It seems to me that they did comply with Brazilian law. They handed over all the conversations they had — zero. Is there a law that says they have to record all the conversations?
I don't remember if those comments had sources, but I've seen that in various comments in this thread. There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around.
Do they operate in Brazil? They apparently have no offices there and are only available over the internet (as is true of all websites throughout most of the world.) How can anyone expect to hold what amounts to a random IP address on the internet responsible for anything?
This argument looks like it can also be applied to even malware. If I put something illegal doesn't has the judges right to stop the distribution of that app in the country?
Another question is if what Watsapp did should be illegal. But if the judges can't stop internet companies from doing something illegal who do you thing should do it?
No, he does not have that right. By that same logic brazilians shouldn't be allowed to visit websites from any other country where there's a discrepancy with brazilian law. With a government like ours next thing you know we have our own Great Firewall.
This kind of thing can't even be enforced, being so easy to bypass.
No it's not a minor detail, because it's easy to bypass, specially if its a decentralized service. Nevertheless its an outrageous retrenchment of our freedom.
they have bank accounts and deals with many tel co to operate as they do in each country they are.
you do not get pre-installed on the three biggest mobile operators phones (99.9% of market) and get deals where data to your service do not count as part of the limited data-plan on two of them, by just "being an IP address on the web".
Right now, it's more of a benefit to phone manufacturers to pre-install whatsapp than it is to whatsapp itself.
Same goes for the telcos. Offering free whatsapp and Facebook is a thing. And it's not because whatsapp had a "deal". It's because the telcos want more users.
Developing countries eat that up. People explicitly want to see whatsapp support or they don't buy the phone and many terrible devices have been sold on this premise.
Source: 20+yrs on the online advertising industry.
Nothing that lives of ads or telecomunication companies survive only by "serving the user". The telco only pre-install something on the device if: A. they are paid upfront, B. if they get a percentage of the ads.
yeah, serving the user is good, but remember that you are talking about companies that charges for SMS. the day they have to rely on "pleasing the user" hell will freeze over. They rely on regional monopoly, just like in the US.
We have a clear market leader, but it's by no means a monopoly.
People constantly switch network providers here since we have number portability.
My wife, me and many of our friends switched to Vodafone cos they were offering a really great Internet package.
Free Whatsapp, Facbook, Twitter, Instagram,and Snapchat plus 3.5 GB for what's essentially $9 a month. Here that's unbeatable and unheard of. http://support.vodafone.com.gh/customer/portal/articles/1813...
I doubt all these services are paying for for Vodafone to do this.
you can't do that in brazil without having the papers to do business there. in fact, you can't even sell anything without the right documents. Just like everywhere else.
I don't know portuguese so I didn't actually read what the deal is.
Is this a service where subscribers pay the carrier a fee for 30 days of unlimited data traffic to whatsapp servers (VoIP excluded) + 50M of data ?
If yes, does that constitute a transaction the consumer makes directy to whatsapp via the operator? I understand that likely whatsapp and TIM (an Italian company btw) might have made some deal and exchanged some money for the use of whatsapp logo etc, but I guess that transaction could have been done anywhere.
My apps are in the Danish Google Play and Apple App Store...
I never been there, I don't read or write danish, I never interacted with danish government, or met any danish person.
If the dane government wanted something from me, and sent a letter to some random person, written in danish, even if it reaches me, I wouldn't understand it anyway.
Thus, having app in some other country store doesn't prove much, except that you clicked "publish" somewhere on Google or Apple uploading interfaces.
> except that you clicked "publish" somewhere on Google or Apple uploading interfaces.
At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations.
A famous example of someone operating legally under local law, but who got prosecuted for having merely a website accessible in another country, was Kim Dotcom.
That’s the current state of international law, either lobby to change it, or accept it, but don't ignore it.
>>At which point you agree to adhere to their laws and regulations.
Uhm nope. If my app(published on Apple Store/Google Play) violated a law in Saudi Arabia and they sent me a letter requesting me to appear and subject myself to 100 lashes for violating their law, I would very promptly disregard said letter, to put it politely.
You might do this and then you get convicted in absentia, Saudi Arabia will send a request for extradiction, your country will say no, done.
Except: better not travel to Saudi Arabia or any other country that will extradict. Also Saudi Arabia will propably ban your App, which is what is happening in Brasil.
> You might do this and then you get convicted in absentia, Saudi Arabia will send a request for extradiction, your country will say no, done. Except: better not travel to Saudi Arabia or any other country that will extradict.
And that is the problem. You can't actually expect people to hire lawyers from 108 different countries to see if their app is legal in each of them just because they're going to distribute it on the internet, to say nothing of what happens when two countries have mutually contradictory laws (e.g. privacy vs. data retention). And a person who goes to see the Great Pyramids shouldn't have to worry about being hauled off to Saudi Arabia and then stoned to death because their app doesn't prohibit blasphemy.
> Also Saudi Arabia will propably ban your App, which is what is happening in Brasil.
Which only increases the proliferation of tools to bypass the restriction.
VW has an actual office in the US - it's not VW Germany selling cars in the US, but VW America.
If you purchased a VW car in Germany and had it shipped over to the US it would be on YOU to make sure it complies with all requirements of your country, not Volkswagen's.
They have every right to pull your app, arrest you and prosecute you if you ever do go to their country, and apply to have your extradited under relevant treaties.
While I agree that whipping someone, execution via stoning, and other punishments are inhuman and no country has the right to exact them, I stand by my point in general.
I can’t sell medical marihuana in most states of the US – and I don’t go and try, and then complain about getting arrested.
Instead, if I wanted to start a business doing that, I’d check out where it would be legal, and in which ways, and sell my product in those markets.
Why do you assume you can sell your product in markets without having checked the legality, and then complain when they ban your product because it violates the local law?
Hmmmm your example isn't exactly valid. If I was selling something on ebay out of EU, and you ordered something from me to US, I would almost definitely not get in trouble for sending it to you, unless it was an item which has export restrictions from my country. Or to go back to my example of Saudi Arabia - if someone from Saudi Arabia bought something from me I would definitely absolutely not bother to check if what I'm sending is legal in there. If it isn't, then customs will confiscate it and the person buying it will be in trouble, most likely.
My point was - is there any reason why I, as a developer, should not check "all countries" when publishing an app? If Saudi Arabia wants to ban my app later - let them, I literally don't care.
If you sell in another country you are subject to their laws, an obvious example is consumer protection laws. This is a fact. Whether or not you are going to follow any rulings made against you is another matter, in that case all the country can do is try to block you in whichever way they can (like Brazil just did) and possibly prosecute you in absentia.
But...I'm not selling anything in another country. I'm advertising online and someone who bought the item asked me to ship it to Saudi Arabia - sure, whatever. I don't have an office there or a business presence. How would they prosecute me? What for? Their citizen bought something from me and then had it delivered to their home in Saudi Arabia - if he's breaking the law, then it's on him. Now cut out the post from this equation - imagine he came over here, bought the item from me and brought it back with him - how would I be held responsible for what he is doing with the item and where he is taking it?
And yes, consumer protection laws absolutely still apply. The laws of my country - if my country says that I have to give him 2 years warranty - of course he gets 2 years warranty. If his country says a seller can be subject to 100 lashes for selling prohibited materials - they can go and try executing this, I wish them all best luck.
Because if you're not willing to do the legwork to see if your app is following the letter of the law in those countries, you may be subjected to being banned due to violation of said laws.
That's not really an argument. Go ahead and ban it. There's no reason anyone should preemptively ban themselves just because someone else wants them banned.
It's a bit like saying "You should hang yourself, because if you don't, I'll hang you." The proper response is "get on with it then."
> A famous example of someone operating legally under local law, but who got prosecuted for having merely a website accessible in another country, was Kim Dotcom.
That's a pretty shit example, given everything that happened around that case.
The app stores operate there as distributors. Just because my product is distributed somewhere by a third party doesn't necessarily mean I operate there.
If an art dealer sells a painting to someone in brazil, does it mean the original artist operates in Brazil?
I think the difference is that you /knowingly/ (to an extent) sell your app to Brazil. If you sell your art depicting, say, women in power to Saudia Arabia to someone here and they move to Saudia Arabia and sell it, it's not your fault. But if you told him it's ok to sell that painting in Saudia Arabia, I would assume you can be held liable.
(Not that I agree with that, but that's what it looks like)
In the artist/dealer scenario, only the latter is actually under the legal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia and could be legally compelled to follow a court order. They can choose to hold anyone liable but their legal and practical ability to compel an entity to comply doesn't extend beyond their state unless they have an agreement with another state.
Apple has a corporate office in Brazil (google too) and they're the ones who distribute and approve the application for sale there. They're legally required (I assume) to respond to legal notice they're served with. WhatsApp is not legally required to do so, and others have pointed out that it might not even be legally feasible for them to do so.
Of course this situation is more complex because obviously Apple doesn't have the data and I doubt Brazil wants to get into a legal battle with Apple. And although Brazil doesn't have the ability to force WhatsApp to comply with anything, they do have the leverage of being able to shut down their service. Should make for an interesting story to follow.
At the very minimum, if they had served Apple/Google instead, they would have had a legal requirement to actually respond. I don't know much about the actual case so these are mostly assumptions.
The judge cares. Because the basic tenet of a Republic is the separation of powers, a Judge is not allowed to decide whether or not a law is fair or good for the people; that decision falls on the legislative branch.
I think this is a bad law by the way. Hopefully the clearly negative impact it is having will lead to it's reform.