611–620 of 629 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't actually expect people to hire lawyers from 108 different countries You could expect facebook, with their almost infinite resources to so.
No business should play along with their BS or hand over customer data. I never thought I'd say this, but: Good on Facebook for not complying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No business should play along with their BS or hand over customer data. I never thought I'd say this, but: Good on Facebook for not complying.
So, VW should be able to sell cars in the US ignoring the environmental laws, too?
If you purchased a VW car in Germany and had it shipped over to the US it would be on YOU to make sure it complies with all requirements of your country, not Volkswagen's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some services? I have not found any Google service to work over there. Which one should work?
Gmail works, in the sense that Shanghai utility is able to deliver e-mails to me when it's time to pay the electricity bill. Downloading stuff from google's android repostitories (i.e. for developing Android) also works (most of the time).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're always in meatspace - cyberspace is just another dimension to it. Unless you're Job from the lawnmower man.
True enough. What I mean is that I don't wear disguises, have multiple sets of IDs, hang out at anonymous exchange sites, and so on. But one can compartmentalize cyberspace substantially from the rest of meatspace, and then compartmentalize within cyberspace. Or at least, that's my experience. Maybe I'm just not interesting enough ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> he could change the laws of the universe with a stroke of his pen that's how the legislative and judiciary branches think here in Brazil, write the problems away with a law. it called 'canetada'.
> it called 'canetada'. It's wonderful to have a succinct word for a concept like that; I wish there were such a word in English. Do you have any background information about the origins and meaning of this word?
Whacking someone with a wooden stick ("pau") is a "paulada". Kicking a ball ("bola") on someone is a "bolada". Poking someone with a pin ("alfinete") is a "alfinetada".
Therefore, using a pen ("caneta") indiscriminately becomes a "canetada".
The same word would be used if you threw the pen at someone's head, so there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet sovereignty, for sure. It's really the only way to go. Otherwise, you get pissing matches. Brazil blocks WhatsApp. China blocks Facebook, GitHub, etc. Iran blocks so much stuff that people need to get data dumps via satellite TV. The US blocks a lot too, but mostly about gambling, "piracy", etc.
That has nothing really to do with Internet sovereignty (whatever that means). It has to do with some countries suck more, and some suck less. Plenty of countries don't block anything. Like military aggression, child mortality, literacy rate, etc., that is one important data point about any country and its government.
If you don't know what "internet sovereignty" means, then how can you possibly claim that something had nothing to do with it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content, except in emergencies. Instead, foreign law enforcement must make a request for assistance to the US DoJ, which will then (eventually, and maybe) process it and serve it on the US company. This is…
> This is all WhatsApp's and the US's problem, not Brazil's. So you're saying it's OK for Brazil to send a SWAT team to raid a house in the US? The judge's order has no validity outside his jurisdiction; just like a US judge's order has no validity in Brazil.
No.
> The judge's order has no validity outside his jurisdiction; just like a US judge's order has no validity in Brazil.
Which is why the judge only banned WhatsApp from operating in Brazil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content, except in emergencies. Instead, foreign law enforcement must make a request for assistance to the US DoJ, which will then (eventually, and maybe) process it and serve it on the US company. This is…
> In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings. My apologies, but I think that if you re-read what was written, you will find that this was not suggested. The comment was written in response to one that came to the conclusion that this "was all [WhatsApp's] fault." It is suggesting that WhatsApp is not at fault, is probably strictly…
Allowing a company to break Brazilian law because US law demands that the company break Brazilian law would absolutely put the Brazilian judiciary in a subservient position to US law.
> You also seem to be suggesting that a Brazilian state judge has any business interpreting the law so as to "send a message" to the government of another nation, which is simply and patently untrue.
Brazil decides what is and is not the business of Brazilian state judges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First, WhatsApp is a US company and has no presence in Brazil. Under many readings of US law (specifically, ECPA), US companies are in fact prohibited from complying with requests from foreign law enforcement for content, except in emergencies. Instead, foreign law enforcement must make a request for assistance to the US DoJ, which will then (eventually, and maybe) process it and serve it on the US company. This is…
>In fact, it's kind of insensitive for foreigners to suggest that a judge of a sovereign nation must consider US law in his rulings. It's just as insensitive for a judge of a foreign nation to suggest that all foreigners must consider his rulings when making decisions under their own sovereign laws.
If you are operating in Brazil you have to follow Brazilian laws, including judges' orders. Just because I decide to do something in the US doesn't mean it's automatically legal when I do it in Brazil.