My apologies, but I think that if you re-read what was written, you will find that this was not suggested. The comment was written in response to one that came to the conclusion that this "was all [WhatsApp's] fault." It is suggesting that WhatsApp is not at fault, is probably strictly complying with US law, and cannot share the information in any case. At no point does it even come close to suggesting that the judge in the case should have "considered US law" in his rulings.
Moreover, I feel that your claim does not clearly differentiate between 'considering US law' as a material fact and 'considering US law' as a judicial precedent. You seem to be suggesting that someone arguing that US law ought to be held material to the case is somehow demanding that the Brazilian judiciary hold itself subservient to the US courts. You also seem to be suggesting that a Brazilian state judge has any business interpreting the law so as to "send a message" to the government of another nation, which is simply and patently untrue.
It's worse that most local judges simple don't know that there's even a problem, and even if that'a clear to them, the judge most likely has 0 experience in making a successful request to the foreign state. And since all bureaucrats if the request isn't perfect it falls through the cracks. So often (at least if you're locally present) your laywers will need to help the judge to draft and push such a request through.
Long story short: These jurisdictional issues are not at all US specific, it's everywhere. Sovereign states just don't like it all over if their citizens and companies do stuff within their borders under orders of a foreign state.
Whatsapp can choose to assign resources to this issue, or it can ignore it and let it solve itself. If Whatsapp thinks that Brazil is an interesting market for whatever it is selling (what are they selling?) or if it is good for PR then they may choose to seek ways to intervene.
When they are operating their business within the EU, yes. For example US companies operating servers in the EU must comply with EU data protection laws regarding information on those servers. This situation is analogous. WhatsApp's servers are in the US so US law applies. If the servers were in the EU then EU law would apply, not Brazilian law.
More accurately, US companies processing personal data of EU citizens must comply with EU data protection laws. It just so happens that locating the servers in the EU is among the easiest ways to comply with that.
The Brazilian case isn't about data transmission though. WhatsApp isn't in breach of any rules about that. It's about court ordered access to records stored on an server in a specific geographic location - The USA. Now if the Brazilian government passed a law requiring WhatsApp to record all data on servers in Brazil that would at least be possible to comply with.
Allowing a company to break Brazilian law because US law demands that the company break Brazilian law would absolutely put the Brazilian judiciary in a subservient position to US law.
> You also seem to be suggesting that a Brazilian state judge has any business interpreting the law so as to "send a message" to the government of another nation, which is simply and patently untrue.
Brazil decides what is and is not the business of Brazilian state judges.
It's really the only way to go. Otherwise, you get pissing matches. Brazil blocks WhatsApp. China blocks Facebook, GitHub, etc. Iran blocks so much stuff that people need to get data dumps via satellite TV. The US blocks a lot too, but mostly about gambling, "piracy", etc.
It has to do with some countries suck more, and some suck less.
Plenty of countries don't block anything. Like military aggression, child mortality, literacy rate, etc., that is one important data point about any country and its government.
If you don't know what "internet sovereignty" means, then how can you possibly claim that something had nothing to do with it?
Bad laws are bad laws. If you can avoid complying with them, you absolutely should.
I wonder if you'd say the same to Gandhi. "The law is for everyone so you can't evade taxes by making your own salt." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March
It's just as insensitive for a judge of a foreign nation to suggest that all foreigners must consider his rulings when making decisions under their own sovereign laws.
Incidentally, I wonder how the situation would be handled and what the opinion would be if some big foreign company operating in the US were shut down in the same way.
Isn't this a fair position ? Imagine you are a lone dev creating a service that has no specific limitations. You are subject to your countries law, but should also be liable under each single law of every country where your users might happen to be ?
It seems to me that countries should have the right to do what they want within their borders (including shutting down access to some services) but go the diplomatic route if they have to interact with people out of their borders.
So, in this case, "all foreigners must consider his rulings", applies only for the those who wish to keep their service working in Brazil.
If you are operating in Brazil you have to follow Brazilian laws, including judges' orders. Just because I decide to do something in the US doesn't mean it's automatically legal when I do it in Brazil.
So you're saying it's OK for Brazil to send a SWAT team to raid a house in the US? The judge's order has no validity outside his jurisdiction; just like a US judge's order has no validity in Brazil.
No.
> The judge's order has no validity outside his jurisdiction; just like a US judge's order has no validity in Brazil.
Which is why the judge only banned WhatsApp from operating in Brazil.
This is all WhatsApp's and the US's problem, not Brazil's. In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings. If anything, I think this would justify ruling against WhatsApp more harshly, as it sends the message to the US that policies which don't respect the sovereignty of Brazil will hurt US economic interests in Brazil.
That said:
> Second, apparently, the data does not exist. WhatsApp publicly stated, including in testimony before the Brazilian Congressional Committee on Cyber Crimes[2], that it does not and has not retained any message content once messages are delivered, even before the recent full roll-out of E2E. Based on these statements, it would seem that WhatsApp is indeed unable to comply with the court's request, regardless of any jurisdictional arguments.
If this is true, that's a solid argument and stands on its own.