To repeat what everyone else has said: The data doesn't exist on whatsapp's servers.
Now I know the law's position is basically "do what we say or we'll punish you until you comply - and we'll simply ignore you until you figure out a way to do so".
Obviously that's literally impossible for data that doesn't exist anymore, but of course it's technically possible to comply with these laws in the future. And I think that's a bigger problem here - that governments want to turn companies into surveillance tools. It's like telling the postal service to open and scan every single letter - which would have sounded pretty bad in the past, but nowadays that's somehow okay. Not because morals have changed but because it's feasible now.
Following/enforcing laws is generally a good thing, but since we live in a human society and not a robot one, things like that get fuzzy around the edges. Let's imagine an extreme, outlandish case where some odd and unforeseen circumstances in poorly written laws lead to a judge being able to order nuclear attacks on several cities of their own country. I'd want the judge to hold off on that and maybe wait for the legislature to catch up with the will of the people - which is not to die in millions.
Whatsapp isn't exactly a matter of life and death (at least I hope it isn't), but maybe this is a case where values like common sense, the common good and the interests of hundreds of millions of people weigh more than maybe locking up some stupid drug dealer.
I completely disagree with "If they disobey the law, it must have consequences, no matter how big and important to brazilian society they are.". That's the kind of idiocy that emerges right when society ends up working for the benefit of its government instead of the other way around.
If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
> If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
Totally agree. This is unfortunately a very authoritarian world of view that is not uncommon.
This has mothing to do with authoritarianism. Upholding the law itself is important. If everybody ignores the law all the time you'll have a pretty shitty society.
The Brazilian people have a clear option, vote for officials who have no problem with communication encryption. The solution is not to circumvent the parliamentary democratic process.
> If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
I am shocked so many of you agree with this. If it is forbidden to kill people, you have done something very bad and everyone else wants to kill you, they are still not allowed. (They may change the law and kill you then but for now, they are not allowed.) This is called justice.
> If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.
Sir/Ma'am: you get my gratitude for voicing this. People do forget why we have laws in the first place.
Now I know the law's position is basically "do what we say or we'll punish you until you comply - and we'll simply ignore you until you figure out a way to do so".
Obviously that's literally impossible for data that doesn't exist anymore, but of course it's technically possible to comply with these laws in the future. And I think that's a bigger problem here - that governments want to turn companies into surveillance tools. It's like telling the postal service to open and scan every single letter - which would have sounded pretty bad in the past, but nowadays that's somehow okay. Not because morals have changed but because it's feasible now.
Following/enforcing laws is generally a good thing, but since we live in a human society and not a robot one, things like that get fuzzy around the edges. Let's imagine an extreme, outlandish case where some odd and unforeseen circumstances in poorly written laws lead to a judge being able to order nuclear attacks on several cities of their own country. I'd want the judge to hold off on that and maybe wait for the legislature to catch up with the will of the people - which is not to die in millions.
Whatsapp isn't exactly a matter of life and death (at least I hope it isn't), but maybe this is a case where values like common sense, the common good and the interests of hundreds of millions of people weigh more than maybe locking up some stupid drug dealer.
I completely disagree with "If they disobey the law, it must have consequences, no matter how big and important to brazilian society they are.". That's the kind of idiocy that emerges right when society ends up working for the benefit of its government instead of the other way around.
If your position is unpopular with your friends, then it's because you think the law is more important than the entire society it's supposed to protect.