Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I am more disturbed by the fact that the infrastructure was already in place to instantly block Telegram as soon as a judge ordered it.



It's been in place for decades. Nearly a decade ago I posted here on HN about brazilian judges blocking WhatsApp nationwide.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2016/05/03/whatsapp-...


Hm? Every ISP is able to block websites. This happens constantly, specially with piracy-related websites.


Yes sure. It's just very efficient apparently. More than expected for government technical stuff.


When I worked at an ISP we had standard procedures to follow when receiving requests from legal authorities. All our contacts were strictly mediated by our legal team, who filtered requests and prevented any direct contact with the authorities (which could lead to complying to illegal requests).


Pretty much the same in my country. And, as I've heard, there was surprisingly non-zero number of "invalid" requests.


Happens all the time in the UK.


The UK, along with our other closest allies (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) should be representing the position of the United States with regard to free speech. It almost seems as though our own (US) government is now opposed to free speech, even though it was identified as the top most important (ratified) right.

Note: The original first amendment was: "WE DECLARE, That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the PEOPLE; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well being. For the advancement of these ends, the PEOPLE have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government."

That one was never ratified.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: