SW rant time
-
Isn't this how the piratebay worked for so many years? It kept moving it's data to countries where there were no pirating laws or where laws were lax?
-
@computerchip said in SW rant time:
Isn't this how the piratebay worked for so many years? It kept moving it's data to countries where there were no pirating laws or where laws were lax?
Correct.
-
I think @DustinB3403 was confused about the EU laws because the new directive wants to focus on protecting EU citizen PHI even outside of country borders when possible. Even companies only based in the US must comply with EU standards for PHI. Obviously the United States and the EU came to an agreement for this to happen, and it isn't a given right with every country in the world. It's not like the EU can go after North Korea or other countries that don't have agreements.
-
@irj said in SW rant time:
I think @DustinB3403 was confused about the EU laws because the new directive wants to focus on protecting EU citizen PHI even outside of country borders when possible. Even companies only based in the US must comply with EU standards for PHI.
US companies don't even need to comply with US standards! That's why we have HIPAA, to ensure that they don't.
-
I love how so many people think they are experts on GDPR when even the people who wrote the GDPR rules can't clearly explain them. This goes both for people who fully assert that EU rules are enforceable abroad as well as those who couldn't imagine a world where that would be true.
Also love how only the first 10 posts related to the initial SW rant. Hahaha
Popcorn getting stale...I'm just here to watch the show.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
This goes both for people who fully assert that EU rules are enforceable abroad as well as those who couldn't imagine a world where that would be true.
Well, that they are NOT enforceable abroad is one of the most basic legal principles. People from other countries can't write laws for your country. Doesn't matter how complex that law is, it's non-applicable. No matter what that law says, no matter how it is written, it's of no concern to an entity that is not under its jurisdiction.
-
@scottalanmiller Even you know this isn't completely true. US laws have been enforced all around the world. That's why there are extradition treaties. Someone can break a US law (easy example is copyright) and be forced to appear in a US court to answer for the US crime against a US company. This also happens the other way around too where other countries have treaties with the US. If you want to find out, read the list of treaties in force https://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm
The blanket statement that a foreign law could never be enforced on a US citizen is laughable. I realize you may be making a more precise point but you often like to delve into the minutia of a thing to show how precisely your argument applies. I'm sorry, but in this case, the generality of that last statement simply is false.
Keep in mind my statement is neither in defense of @DustinB3403's statements or yours in argument. This statement applies to your last comment and the general thinking that a foreign law couldn't be enforced on a US (or other) citizen.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller Even you know this isn't completely true. US laws have been enforced all around the world.
No, that's someone extending a US law locally, not the same thing.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
Someone can break a US law (easy example is copyright) and be forced to appear in a US court to answer for the US crime against a US company.
Can you find any example of this? Because without local copyright protection, that's how China and India get around that.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
The blanket statement that a foreign law could never be enforced on a US citizen is laughable.
No, it's not. It really can't.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
This also happens the other way around too where other countries have treaties with the US.
Treaties with that modify local law means that there is a local law that is being used.
-
If treaties alone changed the law, this would mean that right now, someone could go write a law that violates the US law and charge you with it, anytime that they want.
-
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm not going to participate in this since logic shows clearly that laws from other countries can be applied to citizens of other countries.
Must be a pretty rosy life in that bubble. Lol
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm not going to participate in this since logic shows clearly that laws from other countries can be applied to citizens of other countries.
Must be a pretty rosy life in that bubble. Lol
I'm not the one arguing. I made a very clear, and very valid legal point. You argued with me saying that other countries could make laws and apply them to us in the US, which is not correct. They CAN petition the US to make a treaty and make laws that they can then use, but their laws are not being used here, nor ours there. Simply not how it works.
I didn't argue, I defended a point that you argued. And it's very clear that I am correct, there is no way that foreign jurisdictions can just make laws and apply them to you.
-
When the US 'enforces' US law overseas, normally that is illegal terror action. Seizing people from their homes and taking them to the US and then charging them with crimes they did not commit. That's not the same as US law applying to them. That's just might makes right.
-
@nashbrydges said in SW rant time:
... since logic shows clearly that laws from other countries can be applied to citizens of other countries.
I asked for an example of this. I'm not aware of any situation where this has ever been legal. Treaties are not examples, as we discussed, as they require the local jurisdiction to have enacted the foreign laws, meaning they became local.
Without an example, as this is completely illogical for reasons we demonstrated earlier (anyone can just make conflicting laws, charge people with things that are totally protected, etc.) we have to believe that it cannot be true.
-
The concept of "can a US citizen be charged with crimes under foreign laws while in the US" is so absurd that you can't even Google it, Google is certain you are looking for information about commiting crimes while in those other countries.
-
@nashbrydges Someone can be extradited only if they have broken the law in that country. If I hack into servers in Thailand, I am committing a crime in Thailand and can then be legally extradited from the US to Thailand because we do have an extradition treaty with Thailand. If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
-
@penguinwrangler said in SW rant time:
@nashbrydges Someone can be extradited only if they have broken the law in that country. If I hack into servers in Thailand, I am committing a crime in Thailand and can then be legally extradited from the US to Thailand because we do have an extradition treaty with Thailand. If I post on ML and insult their King, which is a crime in Thailand, I cannot be extradited to Thailand.
But, of course, could be arrested if you voluntarily traveled to Thailand, as that is totally up to them as to what they can or cannot do.
But exactly, a US citizen or company on US soil is bound only to the laws of the US. The US, also, does not allow citizens to attack foreign businesses even from US soil.
-
I'm very unclear, I feel like the idea that laws from anywhere can be applied anywhere must cause logical problems - like let's say that in one country it is a crime to be of religion X. Do they feel that that might apply to them, even if they don't live there or travel there? Laws conflict, nearly everywhere. Almost no law from one country can be used in another without either already existing there or conflicting with a local law. This isn't a trivial problem. The one that prompted this discussion is a huge example... the right to be forgotten directly conflicts with freedom of press and freedom of speech laws in the US. Its' a nice idea, but you can't just take a law from somewhere else and pop it into the legal framework of another place, it doesn't work.
