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 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.
Barack Obama will fly there next week to apologize.
Damn you, and thank you, Anonymous Coward, you inglorious basterd... you just made me realize that I'm actually missing the days of King George W.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
... 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.
twice. Once in English, once in tortured "Belgish".
This will, naturally, piss of the Gremans, who will then be forced to bomb Pearl Harbor.
Sent from your iPad.
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.
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
FAL fanatics as well... mmm... nice crisp waffle, with a nice Browning G series FAL... I can do the waffle, can't afford the FAL. :(
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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!
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
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
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".
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.
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...
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
More likely the bombs would fall on Bulgaria, since it's name also starts with "B" and they had nothing to do with the whole thing. It's hard to keep track of all these places when you are under attack. Besides according to unconfirmed intelligence Bulgaria has been known to aid and abet Belgians. Here is a picture of a Bulgarian mobile weapons lab or possibly a truck. What more proof do you need?