Slashdot Mirror
Belgium Tries to Fine Yahoo for Protecting US User Privacy
Techdirt is reporting that Belgium is trying to extract fines from Yahoo for not producing user data that was recently demanded of the US company. Instead of following normal diplomatic channels Belgian officials apparently made the data demands directly to Yahoo's US headquarters and then took the company to criminal court, where a judge issued the fine. "The implications of this ruling are profound and far-reaching. Following the court's logic would subject user data associated with any service generally available online to the jurisdiction of all countries. It would also subject all companies that offer services generally available on the global Internet to the laws of all jurisdictions, potentially exposing individual employees to a variety of criminal sanctions."
If it reaches the point where Belgium, which is notorious for its disruptive behavior on the Internet, tries to extract money out of Yahoo! on the grounds of tortuous logic, as its press wing has tried to extort money out of Google, then maybe it is now time to dissolve the Belgian State and distribute its three regions between the Netherlands (Flanders), France (Wallonia) and Germany (Eupen). These groups do not get along, anyway; and the only reason there is still a Belgium is that nobody knows what to do with the capital, Brussels, when the country does break up.
If Bush were still President, the bombs would already be falling on Belgium.
I mean seriously?
Isn't this another a case of no-one caring what Belgium thinks?
If this was true, then talk about your dammed if you do, dammed if you don't moment. Some countries require this data to only be kept for a small amount of time, others require it for a long amount of time. They demand data.. do you face trouble for not turning over the data that the foreign folks require, or fufill the data request and take it in the shorts from your home nation?
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
Meaning if you were a Twitter employee, you could be sued or sentenced to a prison term by Iranian officials? I doubt the US would honor an extradition request from a country it's cut off political ties with, but Pakistan or North Korea might.
moox. for a new generation.
... get off my lawn.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Historically, this has always been the case. This is not alarming to me in any way. The courts pick and choose when to enforce foreign and domestic policies. Ever been subjected to a pissed off Israel? All your logs are belong to them vis a vis the FBI. What's more, who thinks that stare decisis matters when dealing with such a major change? Sensationalism on /. I'm seeing the trend now. Get back to me when this is at the court of appeals thx.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
This is about as laughable as a Brazilian judge ordering YouTube shut down because a incriminating video of two Brazilian celebrities kept getting posted on that site. Needless to say, YouTube is still up and running.
This isn't the first strange internet ruling coming out of Belgium. There was the row between Copiepresse and Google over Google linking to Copiepresse's newspapers. Google was fined and promptly stopped linking to the newspaper's sites.
This space left intentionally blank.
This is appears to be a threat to our sovereignty. Time to bring in the State Department.
Can't have foreign governments pushing their laws on US companies operating on our own soil. If this were data collected in their country by a company operating in their country then that is a different story. Otherwise this would be like a foreign government demanding the contents of my underwear drawer just because someone they were interested in had called me on the phone.
Practically speaking, if Google has any finances or offices in that country then they have to make a value judgement because the local government has the ability to impose their penalties, but pulling out of this country rather than complying should also be their option. And if a US company is forced to pull out of the EU, then the US should retaliate in kind.
logic? In Belgium? Dude...there has never been logic in this shithole some dare to call a country (and I know because I'm one of those illogical beings)
So it appears that every one is just following the example of the United States by imposing their laws on the international community. All Yahoo has to do is not have any of its workers step outside the US.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
It's full of tits that'll tattoo their face with stars or something equally stupid.
would subject user data associated with any service generally available online to the jurisdiction of all countries
You have organisations in one country trying to impose their rules on people in other countries. The basic problem is that the internet does not follow country boundaries and until there is some internationally agreed (as opposed to single-ended imposition) treaties to say exactly who has jusidiction, over what and where, these things will continue to cause trouble. The U.S. already assumes that any data which touches servers in their country makes the sender / receiver subject to their laws (ref: the Natwest three - look it up), so it's only fair that other countries should uphold the same standards.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I love the fact that someone actually modded the post insightful.
Its in europe, dipstick.
That's why its important. It could potentially
affect Yahoo in ALL of europe.
Of course you could just say "whogives a shit about europe" but we already know youre a moron.
Anonymous cowards are like pond scum.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You have just been added to be my list of BANNED
countries for tourism.
Up Your Nose With A (Metric) Ton of Hops!!!
Yours In Oligarchy,
Kilgore Trout
Step 3) Cut belgium off from the services you offer.
/begin sarcasm
/end sarcasm
public void the theInternet inherits BelgiumLaw,AmericanLaw,EuropeanLaw,AnyOtherStupidLaw
{
return(null);
}
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
Why is it that only our generation understands the truly public and universal nature of the internet? Nobody owns the internet, and nobody ever will. You can claim to own the wires, the equipment, the computers, the software, and every other component, but you still won't own the internet. The internet has given birth to an idea -- that we're all interconnected and nobody owns the spaces in between. This idea recurs generation after generation, only to die because society can't find a place for it.
Oh, but they'll try. They will cast their books down on our heads, scream a million epitaths of criminal, deviant, terrorists, and invent new terms to express their disgust. They'll arrest us, punish us, and wage massive campaigns of fear. But they'll never get the idea out of our heads that maybe, just maybe, we don't have to pay their tax to touch the life of another person.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Step 1) Ignore the fine
Step 2) Don't go to Belgium
step 3) Profit!
I'm curious to compare and contrast the reaction to this story with the reaction to the National Public Gallery's legal threats over in the recent http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/17/085244/New-Developments-In-NPGWikipedia-Lawsuit-Threat story. I've frankly already been surprised at how many Slashdotters have supported the NPG's approach to copyright law. This one's addressing privacy, let's see how it goes.
Weren't you the dude who was so confused he believed that federal law allows game developers to (somehow) prevent resale of their products?
1. Belgium fines yahoo.
2. Yahoo doesn't pay.
3. Belgium scratches their head wondering what to do next.
If the US fines Yahoo and Yahoo doesn't pay the US freezes Yahoo's assets. Belgium doesn't have that option.
when he provided us with the true definition of Belgium.
Step 3) Keep PROFIT!
We can let the UN have jurisdiction over this stuff!
all of the horrible crimes you ascribe to the usa would still go on
please stop ascribing to american behavior that which is basically human behavior. its better to have an ideology that is based on some sort of principles, rather than mindless kneejerk anti-americanism
then you can still find america guilty of plenty of crimes, and rightfully so. but then you can extend that to find other countries guilty of many of those same crimes, without sounding like an idiot because you want to put forth the idea that the usa is somehow magically the originator of a crime someone else committed
example: the usa meddled in central america... therefore the usa is guilty of absolutely every crime committed there by every player ever since. the usa meddled in the middle east... therefore the usa is responsible for absolutely every crime committed there by every player ever since. etc., ad nauseum, and other such retarded thinking
dude: belgium is not "following the example of the United States". belgium is being retarded all by itself, all on its own. really
i now await the typical and retarded response: i'm a neocon imperialist dick cheney cocksucker, i'm from the lunatic right wing fringe. all because i ask for some logical coherence. can you tell the difference between a moderate opinion and a far right opinion?
please, go right on criticizing the usa. you may hate the usa all you want. go on with your bad self, be my guest, keep the venom flowing and the high holy moral outrage and indignation fresh. i fully support all the anti-american tirades you can muster. zzz
just try to notice at some point all of the other crimes committed by all the other countries in the world
k thx
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Let's not forget the USA's actions against foreign based gambling operations. The USA started this type of action!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
They'll shut up
j/k... Just for the record, I don't endorse bombing third world countries just for the hell of it, especially ones that produce beer
"Holy shit, we can do that?!"
3) Stop collecting this information to begin with.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
is not that Belgium wants this information, it would help in the fraud investigation that is ongoing. The fraud was commited in Belgium by people using yahoo email adresses, how are they supposed to find these people? The problem is: 1. That Belgium takes Yahoo to court instead of relying on the mutual legal assistance treaty which already exists between the US and Belgium 2. That the court actually followed Belgium's reasoning, which creates a dangerous precedent.
I am getting the suspicion that this story pretends this to be a bigger issue because it affects an American company.
However, this kind of "which laws are affecting what I do" has already got individuals. See for example the case of Hew Raymond Griffiths,
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths
* http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=1778&s=latestnews
Griffiths was extradited from Australia to the U.S., a country he had never visited, for some "Intellectual Property" crimes.
For a company it is a mere money issue, but when individuals are extradited it becomes extremely problematic.
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Exactly. Retract service to Belguim: it can't be that big of a revenue loss. ... but that doesn't solve the larger question of how to handle things the next time it occurs.
Great, a spelling nazi...
Cigar and a waffle?
So... when do we invade?
We already fixed that and Kentucky has been rebuffed.
Why bother
Hmmm. And here I thought that the US merely forbid US-based credit card companies from paying to on-line casinos. That'd be entirely legal (even if the effect, or even the desired effect, is of dubious value). Not quite the same thing as fining foreign casinos, or even outlawing them (per se).
Was this decision rendered in a Belgian or US criminal court? TFA and the summary don't make this important distinction.
If it was in a Belgian court it's a "go whistle" to get the decree enforced. (But Yahoo executives will have to be careful about European travel in the future if they thumb their nose.) If it was in a US court it's a whole different can of worms.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
While the US does sometimes create some funny examples, it did not invent this kind of idiocy. Disputes like this have always happened, between lots of different groups. It's just a new battleground now, which is more visible to the younger generations than previous examples. And of course, the young people see the internet differently than the older generations.
Older folks continue to try to control it like they've controlled things in the past. Younger folks proclaim the internet to be completely free and without restrictions. While I would prefer the younger folks' ideal view, the truth will end up somewhere between the two, at least for the near future.
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
3 years ago, Spamhaus was fined by a US federal court in Illinois. Of course, jurisdiction was the issue, and the US lost in the appeal. It was reported on here in slashdot. Makes the US no different from Belgium, except Belgian beer is better than ours. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/05/1359232
Then you haven't been paying attention. The USA has pursued actions against foreign-based Internet gambling sites, including Partypoker.com. Also, forbidding credit card payments is against WTO treaties, which are (per the constitution), the law of the land.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Somewhere along the line, everyone assumes that technology changes making something easy will automatically cause the legal landscape to fall in line so there are no repercussions when you do it.
The Internet has made it so easy to "act" simultaniously in, and interact simultaniously with the citizens of, every country on Earth, that even a small business potentially does it without even thinking about it; and even if you made the conscious decision not to, that would be hard.
So we say the Internet erases boundaries, but we don't really comprehend what that means. One thing we should realize it doesn't mean: it doesn't mean the whole world is suddenly one big USA.
The approach Belgium is taking here isn't one I want to see take hold, but I can't say I'm surprised to see it tried. A lot of the more "reasonable" approaches we could land on are not, in a lot of ways, "better".
Maybe you could backup your claims with a reference? Otherwise, you leave the rest of us in the dark.
And, wasn't it the CIA who extracted individuals from wherever they please? http://www.google.com/search?q=CIA+extract+learjet Why go through the hassle of ordering through court when one can unilaterally deceide to extract suspects from other sovereign countries? Maybe Belgium should just send a Learjet and extract the Yahoo responsables, and question them in some marginal country in exchange for a batch of P90 machineguns.
The native Americans used to ask. To them, the land was so fundamentally free that to own a piece of it seemed a sacrilege (sp?) against nature.
But then, along came Europeans, and land the Indians had used for centuries was suddenly denied them. You see, Europeans had this notion of property rights extending to the very stuff you put your feet on. You might think it's absurd to lay claim to the internet, but believe me, someone is already thinking about ways of divvying it up and making ordinary people pay for what they used to get for free. You'll pay to transmit, and your recipient will pay to receive. And somewhere, somehow, if the telecoms can manage it, you'll pay a monthly fee to them to *store* the content you received from the internet. Let's not forget Time Warner, who wanted to triple bill YouTube - once for the priviledge of connecting to the Net, a second time for the priviledge of providing *premium* content, and the third time is the user who pays for the bandwidth of downloading it from YouTube.
Freedom isn't free, after all - as the saying goes. If you think the internet can't be owned, you've obviously never met a US legislator.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Not too long ago a number of European countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Andorra and Belgium, possibly more) at least partially gave up their banking secrecy after being pressured by the US, because the US wanted that information to fight fraud. Now Belgium is asking for information and suddenly privacy becomes an insurmountable issue.
I'm not defending the way this requesting and sharing of information is going, and I'm not defending Belgium for trying to bypass privacy laws, but I do think it's awfully hypocritical of the United States to quickly hide behind their privacy laws after making us change ours.
And another thing - why do people immediately suggest to "Put Belgium to Sleep" when it causes a problem in the international community? Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, they think dividing this country among its neighbors will fix everything? In a discussion about American sovereignty on a very important issue, don't forget to respect Belgian sovereignty on an even more important one. The continued existence of the Belgian state is something its citizens, and its citizens alone, should decide about.
I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
Actually the restraint of lawful trade and is illegal under several trade agreement. The US the world over are known as lying scum who never EVER follow the agreements they sign. (i.e. NAFTA ) ask a Native how well they respect treaties.
Anytime you have a company that transcends country boundaries you are begging for trouble.
Separate, cooperative companies seems far safer, cheaper, and adaptable.
RTFA dude. It's Yahoo, not Google.
The only logical outcome is such a ruling were upheld on the international stage would be to segregate the Internet and seal the borders. If one nations privacy laws can be so easily circumvented by any other country, then such protections are meaningless, and the internet cannot be maintained as global community.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
Where else will they grow those oh so tasty waffles?!?!?
Yahoo or any such provider should just cut off service in such countries with a notice of why. Let the disgruntled user base take their country's politicians to task for their foolish laws.
Right, because that makes it ok...
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
COMPANY: Aaargh! These f*cking Belgians are being royally dumb.
GOVERNMENT: Ahh yes. I see the problem now. Tricky isn't it? Obviously we don't want to make life hard for business, so the solution must be...
equalise all laws everywhere. Yes, that will do. Of course it will be hard to convince some countries, but if we show a willingness to put law and order first I'm certain that most countries will jump on board. That will provide business with the consistent operating environment it needs.
CITIZEN: WTF?
The library community faced this years ago, and the results are embedded in library software to this day.
Records are kept of who has a book until such time as they have returned it undamaged, after which that item is destroyed. Records of how many fines a customer paid are kept for longer, and records of how many books circulated are kept for substantially longer.
In effect, it's horses for courses. Privacy-sensitive information has a short life, billing longer, but not forever, and totals, which are needed for the grants process and planning, are kept for long times.
Because this is clearly sane, as well as an honest effort to meet legal requirements re privacy, most jurisdictions in the world accept it. They could object, but then they'd have to pay for a "belgium only" system to provide to their libraries.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Which is morally worse a) a European court to want to know details about a US citizen from a Yahoo, or b) a US court to get information about a European citizen from Yahoo?
If you think that a) is worse than b) perhaps you haven't grasped that the internet is a worldwide phenomenon, and you are probably wearing you nationalistic goggles.
That should be
Step 1) Ignore the fine
Step 2) Don't go to Europe
Since most of Europe is in the EU inc. Belgium, a few nations like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are in the EEA which means among other thing extradition treaties, the rest of the continent has extradition treaties. That leads to :
Step 3) Explaining to your shareholder why you will not do business in the worlds largest market
Ehh, that's ok, we made the internet. If you don't like this one, you're welcome to go make your own internet somewhere else. Call it the extranet or something. Make your own ICANN, and start with IPv6. And FFS don't use tubes!
I recall bank secrecy, I recall flight information etc. And isn't it so that a US law is seen as 'valid' across the globe in the US? If not, how can it be that people who have never visited the US are demanded by the US to be brought to them for 'justice' because they violated a US law. ?
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
access to its services immediately and without notice or warning.
Belgian ex-users should be diverted to a page explaining that the government of Belgium has made it impossible for them to do business in Belgium and provide the names and contact information for every responsible official. The page can have a link to a detailed discussion of the issues, if desired.
Let the Belgian users decide whether they like their Yahoo services better than they like their bureaucrats. If they don't, Yahoo should find more profitable uses for its resources.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Wow, we're such consumers; if things get unpleasant in our (current) country (of residence), rather than do something about it (and I don't mean changing your twitter avatar's colour,) we just choose a new/different one, thus exercising (or having) a choice?!
Soon, we'll only be left with resort-nations, perhaps moving seasonally, from Club Med Land in the winter, to some Bohemian Theme Park/Republic in the spring...
I guess globalisation can only help this become a reality, in time.
just please make sure to hate all the other countries in the world
i don't mind that people hate the usa. i mind when they use they're hatred of the usa to forgive bad behavior by others
from the perspective of iran and the usa, this is the majority of assholes in the world, and they are all morons:
1. anti-american, pro-iran
2. pro-american, anti-iran
substitute iran for any other country, and you get my drift
heres is the only valid point of view in the world, which i wish more would adapt:
1. anti-american, anti-iran
that's my point: please, hate the usa. just don't let your hatred of the usa lead you to forgive other countries when they do bad, and sometimes far worse
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> normal diplomatic channels
Yahoo is not a country, no matter how swelled the egos of its current masters are.
Techdirt is regurgitating from an interest group ... blog. *palmface*
Shouldn't Switzerland get to decide? After all, they made the Web.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
there are morons in this world who will kneejerk explain away and excuse vile atrocities in this world committed by governments simply because they are enemies of the usa. likewise, there are morons in this world who will kneejerk explain away and excuse vile atrocities committed by the usa simply because they start with the starting assumption the usa can do no wrong
what i just described is real, and a large number of people, and a serious problem
the only valid morally and logically cohesive worldview is one which does not center on the usa, whether pro or anti usa, but is centered on principles instead. if you see this as a "black and white" point of view of mine, then go fuck yourself, because you are just smearing my larger point, and its not black and white at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If I were Yahoo, being sued by a country outside of my jurisdiction - I'd simply firewall, prevent the entire country from accessing my services - Sure, not the most profoundly sane business logic if you like having customers there - but hey, perhaps after a few years of living in the dark ages the country might smarten up.