News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Annoyed at crypto, Brazilian judge orders mobile carriers to block WhatsApp. Parent comment

Re:Annoyed at crypto, Brazilian judge orders mobile carriers... by kringdom89 on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @02:41PM (#12123807)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Annoyed at crypto, Brazilian judge orders mobile carriers... by cassieramen on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @02:59PM (#12123964)
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?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Annoyed at crypto, Brazilian judge orders mobile carriers... by kawera on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @03:04PM (#12123995)
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

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Annoyed at crypto, Brazilian judge orders mobile carriers... by kringdom89 on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @03:29PM (#12124174)
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".

[ Parent | on HN ]