Hacker News Reader

Comment by mankash666 | Hacker News Reader

Why is Facebook applying different standards to different countries? In Saudi Arabia, they outright disable encryption to placate the government, so why not Brazil (not that I argue for weaker encryption, but the double standards are mysterious)

View on HN

So this is about WhatsApp, not Facebook. Does WhatsApp disable encryption in Saudi Arabia?

EDIT:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/whatsapp-blocking-encrypted-calls-s...

Is this what you're referring to? This deosn't indicate that they're disabling encryption, but that they're blocking all calls to Saudi numbers. A different issue.

I read that as since Facebook owns WhatsApp, it's their decision.

Fair. But either way encryption doesn't seem to be disabled. Rather, calls are not allowed at all. Encrypted messaging still seems to be present.

Ah ok, it was confusing because Facebook has its own messaging app called Messenger, that also includes end-to-end encryption since a few days.

Brazil, supposedly, is a democratic state while Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy that must comply with Sharia.

There's an expectancy that we(I'm Brazilian) can understand and live with the consequences of Encryption, as any other democratic state.

But, in Brazil, Judges have a lot of power and they can make "undemocratic" decisions witch will be overruled by the superior instance.

Can you explain why that is true? If a superior judges keep striking the order down, doesn't a precedent get set that prevents a lower court judge from issuing a similar ruling again?

A precedent upper decision doesn't prevent a lower judge from issuing a similar ruling again until it becomes law. Brazil's legal system is based on the civil law principle, not on common law as in the US and some other countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

kawera explained pretty well.

Brazil do not follow (broadly) the stare decisis system in witch low instance judges must follow precedent upper decision.

In special repetitive cases, the Supreme Court can edit some enunciates called "súmulas vinculantes" that bind every branch of power (except legislative) to follow their statement but that's a exceptional measure.

As of today, there's only 55 "súmulas vinculantes".

Money talks.

would be interesting if its true, do you have any source to back up that claim?

I think (s)he's referring to the generic issue that businesses want to be in a given market for the reason of making money, not that they got bribed/paid off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com