I also found it interesting that Facebook's lawyers (which appears to be from https://www.zwillgen.com/) asked for:
> If possible, please provide responses in English as that will significantly improve our ability to analyze and process your request in a timely manner.
> 1. Is this a criminal matter?
> 2. What organization is conducting the investigation (Federal Police, Civil Police, Prosecutor’s Office)?
> 3. What is the nature of the crime being investigated (corruption, drug trafficking, gun violence/homicide, child exploitation, terrorism, etc.)?
> 4. What are the specific WhatsApp accounts that are the target of this legal process (including all applicable country codes)? > > 5. What data are you requesting for each of the targets listed above?
I wonder if this was only to keep internal statistics.
I think I'm with the judge on this one. I found this really lazy and of bad taste on Facebook's part. The firm representing Facebook won't afford a translator for one of their top 3 countries (I'm guessing) in number of Whatsapp users? Really?
Insensitive and foolish move on Facebook's part, sure, but come on. Let's put things in context here...
Doesn't change the fact Facebook lawyers are in the wrong when it comes to this specific issue (and, of course, that doesn't mean the judge is right about everything else).
You conduct business in the language of the land. If you don't speak it, hire someone who does to translate for you.
A question to ask politicians "How do you outlaw math?".
Plenty of countries outlaw certain uses of words, which is not much different.
I'll go be sick in the corner now from writing the truth of it.
> We are only requesting disabling cryptography and intercepting data, mirroring messages real time in one of the ways suggested by the Ministério Público [1] - in addition to forwarding the messages received by the user but not yet encrypted; in other words, the exchanged messages must be forwarded in real time before encryption is implemented, in a manner similar to phone tapping.
(This is a direct quote from the court order.)
This is ridiculous. Judges shouldn't have the power to force software authors to install backdoors. Nobody should. What's next? Outlawing encryption?
[0] http://jota.uol.com.br/justica-rj-determina-novo-bloqueio-wh...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Prosecutor%27s_Office_(...