Whatsapp blocked in Brazil! Lets put MaidSafe to work ASAP!

Hey guys,

Look what is happening around here:

We NEED MaidSafe ASAP! :smiley:


Nice move by the government thugs!

It’s an about-face from last year, when President Dilma Rousseff approved Marco Civil, a groundbreaking Internet “Bill of Rights”, as a response to the Snowden revelations that the NSA was spying on Brazil. The landmark bill, Brazil’s first internet legislation, protects net neutrality, user privacy and freedom of speech.

I wonder if this looks familiar to government fans from the EU :smile:

1 Like


And I guess I’m going to be that guy (both now and as long as I need to be), but let’s get the protocols working before we “put them to work”. But I do agree that we should continue to make progress on making them work.


Before rushing to judgement here - this is a temporary ban isn’t it (not checked the link but I read 48 hours earlier - so what’s the reason given?)

Also, another report today said Brazilian politicians who are currently under investigation for corruption had been using Wickr.

So does anyone know if these two issues might be related - for example, to enable the collection of evidence of corruption in government? That’s pure speculation on my part, but seems like an interesting coincidence.

1 Like

Their going to have to learn new ways of investigation once the network is up. It’s going to make for an interesting world for sure (both good and bad).


Well it is a court, ordering this due to snaps
WhatsApp being uncooperative with a criminal investigation. [edited :] It’s a different investigation - drug trafficking - but it’s a bit rich to see Mr Zuckerberg weighing in on the side of a mission to “protect people’s data”:

Mr Zuckerberg was also highly critical of the ruling.

“This is a sad day for Brazil. Brazilians have always been among the most passionate in sharing their voice online,” he wrote.

“I am stunned that our efforts to protect people’s data would result in such an extreme decision by a single judge to punish every person in Brazil who uses WhatsApp.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35119235

Personally I’m in favor of things like court approved search warrants and access to communications when it is proportionate and accountability is effective. The problem for me is that what we have is little of either, a rapidly decreasing chance of effecting political change.

1 Like

just out of curiosity, what if a court send you a warrant to put some kind of backdoor to break the safePress users’ communications? What would you do? By participating on a project which aims to fight against government intrusion on the internet, I think you wouldn’t do it. But your sentence makes me wonder.

Please don’t take this as offensive to whatever you believe, I’m just curious and ignorant enough to not understand how these 2 ideas can work together :wink:


I’m pretty sure no matter what @happybeing would think about it, the code should be open source so we could know if any change like this is ever made. If a change like this was done I bet it wouldn’t take long for other folks to quickly fork and move on without such a backdoor. (That doesn’t say anything about current data the app has access to. Good question and things to consider when we dev this stuff. In fact I think in some instances great care should be taken that access to any data entered into an app can be removed by its author.)


That’s the best comment I’ve read here in December. :smile:

I wonder about the same (no HB in particular, but this kind of attitude among bitcoin and other crypto users) over and over, but I burned all the patience that I once had so I can’t be so subtle these days.

Another thing - and like you I have to say as well I’m not trying to be critical or judgmental, I’m just wondering - how can anyone here (the founders, for example) hope that any government would use MaidSafe without having control over it?
I noticed that after earlier interactions with the health guys, MaidSafe has applied for some EU grants (funding, whatever). I hope they get it - better them than some projects that are working against the people and if you don’t think the EU would finance such projects just look at those projects for data mining of social networks (aka the new police state surveillance infrastructure) - but unlike the surveillance stuff, it’s unrealistic to expect that any government will actually use the network. I wish it was the opposite.

I want to make it clear I’m not singling you out @happybeing. We have known each other long enough on here for you to know it’s not personal I hope. I think we could substitute government snoop backdoors with advertisers gathering user data and you and I are then on the same page again :wink: Users need total control of their data, even within apps. Now if a comment or something is “public” nothing stops snoopers, but conversations between private parties and what not; that’s a different story. What is in the data >> app protocol to handle this? What data does an app have access to and how. (this might be a new thread to start).

[quote=“chadrickm, post:8, topic:6378”]
In fact I think in some instances great care should be taken that access to any data entered into an app can be removed by its author.)[/quote]

This, by the way, is the main argument against taking advantage of the cheaper public shares for personal (encrypted) backup. (If space on public shares will be cheaper).

If the SAFE Network is as secure as we believe it will be I can’t think of a reason why the UK Govt (or any other for that matter) would not use it. They recently announced their intention to pour £165 million into cyber security, it’s likely that they would pick up something that is effectively free.


I liked this…what’s everyone’s problem with it…lol[quote=“dyates, post:7, topic:6378”]
just out of curiosity, what if a court send you a warrant to put some kind of backdoor to break the safePress users’ communications? What would you do?
I think the proviso @happybeing provided, ie "when it is proportional."would perhaps give an indication:as to his response…just speculating… :smiley:
I believe a distinction between “targeted” and “blanket” surveillance is perhaps being made. If @happybeing means what I think, then like him I’m OK with targeted surveillance and the issue of backdoors doesn’t really come into it. :smiley:


No offence, it’s a very important question and I’m glad to answer it.

Firstly on the principle, I doubt that I’d regard this as proportionate, though I’d listen to the arguments if they were available. I don’t think backdoors are necessary, sensible or proportionate, so I’m very unlikely to see it as being a reasonable request, and so not something I would do willingly.

I don’t think I’d flippantly say I’d be willing to go to prison rather than do this, but it’s definitely a possibility - if I thought I could make a difference by so doing.

However, I think SAFEpress makes this scenario easy to defend against, and therefore unlikely to be attempted - backdoors achieve nothing if they are public knowledge, or easily avoided, which I’m sure they would be in this case. Moreso than if one was to be inserted into SAFEnetwork core.

This is not just because SAFEpress will be open source. It will be javascript in the browser, and anyone can, and would normally make their own copy of this. To insert a backdoor in this world be very easily discovered - no need to decompile, or to build it yourself, compare hashes etc Just Ctrl-U and there is the source code. I don’t know if you understand code, but a backdoor in browser javascript would stick out like a sore thumb - very different to putting one somewhere inside the SAFEnetwork core (although I think that would also be very difficult to hide - so also unlikely to be attempted) .

Can you explain why you think this. Governments are increasingly using open source, and outside of the USA, they’ve never had control of the software from Microsoft for example. I think as @nicklambert does about this.

1 Like

Because it’s about data not sending out emails or assigning DHCP addresses.

Once they put data on the network they cannot control who accesses it. Nor see if anyone does!

Imagine Snowden taking a trip to Hong Kong and leisurely downloading all data without anyone having a clue he’s doing it.
Or any government employee, for that matter, who remembers his credentials from work. Zero chance to get caught, zero proof of data leak.

I can’t imagine a single example in which a government would want to use Safe Network except for public data.

Secondary portal applications could be designed by these agencies to monitor and fetter access. Much in the same way they currently do though with a greater degree of security. The data map can be obfuscated by the portal program and credentials refreshed with daily issuance for further control of access. An agency client group quorum could be designed to prevent protocol modification by any one person. This leaves enough of a trail to make usage of SAFE viable. There are many ways to build in accountability. Snowden in this case would have to collude with many people in order leak the desired information before being noticed. Accessing this hypothetical portal from anywhere other than the NSA locale would immediately raise an alarm and cause a disconnect with subsequent reprimands. A batch archive download such as what he did would be logged if not first requiring authorization from several people.

In other words, adding encryption and obfuscation on top of the SAFE Network.

In other words, since government employees can’t be trusted, we’d solve this by concentrating power in the hands of even fewer government employees who can’t be trusted, and concentrating the risk in even fewer, publicly identifiable “multisig” key holders.

In other words, no one could access any of this “SAFE Network” data without accessing government portal servers, which is very different from today’s approach in which we have to access… government portal servers.

A complete solution!

I see one upside to this, though - fiat money would flow from taxpayers pockets (gov budgets) straight into the pockets of MAID “investors”. Nice exit strategy, almost like those investments in renewable energy! More jobs, more money, more everything for everyone!


Not on top but in between.[quote=“janitor, post:18, topic:6378”]
In other words, since government employees can’t be trusted, we’d solve this by concentrating power in the hands of even fewer government employees who can’t be trusted, and concentrating the risk in even fewer, publicly identifiable “multisig” key holders.

I don’t see the problem. Few implies more than one, and identifiable allows for accountability.

What I presented was the idea of then (post network launch) adapting SAFE for agency use. I wasn’t trying to propose a new paradigm. I love how you strategically ignored my second sentence. You’d otherwise not be able to logically make that sardonic statement. So I can empathetically understand your choice to omit it.

So again thank you for restating the obvious with a snarky undertone. Classic and clever as usual. I could become your sponsor if you wish. It’s sad witnessing your relapses. I think I could have a strong preventive influence. Cause as you know, I’m always happy to help those in need!:grinning::wink:

P.S. janitor, you always put a smile on my face. Especially when I’m glum. Keep up the good work! :smile:


Fine, you can call it out-of-band authorization (and authentication, maybe) then. But without that no one can access any non-public data, so it’s still logically in-band. Imagine the cost of moving all current systems to this new approach. What benefits would that have compared to two 42U racks filled with 3PB of usable capacity available at 20-30 GB/s?

It also allows for easy targeting, blackmail or bribing.

Ugh I think you imagine you are more important to those around you than you really are. I didn’t comment on it simply because it’s impossible to quantify whether that approach would have a greater degree of security. Okay, let’s see that sentence…

Exactly, it’d likely be the same. I don’t know how much you know about data storage (elsewhere you had implied you’re a developer, which likely means you are likely familiar with 5 out of 100 bits and pieces involved in this), but authentication, authorization, encryption of data at rest and auditing systems do a pretty good job. As you yourself said, you propose to recreate all that (at a huge cost) to end up in the same place.

I am very confident in what I said about your idea, but if you think it makes a lot of sense, fine. Honestly I couldn’t care less.

I’d only like to see how many people see irony in the approach I described (crowd-source, develop, get gov’t (who in turn “force crowd-source”, which is the most deplorable approach of all) to buy coins you yourself issued) and whether that reminds anyone of the way Mastercoin “helped” MaidSafe sell MAID for MSC.

1 Like