That's the problem with all these judicial orders. They think it's a flip of the switch to comply. Why don't the courts provide the money to build the services and infrastructure to comply with the order?
that's how the legislative and judiciary branches think here in Brazil, write the problems away with a law. it called 'canetada'.
It's wonderful to have a succinct word for a concept like that; I wish there were such a word in English. Do you have any background information about the origins and meaning of this word?
Whacking someone with a wooden stick ("pau") is a "paulada". Kicking a ball ("bola") on someone is a "bolada". Poking someone with a pin ("alfinete") is a "alfinetada".
Therefore, using a pen ("caneta") indiscriminately becomes a "canetada".
The same word would be used if you threw the pen at someone's head, so there's that.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/29/fbi-hacki...
"if they don't like the laws they shouldn't access the market"
That is something the HN crowd does not seem to understand/respect. Most of us enjoy the personal protection of the law yet we want to whip up a webapp and have no laws apply to us.
There are people in Brazil who have downloaded the application, and those people are connecting OUT to WhatsApp, which is operating in America.
So all the Brazilian government can do, is BLOCK its own people from accessing WhatsApp through the Internet.
The question is, should the Brazilian government have the right to block websites that it doesn't want its people to be able to see?
Ultimately that's a problem for Brazilian domestic politics, and also a greater issue of human rights. After all, that's how we describe it when discussing the Great Firewall of China.
A company cannot provide data that it does not have and has no way of acquiring.