People are saying WhatsApp are lawbreakers, etc. That heavily implies that they've done something wrong - which would mean that they are indeed subject to these laws in some shape or fashion.
I would argue that this is a dangerous thought process to have. It's a scary precedent - blocking WhatsApp is relatively mild, but what about if they wanted extradition?
It's also encouraging a world where anyone with an internet accessible site or business is now having to somehow keep track of every applicable law in every internet accessible location.
WhatsApp is a US based business that has not broken any US laws. They've done nothing wrong from that perspective. They can't be breaking laws they're not subject to.
Brazil can control what is and isn't allowed in their country, and you can say that the service did not comply with their laws, and thus the ban - but WhatsApp still isn't a lawbreaking company.
I think the distinction between the two is vital.
1. Sovereign countries have a right to formulate laws and uphold them to protect their citizens.
2. Companies can choose where they do business. In most cases, the relationship with host countries is symbiotic (benefits include skilled employees/employment, taxes).
No one is suggesting that WhatsApp is breaking the law, however, Brazil requires WhatApps cooperation in a criminal investigation (criminal, by Brazilian law). WhatApp chose not to cooperate. Brazil's judiciary have come up with leverage to gain that cooperation, in the absence of more effective means (arresting WhatApp officers if they had an office in Brazil, as a US would in a Contempt of Court charge)
IMO, legally this is similar to the UK using ISPs to block the Pirate Bay - it's perfectly legal in Sweden.
Extreme example: the US would be entirely within their rights to block an Italian porn sites that has videos of 15 year-olds. The company won't be "lawbreakers", but they are not welcome on US's cyperspace
Actually you have in most cases as trade agreements and various treaties usually provide the framework to extend laws and regulations between countries.
Gambling sites for example wether they are run from the UK, Malta or CAR explicitly block US users due to US laws which prevent online gambling.
If you are running a gambling site even in some 3rd world non extradition country if you do not respect the UIGEA you'll be sanctioned and an arrest warrant will be issued faster than you can say poker stars.
Gambling sites are an interesting choice for making this point, because even for prominent cases like like FTP it is hardly a matter of international agreement. In fact, Antigua and Barbuda have previously successfully beaten the US in WTO courts over this very matter - prosecuting gambling site operators in other countries.
http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/u-s-could-face-world-trade-org...
"Two years later, the WTO ruled that the U.S. had violated international agreements on trade in services by prosecuting the operators of offshore internet gambling sites. The WTO rejected the U.S. stance that the restrictions were necessary to protect public morality and Antigua was subsequently awarded a settlement of $21 million from the U.S. as compensation."
Extradition is also by no means assured - Calvin Ayre is still quite comfortable up in Canada, despite the indictment and extradition requests.
UIGEA is also more of a problem for banking institutions. Online poker, for example, is not illegal in the US. The UIGEA is largely banking regulations, and these sites are explicitly blocking US users because they cannot interact with US banks.
We also have poker sites returning in several states, such as NJ, NV, etc.
But in general, these big international gambling sites don't deal with US players because financially it makes no sense, and many of them want to visit the US without getting arrested. It's not because they think they're going to get extradited on the next plane flight.
To bring it back around to the Brazil discussion, I doubt there's as much concern in the WhatsApp offices about not being able to visit Brazil.
They only have to comply if they don't want to be blocked.
"If I run, say, a porn site, hosted in the US, as a US company, is it my responsibility to prevent users in a country where pornography is illegal from using my site? Do I have any duty to comply with said country requesting the identity and viewing history of citizens living in it? "
Generally not, as long as you are not going to travel to that country and subject yourself to personal jurisdiction ;-)
"Of course not. That country can certainly block my site if their laws allow them to, but the idea that whatsapp /has/ to comply is ridiculous. "
Errr, they have to comply or be blocked from brazil's perspective, and that's what the poster said. It doesn't sound like you disagree with that, so i'm not clear on what you are arguing for ...