Brazil tries to ban Secret: when national laws come up against internet reality
A Brazilian judge is pushing for Apple and Google to withdraw the Secret app from their stores within 10 days, and for Microsoft to do the same with its Windows Phone client Cryptic. At the same time, the judge wants these companies to remotely remove the apps from all devices in Brazil. Failing to do so could incur a fine of around 6,700 euros per day. The news was first published in Brazilian newspaper Estadão, and then in English on 9to5Mac.
The legal basis for the decision would be that the Brazilian Constitution does not permit anonymity. The case illustrates the problems that can arise when companies create products, in this case one that allows a closed network of users to send anonymous messages, for a global market but that fall foul of the peculiarities of individual countries.
Above and beyond the legal arguments over how companies can adhere to the laws of the countries in which they operate, it seems much more interesting to me to consider the potential impact of a ban such as that being considered in Brazil. There is no denying that Secret could give rise to situations in which it is possible to defame somebody from the hiding place of anonymity. At the same time, the courts can be used to identify somebody who has registered with the service.
But the real question here is to what extent banning an app in a particular country would really address the problem. What would bet the impact of the app being removed from app stores and smartphones where it had already been installed? We are talking about an ecosystem within which apps can be installed either by buying on line or by executing a program. Bypassing the need to purchase from the store and simply installing the program requires no specialist computer knowledge, and can be done simply by accessing the installation folder, which can be found online in a matter of seconds.
In the case of Android, a quick search for an application such as Secret, linked to the apk extension provides access to several links to the application’s installation program in its various versions.
Removing an app from an online store within a particular country is not technically complicated, and neither is uninstalling an app by remote control from people’s devices. This has been done in the past, usually to apps considered dangerous or that are not fulfilling their conditions of service. That said, what is somebody likely to do when they see that an app they use all the time is suddenly wiped off their smartphone?
Most people would likely follow the procedure mentioned above and continue using the app. A ban on the app would obviously garner considerable media attention and undoubtedly make the app more popular, thus having precisely the opposite intended effect. Rather than protecting us from defamation, a far larger network of users would have been created, making control of this environment even more difficult. What would the authorities do next? Register all devices in the country to see which ones have the banned app installed?
This is clearly a complex problem, and one that needs to be handled sensibly and sensitively. Is it technically possible to prevent an app like Secret being used within a single country? The answer would seem to be no. Brazilians who use the app should find out how they can protect themselves from any breach of their rights, rather than simply acting as though the app didn’t exist, or that they could realistically be prevented from using it.
As on so many other occasions, it’s not the tool that is the issue, but users and how they use it: banning it is the wrong approach. And in this case, not only mistaken, but counterproductive. Can judges apply the law without further consideration, or should they think first about the likely consequences of their actions?
(En español, aquí)
