It also points to the fragility of Brazilian institutions.
back
1 comments
If the institutions were fragile, the Internet companies would just refuse to comply and block WhatsApp. The fact that they complied shows how strong the institutions are.
It's in the telcos interest to block WhatsApp, they're selling the SMS and phone calls that are used as backup.
I see telcos choosing to comply with the order instead of fighting back (like Apple) as a sign of fragility.
In countries with fragile democracies (or that have recently come out of a dictatorship, like Brazil since 1985), when people say "institutions are strong/weak" they are talking about Congress, the Legal system, Law Enforcement, etc. They are often trying to say that "the law means something" as opposed to elites/politicians/etc ruling the country as they wish, according to personal interests.
Telcos and App providers can contribute to make a democracy strong. And so do all citizens. But they aren't what is referred to by "institutions".
There is no widespread fragility in Brazilian institutions today. Recent events have shown they are strong as ever. Telcos and App providers have all their rights within the legal system to appeal the recent decision against WhatsApp and get their arguments heard. WhatsApp has already appealed to this judge's decision and this will be heard by an appeals court. This is business as usual in a legal system that is working.
I'm talking about the institutions that defend Brazilians' access to basic communications infrastructure in the face of any random judge trying to rule against mathematics.
Check the US for example, Apple was able to fight the government's request and prevail _before_ the government did anything about it, not after. In Brazil, Tim Cook would have been arrested right away.
If Brazil had an Apple equivalent, the situation would have been handled the same way. I wonder how many smaller companies in the US had to comply or die? See Lavabit [1]. I'm sure there are have been many other similar occurrences.