked with the help of the government.

~~~
meira
Kinda helps if this is the option that benefits most if not all population of
the country.

~~~
rglullis
How does it benefit "most if not all"?

Does the service provided is better than any other just by the nature of being
closed?

Do the profits get shared to the users? Is the data free from surveillance or
abuse by the government?

You are starting from your value system and reaching conclusions that are
simply not there. To me it looks like WeChat is even worse for the people that
FB ot whatsapp.

~~~
meira
For you and for a lot of people, rglullis. This is the mainstream West media
thinking. But I missed your arguments proving that WeChat could be worse to
China than is FB to Brazil.

~~~
rglullis
Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at
the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments
under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of
Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not
"Western _media_ thinking". It is the core basis of Western _values
themselves_.

Also, you are moving the goal posts. I could go on for a while and give
examples on how the Big Chinese Companies are actually bad for the people -
e.g, one simple case: censorship in WeChat is worse than in FB and it is
demanded by the Government - but my question was actually "How do they benefit
'most if not all' of the population?" I mean, how any of these "benefits" are
any different that a FB user from any part of the world can't get on Facebook.
Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of
being closed?

~~~
meira
> Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or
> at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important
> arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like
> Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not
> is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values
> themselves.

Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights to who?
Do people from Africa, South Asia and Latin America fit on it?

> Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue
> of being closed?

Because they generate chinese high tech jobs and an extraordinary supply
chain. If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is
better.

~~~
rglullis
You still haven't showed any convincing argument why Facebook "hurts freedom",
at least _systemically_.

The bubbles of these gigantic social networks and the closed walled-gardens
are bad for sure, but Zuckerberg isn't the one that gets to decide what can or
not be said, and surely he is not the one persecuting anyone with dissenting
views, and much less he has a monopoly on how information can be shared, which
would allow him to control people that could spread any kind of information
that doesn't align with "Uncle Sam's interests".

> "If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is
> better."

That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same),
and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if
you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that
the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any
other competitor in case China had an open economy.

~~~
meira
> That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same),
> and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even
> if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show
> that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or
> any other competitor in case China had an open economy.

I don't have to show anything, dude, are you insane? Do you have any point
proving that WeChat, a national player, is not better for China than Facebook?
If so, tell me why because this is the beginning of the discussion.

~~~
rglullis
_You_ are the one claiming that WeChat is better. _You_ are the one that
claimed that Facebook "made you poorer". So, yes, you are the one that made
extraordinary claims, you are the one that needs to bring extraordinary proof.

Stop with the smokescreen and mirrors, and start actually defending your
principles.

~~~
meira
Man, you're nuts.

~~~
rglullis
Really? All I am asking is for you to show any kind of credible data to
support your ridiculous claims, and this is all you can come up with?

You really are a waste of my time. Maybe I am crazy for expecting any kind of
decent discussion about anything political with Brazilians on the Internet.

~~~
meira
With this attitude, I think you are crazy in any discussion. What you are
asking is proof that Shenzhen and Beijing are better for China than Silicon
Valley, and this is stupidity. You're not insane, you're dumb as hell, just
like all of brazilians liberaloides and bolsomitos. And it makes me sad to see
you guys even here in HN. The Brazilians Bro's!

~~~
rglullis
First, let's stop with the name-calling. We can do better than that. I am not
discussing with you to score internet points. I am actually trying to engage
in a conversation to see if your arguments have any merit.

Second,

> What you are asking is proof that Shenzhen and Beijing are better for China
> than Silicon Valley...

You are moving the goal posts. I am not asking for any kind of "proof" related
to Chinese cities vs Silicon Valley.

I will be very explicit:

\- You made a claim that WeChat (the company/product/service) is better for a
Chinese than Facebook is for "anyone else in the global market", e.g,
countries were Facebook can operate.

\- I am asking for a _argument_ for your claim.

\- So far, you have done all but providing any reasonable idea that could
support your claim.

\- In another part of the thread you started with the premises of
protectionism and lacked any kind of conclusion, and others already tried to
show how that is flawed.

So, let me try once again. Please, explain _why_ is it better, and _how_ does
WeChat benefit "most if not all" Chinese people? How does an ordinary Chinese
citizen benefits more from a Chinese-only, Government-controlled social
network, and what is there that Facebook couldn't offer as well in a scenario
where the market could be open?

Third, I understand that you think that a closed, protectionist policy is
better for the people than an open, global economy. But it seems to me that
you are arguing in circles - "WeChat has more users in China, WeChat is
controlled by the Government and closed, Government control makes it easier
for "national companies", therefore "national companies" are better for the
users". I am trying to clarify is how you would argue that WeChat, _by virtue
of being closed and protected by the Chinese Government_ , can be better than
the other services.

Fourth, you've said things here that are _provably_ wrong - e.g, the thing
about taxes being reduced during FHC. When you are getting such basic
information wrong, couldn't you _at the very least_ check your sources and re-
evaluate some of your preconceptions? Could you be so kind and show _just a
little bit of humility_ and take a look at if you are engaging in an
intellectually honest conversation?

~~~
meira
Man, you're completely insane, and I'm going to answer you for the last time
only to keep at least a minimum of coherence in this "discussion" if someone
reads it in the future.

> First, let's stop with the name-calling. We can do better than that. I am
> not discussing with you to score internet points. I am actually trying to
> engage in a conversation to see if your arguments have any merit.

You were the one that jumped into the discussion name-calling, so I'll agree
with you in letting it go.

> \- I am asking for a argument for your claim.

Tencent (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses² in high tech
jobs. Facebook don't here 1/10 of it in any of the countries they operate
besides US. This is one company, so you have indirectly another hundreds of
thousands of jobs, in education, in infrastructure, in services to attend this
well-paid people. This is my "one argument" for the claim. Please, if you're
going to dismiss it, do it properly, with good argument and references.

> hird, I understand that you think that a closed, protectionist policy is
> better for the people than an open, global economy. But it seems to me that
> you are arguing in circles - "WeChat has more users in China, WeChat is
> controlled by the Government and closed, Government control makes it easier
> for "national companies", therefore "national companies" are better for the
> users"

I never made these claims and I can only repeat myself saying that you are
retard.

> Fourth, you've said things here that are provably wrong - e.g, the thing
> about taxes being reduced during FHC. When you are getting such basic
> information wrong, couldn't you at the very least check your sources and re-
> evaluate some of your preconceptions? Could you be so kind and show just a
> little bit of humility and take a look at if you are engaging in an
> intellectually honest conversation?

Do you have real understandings of economics and politics? Or you are more or
less aligned with the average? Do you understand the implications of making 1
REAL worth 1 DOLLAR? And how FHC made it artificially, and just after que got
reelected, he undervaluated our currency to 4/1², making all of our debts in
dollar (most of it, of course haha) explode! Are you saying serious that you
understand what happened that time?

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent)

2\. [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/01/business/international-
bus...](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/01/business/international-business-
brazil-devaluation-changes-the-trading-bloc-picture.html)

~~~
rglullis
You say you will drop the name-calling _after_ saying again that I am insane,
and in another paragraph calls me "retard". Are you sure you willing to "let
it go" or are you keep taking cheap jabs with the name calling?

Anyway, let's have another round of a friendly debate. Shall we?

> _I never made these claims_ (about protectionism and WeChat) and _Tencent
> (owner of Wechat) Employs more then 30,000 chineses (sic) (...) this is my
> one argument_

You might not have realized, but when you say that WeChat is better for China
(because it creates jobs and whatnot), you are _exactly_ claiming that
protectionist policies are good for the country.

We could have a longer debate about that (protectionism vs open market
economic policies), but this has NOTHING to do with my original question. My
question is "why is WeChat better _for the users_ compared to Facebook? What
makes WeChat better _due to being closed and protected by the government?_

You keep going to this argument related to it being "beneficial for the
Country", I am talking about it being beneficial to the _users that live in
that country_. Do you see the difference?

\--

Regarding "real understandings of economics and politics": again, you are
using bad data, and even if you were using the right data you still are
reaching wrong conclusions that any honest economist would be able to point it
out.

I don't know if you are doing this out of intellectual dishonesty or just
confusion, but let me point a few examples:

\- The article you _linked_ says clearly that the devaluation post-FHC-
reelection (1998) was of 40%. So the USD went to R$1,40, not $4,50 as you
wrote.

\- The problem with the artifical parity of USD:BRL and subsequent devaluation
is not related to the cost of debt "in dollars". The problem was actually the
opposite! The debt kept growing and the austerity policies kept being pushed
_to keep_ the BRL artifically strong. If we had then a free-floating exchange
rate (like we have now), then the dollar price would rise, our exports would
increase and we _might_ have been able to keep a better trade balance.

The reason we didn't do any of that was that FHC Government needed to control
inflation, and the only way that was possible by controlling the exchange rate
and adjusting the budget. It was a bitter pill to swallow, but it was one that
was very much needed. Had we not done that then, we would probably be today in
a situation similar to Venezuela, completely in shambles.

\- You still haven't retracted yourself in regards with the tax rate during
FHC years. If you don't believe me, I will even give you a very pro-left
source ([http://jornalggn.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-aumento-de-
imposto...](http://jornalggn.com.br/blog/luisnassif/o-aumento-de-impostos-no-
brasil)) to check it out.

\--

To close up: I would appreciate very much if you could read carefully what I
am writing instead of just (1) calling me names, (2) ignoring others that
point out your factual mistakes and (3) trying to "win" by piling more and
more about things that are not related to what was originally asked.

And this thread is already getting too deep, so if you really want to continue
this you can send me an email, just take a look at my "about" section here.

~~~
meira
Hahaha. Man! Read your stuff again, and read what I said. Try to find a way to
conciliate both. It is impossible! You even put things that didn't show up
there, here, like $4.50. Why you took it so personal? Stop writing all these
nonsense posing as if you were writing anything useful. You just take
everything and say: "isn't this that I'm asking". Guess what? Nobody cares for
what you are asking. Actually, you can't even say it, I think. And I didn't
say I wouldn't call you names, you're completely insane, retard, this
discussion has no logic and I __REALLY __don 't understand why you made it so
deep and long, talking about so many different things like a retard in all of
that. To point one of the most retard arguments: did the USD raise only to
R$1.40?

Vou postar isso aqui em portugues, que te explica direitinho a crise do real e
como ela é o oposto dessa porcaria que você tentou escrever em ingles:
[https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desvaloriza%C3%A7%C3%A3o_do_re...](https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desvaloriza%C3%A7%C3%A3o_do_real_em_1999)

"Para manter este sistema funcionando por mais tempo foi necessário injetar
algumas dezenas de bilhões de dólares na manutenção do câmbio semi-fixo e das
altas taxas de juros. Parte destes recursos vieram do aumento da dívida
externa, que no período 1994-2000 saltou de US$ 120 bilhões para US$ 250
bilhões [3] . Outra parte veio dos processos de privatização das empresas
estatais, que resultou na desnacionalização de empresas e serviços. Muitos
economistas criticavam a manutenção de um câmbio valorizado por tanto tempo,
já que a estabilização da inflação havia sido alcançada já em 1995."

Eu já sei que você é um retardado, mas se você acha que se endividar, manter o
dolar aritificialmente a 1 real (jogando o preço dos produtos estrangeiros lá
embaixo, ou seja: subsdiando a importação) é austeridade, não há nada que
ninguém possa dizer pra você, rs.

------
mikeweiss
Facebook just doesn't care, peanuts to them, plain and simple.

~~~
Scarbutt
Not if they block whatsapp.

------
edpichler
So difficult to a judge understand what is encryption.

~~~
toomuchtodo
So difficult for a tech company to understand what government jurisdiction is.

~~~
edpichler
The crime will happen no matter what tool they use. If there is no privacy on
WhatsApp, they will send messages with any other software.

Encrypted messengers apps will be always available, because they are need for
legal purposes.

If we follow the logic of this judge, all car and beer companies should be
accountable for the drivers that kill driving drunk.

Please, tell me that I am wrong.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I do not disagree that encryption will always exist.

I'm stating that a commercial organization can be held liable and have action
taken against it for running a messenger that violates the law of where it
operates.

People torrent, but you would not expect a commercial torrent service to last
very long if the law prohibits it. The technology can exist, but an entity
formed within the framework of a government's regulations (in this case, a
company) cannot run it.

Am I wrong?

~~~
Spivak
The question is whether a media sharing service that operates in a country
with no IP laws is required to either obey laws of countries that do or take
reasonable measures to prevent citizens of such countries from accessing the
service.

