Foreign Data Unsafe From US Patriot Act, Says American Law Firm

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Foreign Data Unsafe From US Patriot Act, Says American Law Firm

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday January 26, 2012 @01:05AM from the long-arm-of-the-law dept.

natecochrane writes "A prestigious law firm warns non-U.S. businesses their data is unsafe from costly and invasive raids by American law enforcement even if they host their data in their own countries. The wide interpretation of the USA Patriot Act ensures U.S. cops can legally demand data from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist. The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S."

252 of 328 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

legally demand by clemdoc · 2012-01-26 01:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.
1. Re:legally demand by Suki+I · 2012-01-26 01:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.
  ^^This^^
  Other governments do not have to bow down to every 'request' and demand of the United States.
  
  --
  Home of The Suki Series
2. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Unfortunately for people in the UK our Conservative/Liberal government are a gang of spineless puppets who do whatever their US masters tell them. As were the previous Labour government.
  I have to wonder if a desire to suck US cock is a requirement to get into politics in this country?..
3. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's funny that U.S. conservatives complain about International law being applied in the U.S. and that those people are against a N.W.O. when it seems like the U.S. is leading the charge on forcing its laws on other countries as it sees fit. All the people with "U.S. out of the U.N. now" signs have no clue.
4. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They are free to ignore the demands, true.
  The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.
  That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.
5. Re:legally demand by Magada · 2012-01-26 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Things tend to happen to governments which ignore such demands. Just ask the Spaniards.
  
  --
  Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
6. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So far, it has been the policy of at least European Union, to turn around, unbuckle, and bend over.
  You want the lunch choices of our citizens flying towards your country, 3 days in advance? No problem! We'll even pick up the tab. To demand the same from them? Unreasonable
7. Re:legally demand by malkavian · 2012-01-26 01:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, our current group are bound by a one sided legal treaty signed in by Labour. The current group are looking for a way to end the agreement legally (as it's not great for business; I suspect citizens are an also ran, but useful flag to wave).
  That's the thing with international law and diplomacy, you can't easily turn around and say "We don't like it anymore, so screw you". Well, not without screwing up your international reputation and ability to strike future agreements. It needs to be done carefully.
8. Re:legally demand by TheDarkMaster · 2012-01-26 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Or you can answer .... with bullets.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
9. Re:legally demand by snowgirl · 2012-01-26 01:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.
  Unfortunately, even this is not enough. The non-US company would have to ensure any and all contact with the US is prevented, to ensure that there is not even a crack of a sliver of the door to US jurisdiction.
  The way they got a porno director here in the US who operated in California, was to order his product in Georgia and have them ship it there. BAM! Georgia claims jurisdiction and the guy goes to jail.
  In fact, one of the wedges used to argue for jurisdiction over megauploads, was that they used PayPal. So, now you can't deal with USD, nor can you particularly even do business with American companies. That cuts out a lot of business, and every multinational company.
  The world is getting so small now, that it will be impossible for any company or business person to ever manage to keep out from the from the ever expanding abuse of jurisdiction that the US is applying.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
10. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Insightful"? Really? The patriot act is about the LEAST CONSERVATIVE piece of legislation ever enacted - just because all our politicians are corrupt money grubbing opinion whores and they claim to be on one side or another does not make them so. Vote Ron Paul for fucks' sake, he's the only politician in the running that doesn't entertain lobbyists - then you will see what comes from an actual conservative.
11. Re:legally demand by Gideon+Wells · 2012-01-26 01:45 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, yes, only dirty Brits, I mean communists, sorry wrong era again, reverse-Americanized-Euroized-socialists-Islamo-Fascistic-Chinese-double-agent-super-terrorists-Illegal-Immigrant-Emigrants wouldn't comply.
  Perhaps we should conduct a raid to find some evidence we can use to get a warrant to justify the raid to have you detained indefinitely?
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
12. Re:legally demand by metacell · 2012-01-26 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.
  The country doesn't need to respond to the legal demand. But if you're a business in a country which bends over to the USA, then it's not up to you. Since much of the data gathering and transfer is carried out in secret, those businesses need to be warned so they can encrypt their data and choose where, when and what to put online.
13. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  All the people with "U.S. out of the U.N. now" signs have no clue.
  Of course they don't. They will never hear about this. Why? Because the pundits they watch and listen to will never mention this.
  And in the meantime, all they hear is how America is exceptional, we're on top and will always be there, and anyone who criticizes America hates it, yadda yadda yadda.
  They also hear distortions and lies about what is being done like The UN Gun Ban Treaty that Obama is going to use to take our guns away!
  No one seems to bother to check the facts. They watch or listen to some overpaid mouthpeice whose job is to scare the shit out of them so that these spewers of nonsense can get rating to justify their seven figure or more salary.
  It's hard though. There is sooo much information being thrown at us, how can a normal person check up on everything? You have to work 8+ hours a day, take care of your chores, exervise (I hope!), eat, connect with friends and family, etc ... and check up on those liars?
  The easiest thing to do is turn off the TV and most radio.
  The Economist and NPR seem to be the last reliable newssources left on the planet.
14. Re:legally demand by Suki+I · 2012-01-26 01:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They are free to ignore the demands, true.
  The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.
  That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.
  If the person in question is not a US citizen and not in the US, then it is ultimately up to her or his country of citizenship and country where they are located if any state cooperation is given at all.
  Sovereignty does have a few perks.
  
  --
  Home of The Suki Series
15. Re:legally demand by Suki+I · 2012-01-26 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  No, our current group are bound by a one sided legal treaty signed in by Labour. The current group are looking for a way to end the agreement legally (as it's not great for business; I suspect citizens are an also ran, but useful flag to wave).
  That's the thing with international law and diplomacy, you can't easily turn around and say "We don't like it anymore, so screw you". Well, not without screwing up your international reputation and ability to strike future agreements. It needs to be done carefully.
  Doesn't the UK regularly refuse to extradite accused criminals that may be subject to capital punishment in the US and other countries? They refuse US demands when they want to and in this case, it looks like they just don't want to.
  
  --
  Home of The Suki Series
16. Re:legally demand by jduhls · 2012-01-26 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  You think it's funny? I think it's deceptive and downright sociopathic. Does anyone screen these politicians? Interview them? Oh...wait..we voted for them.
17. Re:legally demand by jamstar7 · 2012-01-26 01:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And the Iraqis (twice!), the Afghans, the Chileans...
  
  I could go on, but why bother?
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
18. Re:legally demand by Rockoon · 2012-01-26 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  Its funny that the current executive branch is liberal.. yet you are going on about conservatives in a story dealing with the expanding powers of the executive branch.
  
  Battered liberal syndrome?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
19. Re:legally demand by poetmatt · 2012-01-26 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, the demand will be answered - just not in the way you're thinking of.
  Who's going to answer? The businesses that are going to move out of the US and/or away from it before this comes around, so that they can ignore the demand.
  Good job USA. We've once again shown why people shouldn't have any desire to do business with us.
20. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  If the US of A says that your proposed privacy regulations will prevent further growth of the internet, you're probably doing something right.
  http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/109321/amerikanen-hekelen-europese-online-privacyregels.html (Dutch)
21. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.
  The police state is the ultimate conservative institution. And the Patriot Act is one of the police states most powerful weapons.
22. Re:legally demand by MisterZimbu · 2012-01-26 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  The current administration is nowhere near "Liberal". It's probably closer to conservative than it is to liberal.
23. Re:legally demand by milkasing · 2012-01-26 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  The economist jumped the shark a long time back. Their $5 / barrel prediction should have been a warning but I remained an avid reader, until they endorsed GW Bush after it had become clear he had lied about the iraq war (in contrast they had asked Bill Clinton to resign for the Monica affair/lying).
  After that I noticed that their conservative slant interfered with their reporting a lot - a lot of their foreign reporting is terrible (Exiled online had detailed takedowns of their Russian reporting). Many of their economic predictions were wrong (still waiting for the implosion of china, which they predicated for more than a decade, their support for austrian economics is not panning out well).
  Many of their features are still decent, but by and large stick to the various economics blogs.
24. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't. I dont think anyone I ever voted for has actually made it into office.
25. Re:legally demand by Serpents · 2012-01-26 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that most of them do and just ask "Would you like some lube with that?"
26. Re:legally demand by jduhls · 2012-01-26 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I meant the democratic "we". Oh...wait...we're not a democracy. Sonnofa...
27. Re:legally demand by Rockoon · 2012-01-26 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I get it.. when the anonymous coward ranted about "conservatives" he meant the American liberals instead of the American conservatives...
  
  Gotcha. Battered?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
28. Re:legally demand by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-01-26 02:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.
  You had me up to "liberty". Conservatism seems to like the idea of "liberty". They're not so big on "liberal" or "libertine", which are similar sounding, but mean different things.
  
  The police state is the ultimate conservative institution. And the Patriot Act is one of the police states most powerful weapons.
  Wasn't most of the crap in the Patriot Act dealing with data written by John Kerry, a liberal democrat (who was, admittedly, also an ex-prosecutor who was trying to make other prosecutors' jobs easier)?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
29. Re:legally demand by rainmouse · 2012-01-26 02:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  For those interested in this treaty, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 It makes for some outrageous reading.
30. Re:legally demand by GigaBurglar · 2012-01-26 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  Either way - their objectives are anti-liberal. I think it's a joke that you call your current office 'liberal'. It's the same in my country, the UK, we call our current office Labour; initially because they were a 'liberal' working class party - but since the early 90's, when 'New' Labour was formed, they have been nothing more than slightly-left conservatives with aspirations to shift right. There is no real distinction between them. They inherit a system of rules and policies that are difficult for them to change but believe me, if they could rewrite the rule book, in this day and age, it would suit their pocket and their financier buddies alone. Democracy is a joke.. Here's two candidates and a flawed system. You get one vote every 4 years and you can forget referendums. War and law are tools of oppression when capital is at the wheel.
31. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  you dont have a clue what true conservatism is. A real conservative hates the police state, the "Patriot Act"(No real patriot would ever have voted for this garbage), and believes the constitution stands as written, not as some old ghosts in black robes "interpret" the meaning(I think it is very clearly written, but then again I didnt get brainwashed at a liberal institution). A TRUE conservative is against liberalism, but wants true liberty. A true conservative is more like a libertarian than republican. Do not confuse Republicans and Conservatives. They are no longer the same thing. If conservaitves had their way laissez-faire would be a fact of life. There would be no government intervention. you progressive idiots are the ones that want the all powerful government.
32. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 02:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There are no liberal democrats, only democrats slightly less conservative than the average republican.
33. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They are free to ignore the demands, true.
  The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.
  That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.
  If the person in question is not a US citizen and not in the US, then it is ultimately up to her or his country of citizenship and country where they are located if any state cooperation is given at all.
  Sovereignty does have a few perks.
  It should also be noted that Megaupload (to take a recent) had US-based servers and bank accounts. These (IMHO) are fair game for the US government. They also generally were accessed by a .com domain, which is managed by a US-based company (would have been prudent to have .co, .eu, .co.uk, etc., addresses as well).
  However, extraditing him shouldn't be done, as he broke no law in the country he was in AFAIK. If they do extradite him, they'll also (logically speaking) have to extradite journalists who report on China if Beijing asks--even if the reporter/s in question wrote their stories in New Zealand. It's a dangerous precedent to allow this to happen, as simple "access to bits" is not an really appropriate in the networked age.
  The only time that an extradition could be allowed would be in the case of crackers who went into remote systems of another country, as they were specifically "trespassing" the systems (though not physically). Though they could also be prosecuted locally since most countries have cyber-laws that deal with this as well.
34. Re:legally demand by Skal+Tura · 2012-01-26 02:25 · Score: 2
  
  Ofc, that's just "good business", force your own laws to others, but cry foul if they try to do the same, little by little creep more power over others while giving none to them. Makes tons of sense.
  
  --
  Pulsed Media Seedboxes
35. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  How can you be against liberalism but want liberty? The two are fundamentally and irrevocably intertwined by definition.
  You have no idea what liberal and progressive mean, at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of government, only its quality. Right now we have a large, corrupt, and malignant government. We can improve it by excising the fascist and conservative aspects and have a smaller more liberal government. Or we can try to add to it laws that protect and empower the citizens and have a larger more liberal government.
  A liberal values liberty, that is it.
  A progressive seeks progress, the advancement of liberty, a more perfect nation that protects and empowers its citizens liberty.
  Law is not the loss of liberty. Murder being illegal removes your license to kill indiscriminately, but it also grants you the freedom to know that you it is very unlikely that someone will kill you.
  Libertarians and liberals are very similar. The difference is that libertarians do not believe that freedom and liberty can be increased by regulation and would prefer to live lawlessly where they would be free to exercise personal liberty at the expense of others. They would rather have license to pour poison into the drinking water and kill thousands of people than be encumbered by a little environmental, health or safety regulation.
36. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Conservatives seek license for those in power, not liberty for all.
37. Re:legally demand by TheRaven64 · 2012-01-26 02:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There is a specific clause in the treaty allowing extradition to be refused in cases where capital punishment is considered likely. I believe that this is required due to other treaty obligations (e.g. the ECHR), which prohibit UK citizens from being subject to the death penalty while under British jurisdiction (sending them off to another country to be killed counts). A more balanced treaty would also allow extradition to be refused if the crime were not illegal under UK law (we have this in most extradition treaties) and would have more symmetrical evidence requirements - currently, the standard of evidence required to extradite from the UK to USA is a lot lower than vice versa.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
38. Re:legally demand by Baloroth · 2012-01-26 02:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.
  Ah, nope! Might wanna consult a dictionary on that one.
  
  Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
  So by definition, conservatives are opposed to new laws that infringe on existing liberties. Actually, they are opposed to new laws in general.
  P.S. Most of the so-called "conservatives" in the US government aren't really conservative.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
39. Re:legally demand by Sponge+Bath · 2012-01-26 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and conservatives complain about the threat of Sharia law while promoting the Christian equivalent to control your personal life. It may not be coherent, but it is consistent.
40. Re:legally demand by Rockoon · 2012-01-26 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  There are no liberal democrats, only democrats slightly less conservative than the average republican.
  This idea that Obama administration is conservative stems from the fact that it isnt very liberal, but if you are actually paying attention you see that its more fascist than anything.. certainly not conservative by any real measure other than that "not liberal" canard.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
41. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 02:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Fascism is a subset of the conservative ideology, fascism is very opposed to progress toward liberty.
42. Re:legally demand by Rockoon · 2012-01-26 02:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I didn't. I dont think anyone I ever voted for has actually made it into office.
  They said that if I voted for John McCain that the administration would give trillions of dollars to corporations and special interests.
  
  They were right. I did vote for John McCain and the administration did give trillions of dollars to corporations and special interests. Damn you Democrats for being right!
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
43. Re:legally demand by Rockoon · 2012-01-26 02:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think it's a joke that you call your current office 'liberal'.
  
  The fact that our liberal party is run by fascists doesnt change the fact that they are our liberals. We dont have a party that is more liberal.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
44. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 03:22 · Score: 3
  
  How exactly was Hitler progressive?
  Exterminating jews, gypsies and homosexuals is not progressive.
  Waging a war of conquest is not progressive.
  The economic aspects of his rule promoted monopolies and collusion, that is not progressive.
  The dissolution of his senate was not progressive.
  Assuming absolute control of the government was not progressive.
45. Re:legally demand by couchslug · 2012-01-26 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  "That's the thing with international law and diplomacy, you can't easily turn around and say "We don't like it anymore, so screw you". Well, not without screwing up your international reputation and ability to strike future agreements. It needs to be done carefully."
  That's the "wuss" option. Power and position exist, and countries can do their will if their people have the balls to back the government.
  Example:
  Nationalising foreign businesses. The trouble of a world infested by law is that it hasn't made the world a better place. Power is still required to ENFORCE law, but law facilitates a degree of micromanagement power does not.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
46. Re:legally demand by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-26 03:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is par for the course in international business. I work for a Fortune 20 Or Less company, and we have data centers all around the world specifically to accomodate contractual language such as this. Support teams are made up of people from different countries to ensure we can meet the requirement of who can and cannot see the data.
  Each country is organized as its own subsidiary. This was probably expensive, but we can say "Go talk to the subsidiary in that country" because we don't have the data. International law is tricky, and you can be sure there are some very weasly lawyers at the top making sure everything is deniable.
  Short version, yes it's possible, but you have to organize things correctly. The whole point of the article is that it's easy to miss something and there goes your privacy.
47. Re:legally demand by Elldallan · 2012-01-26 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well the US can claim jurisdiction wherever they want, does not mean it's true or enforceable.
  Wasn't it some U.S. Customs and Border Protection director that claimed all that was needed to be under US jurisdiction was to have a .com address?
  
  The fact of the matter is that whatever nation that is on the other side of the argument has to agree that something is under US jurisdiction. The essential part of the MU case is that they had servers in the US, all the other claims is just an attempt to flesh it out and to try to gain a precedence in future negotiations of similar kind.
  If the sole argument for jurisdiction would have been PayPal or accepting payment in dollars NZ or whoever would probably have given them the finger, or at least I hope so but only time will tell I guess.
48. Re:legally demand by Skapare · 2012-01-26 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Are they still pulling that "We saved you from Hitler, so we own you" argument?
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
49. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  Somewhat, but communism as practiced in Soviet Russia wasn't actually communism. Stalins "communism" was a lie he told his own people, he was pure authoritarian and very anti-liberal.
  The communist ideal has some liberal elements, in that a society that provides everyone's needs removes certain existential threats to the expression of liberty.
  However, in practice it is as ineffective as libertarianism. Libertarianism does not provide sufficient incentive to not infringing on others rights, communism does not provide sufficient incentive to the individual to contribute to the public good.
50. Re:legally demand by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There is a perfectly legal way to do that. The UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague writes a formal statement of repudiation and submits it to the US and the UN. After six months the treaty is nullified.
  Countries aren't bound by treaties until the sun explodes.
51. Re:legally demand by dbIII · 2012-01-26 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  Of course they have no idea. It's a country where people who go around yelling the equivalent of "smash the state" call themselves "conservative" after all. The labels are no more accurate than the totalitarian East Germany of a few decades back calling itself a "Democratic Republic."
  The labels are just what they want people to think they are instead of what they really are. Thus you get outright colonial monarchists that just want a local aristocracy that they can belong to instead of a British one calling up the ghost of Washington and pretending that he would support them instead of shooting them on sight.
52. Re:legally demand by rilian4 · 2012-01-26 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  No we're not a Democracy and never have been. Study history some time. This country is a constitutional republic.
  
  --
  
  ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
53. Re:legally demand by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Just because the morons who pushed it claimed to be "conservative" and/or are generally viewed as being "right wing" doesn't mean that it's true.
  
  No actually it does make it true. There is a thing called the conservative movement there are politicians who run as conservatives and there is a generally agreed upon definition of conservative. I understand you want to argue that conservatives should believe what you believe, but they don't.
  In 2006 when the Patriot act came up for renewal 65% of Republican voters supported it, while 25% of dems and 33% of independents did. ( http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act/ ). This is not corrupt politicians, this is politicians accurately reflecting the fascist tendencies of their voters.
54. Re:legally demand by Ltap · 2012-01-26 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they're opposed to it because it would only involve their own power and supremacy being reduced. Just a thought.
  
  --
  Yet Another Tech Blog
  (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
  http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
55. Re:legally demand by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  The way they got a porno director here in the US who operated in California, was to order his product in Georgia and have them ship it there. BAM! Georgia claims jurisdiction and the guy goes to jail.
  
  In all fairness this was used in the 19th century with birth control information. The case law was settled. If you ship to states you need to obey those state's laws. Evil Angel never should have directly shipped their product outside of California themselves, and instead had a distributor handle distribution. Once they engaged in a commercial transaction in Georgia .... yeah they are subject to Georgia law.
  And the same way foreign companies should have US companies do their business in the US and not do business directly. Most companies already have foreign subsidiaries for these reasons. And for data they need to have the subsidiary have limited access.
56. Re:legally demand by Elldallan · 2012-01-26 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  WELL the US does have jurisdiction over MU because they house assets such as servers in the US and depending on what position he holds within the company and how it is incorporated he might very well be criminally responsible for the acts of MU depending on if he knew and sanctioned the acts MU is accused of.
  So yes if MU broke a law they are bound to obey then he might very well have done so as well.
57. Re:legally demand by cpu6502 · 2012-01-26 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Flee? Where in the entire world does Rome's power not reach? There is No place to hide." - Senator Cicero when he was trying to flee from the tyranny of the Empire. We've now reached that same stage with the American Empire.
  >>>I suspect citizens are an also ran
  There's a 16 year old boy waiting to get extradited to the U.S. His crime? He linked to piratebay, megaupload, and other stires from his personal site. He's fighting it but so far the UK judges keep siding with the U.S. so I figure it's only a matter of time until he gets shipped across the Iron Curtain to the non-free America.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
58. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Jokes on you, we can send out drones from our armchairs.
59. Re:legally demand by V+for+Vendetta · 2012-01-26 05:06 · Score: 1
  How exactly was Hitler progressive?
  
  In certain aspects he acted indeed very progressive. But not because he was open-minded, but because a) he need to do so in order for his war plans to work out and b) in pure revenge and retaliation of what he thought was unfair treatment of "those up there" of him.
  A few progressive points of top of my head:
  
  High ranking jobs in administration and military were reserved for upper class citizens and nobles. Hitler changed that so that no longer birth was the required in order to get promoted but actual qualification. He did so because he could never become an officer in the WW I Reichswehr.
  (Equal) Jobs for women. Because he needed the men at the front, women took over jobs at home, even those with responsibility involved - something that was a pure male domain before him.
  Higher pay for overtime, night shifts, work on bank holidays. He needed the war industry to run around the clock in order to fullfill the Wehrmacht's supply/replacement needs. Paying overtime made sure people would work night shifts.
  Let me stress again that this was not because he was a progressive. But the actions themselves do qualify as being progressive. And I'm very glad that his "plan" didn't work out.
60. Re:legally demand by Alioth · 2012-01-26 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If conservatives are so pro-liberty, why are they so against things like gay rights and gay marriage? Surely a fundamental part of liberty is being allowed to choose who you want to love and marry?
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
61. Re:legally demand by SplashMyBandit · 2012-01-26 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly your understanding of the word "Political Conservative" is different to the rest of the World's. Generally conservatives don't need lobbyists, they are so pro-business (which is the principal factor that differs the political right from the left) that they don't need to - they are already in the corporatist pocket to begin with. Voting Ron Paul will change nothing - believing so is a little naiive. If enough people vote for outsiders like the Pirate Party then real change will come about - for a time until they too become part of the institution in a decade or so.
62. Re:legally demand by rohan972 · 2012-01-26 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. If liberty is the status quo then the conservative position is pro-liberty. If communism is the status quo then the conservative position is pro-communism etc, etc.
  
  The US at it's founding was radically pro-liberty, despite not extending that liberty to everyone. So a conservative can be pro-"the liberties we already have" and anti-"the liberties you want that we don't agree with".
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
63. Re:legally demand by rohan972 · 2012-01-26 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Libertarianism does not provide sufficient incentive to not infringing on others rights
  In what way does libertarianism not protect your rights?
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
64. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  No. liberals completely oppose the patriot act because it removes citizens liberties directly and also fails to preserve the remaining liberties from external threats. The law against murder removes only the license to infringe on others liberties, not for example the right to own a weapon capable of killing.
  As for the rest of your post, it is fucking retarded. Liberalism is one of the most realistic points of view. And yes, its entire purpose is to support liberty. The entire purpose of conservatism is to oppose progress towards liberty. I am not a partisan, many democrats are conservative and I do not hold their line.
65. Re:legally demand by w_dragon · 2012-01-26 05:42 · Score: 2
  
  Extradition generally requires 3 things:
  The law broken must exist, or have an equivalent, in the extraditing country. Hence Canada won't extradite draft dodgers to the USA
  The evidence presented must be sufficient to secure a trial - you can't just give a name and crime and expect to extradite someone
  The punishment if the person is found guilty must be within what the extraditing country would find reasonable. Thus any country without capital punishment will get assurances not to seek the death penalty before extraditing to the USA, for crimes where it would be a possibility.
66. Re:legally demand by rohan972 · 2012-01-26 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that libertarians do not believe that freedom and liberty can be increased by regulation and would prefer to live lawlessly where they would be free to exercise personal liberty at the expense of others. They would rather have license to pour poison into the drinking water and kill thousands of people than be encumbered by a little environmental, health or safety regulation.
  Ok, I just read this post after replying to your post here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2639369&cid=38829193
  
  You appear to be mistaking libertarianism with anarchy. They are not the same thing. Your statements on libertarian positions are incorrect. The argument I have heard is that strong protection of property rights (or in the example you give, laws against murder) is sufficient protection against pollution. You might reasonably argue how effectively those laws could be applied to environmental protection but to say that libertarians want the right to "kill thousands of people" is flat out wrong and I'm pretty sure you would have to know that.
  
  Perhaps you're using hyperbole? Otherwise, you might consider that if you can't promote your ideology without sticking to the truth then perhaps your ideology isn't worth promoting.
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
67. Re:legally demand by PCM2 · 2012-01-26 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  In what way does libertarianism not protect your rights?
  Like this:
  A. All healthcare should be provided by private business.
  B. All businesses have a right to operate without interference from the government.
  C. Therefore, all businesses have an absolute right to do business with anyone they want and only those whom they want.
  D. Therefore, any provider or insurance company has the right to deny you healthcare based on your race.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
68. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  You are the one who soured the response first. You already said I was stupid and unrealistic right here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2639369&cid=38830539 I merely responded in kind, the difference is that I am correct, and you are wrong.
  Conservatism is and has always been about resisting or repealing progress. The beginning point is not the American Revolution! It is the age of the divine monarchy that encompassed the first several thousand years of human civilization. Conservatism resisted the American revolution and it resisted the progress of liberties since then. And taken to an extreme, it attempts to repeal all of them.
  Imagine it this way. There is a triangle with liberty at one point, authority at the second point and anarchy at the third. Progressivism moves towards liberty. conservatism moves towards authority. And libertarianism moves towards anarchy.
69. Re:legally demand by flink · 2012-01-26 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you cloak totalitarian government in the vestments of communism, you get Stalinist government.
  If you mix totalitarianism with a conservative government you get fascism.
  Liberal or conservative. Capitalist or socialist. It doesn't matter what the surface ideology is: there are people on either end of the spectrum that desire a government with absolute authority over its people.
  One thing that Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and Stalin have in common is: they would all love the PATRIOT Act.
70. Re:legally demand by tilante · 2012-01-26 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I have to wonder if a desire to suck US cock is a requirement to get into politics in this country?..
  Kindly send me the names and addresses of your best-looking female ministers, and I'll immediately launch an investigation.
71. Re:legally demand by xero314 · 2012-01-26 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Shh. Keep that up and the duped Neo-Libertarians might catch on to the mighty plan.
72. Re:legally demand by rohan972 · 2012-01-26 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Can you provide a link to a link to any prominent libertarian arguing for the right to deny health care (or anything else) to people based on race? Or is it just your misinterpretation of what they advocate?
  
  I'm genuinely curious. I'm an Australian and libertarianism flies pretty much below the radar here. American politics seems to be filled with invective and misrepresenting the oppositions positions. If you can't link to a libertarian opinion I'll regard your statement as roughly equivalent to the republicans saying that democrats wanted to set up "death panels" by introducing government provided health care.
  
  I've never seen an argument that business shouldn't have to obey ANY laws. Show me.
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
73. Re:legally demand by HiThere · 2012-01-26 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  This depends on what you mean by conservative. As usually used in the US these days it means authoritarian. That's not what I mean when I call myself a conservative, but that's the way it would always be understood if I didn't give a long explanation of what it means to conserve. So I now rarely describe myself that way.
  As to Ron Paul ... He's probably the least bad of the candidates I know anything about. This is not to be interpreted as praise. He would be a lousy president, but probably not a terrible one. I doubt, however, that I'll have a chance to vote for him, as I'm *NOT* going to reregister as a Republican just to do it. I'm wondering, since the Libertarians have sold out to loonies, if there's a socialist party on the ballot. I don't like them, but they seem to be better than any of the parties I've investigated. (I haven't looked at the Green party this cycle. Last time I checked them out and couldn't stomach them. But I'm sure not going to vote for any likely Republican *OR* for Obama. When he had a chance to do good, he avoided it, so I don't give ANY credence to his promises to do good. OTOH, he appears to support both PIPA and SOPA, judging by his state of the union message.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
74. Re:legally demand by HiThere · 2012-01-26 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Washington might well have supported them. Alexander Hamilton certainly would have. Thomas Jefferson or many of the others wouldn't have, but...
  You should really consider that one of the early laws passed was the "Alien and Sedition" act.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
75. Re:legally demand by HiThere · 2012-01-26 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, while I tend to think of myself as conservative in the privacy of my mind, I'm really in favor of rolling back many of the laws that have been passed since I was, say, twelve. Because of the particular laws I'm in favor of rolling back, many people think of me as a liberal, but that's not where I'm coming from.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
76. Re:legally demand by keeboo · 2012-01-26 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly was Hitler progressive?
  Exterminating jews, gypsies and homosexuals is not progressive.
  According to the ideology it was progress, for the so-called aryan people.
  Remember that all those were considered undesirable, in the case of jews because it was perceived that they were parasites by their own nature.
  
  BTW you fail to mention the millions of slavs who were murdered (yeah, civilians and dumped in collective holes all over eastern Poland, Belarus and Ukraine) by nazis during the war, the latter had an extermination plan for them too.
  
  Just have a look at Mein Kampf: there was the intent of (so nazis believed) improve their society getting rid of (who nazis considered) parasites (jews and gypsies), inferior/burden/degenerated people (homossexuals and people with mental problems) and degenerated-asian-mixed/useless-cattle (slavs).
  
  Waging a war of conquest is not progressive. The economic aspects of his rule promoted monopolies and collusion, that is not progressive. The dissolution of his senate was not progressive. Assuming absolute control of the government was not progressive.
  One problem is that anyone can claim anything as progressive. That's one of those meaningless words people love to use.
77. Re:legally demand by HiThere · 2012-01-26 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about the Economist, but NPR isn't that reliable on anything controversial. I've never caught them actually lying, only being one-sided about their reporting. But then I don't listen to them very much. (My wife, OTOH, believes that they are the one and only voice of truth...if she's selective enough about which programs she listens to.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
78. Re:legally demand by jamstar7 · 2012-01-26 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Americans don't look at history pre-Reagan anymore. What little they see is sanitised to make sure the Party line is upheld.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
79. Re:legally demand by CodeBuster · 2012-01-26 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps not, but in reality there are three very practical consequences of spurning the United States:
  1st: Loss of access to the US banking and financial system and freezing of all US bank accounts and assets held in the United States or any other cooperating country (which is just about everyone given the global reach of the dollar and the US financial system).
  2nd: Trade and other economic sanctions. For example, the Iranians are enduring this economic misery right now and by all accounts the economy in Iran is absolutely terrible (the average person is definitely suffering the consequences). This sort of economic pressure would lead to intense political pressure to cave in all but the most repressive and insulated regimes and even they endure hardships for their defiance.
  3d and finally there is the massive global power of the United States military. The US doesn't often have to resort to the stick to get what it wants, but when it does the results speak for themselves. If they can get to Bin Laden and Sadaam, they can get to anyone.
  So as you can see, most countries relent and give the US what it wants because holding out is painful, unproductive and ultimately futile. Like it or not, that's the world that we live in.
80. Re:legally demand by frank_adrian314159 · 2012-01-26 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  A brave statement, but you resist the whims of our empire at a cost.
  
  --
  That is all.
81. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · 2012-01-26 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying Ron Paul isn't a loonie? But Gary Johnson (the actual libertarian candidate) is?
  Do I need to remind you that Ron Paul is a liar, racist and theocrat who does not believe in the 1st, 14th and 24th amendment? That he was implicated in a plot by white supremacists to overthrow the Dominican Republic? That he published a racist newsletter for decades? That he regularly had lunch and consulted with Grand Dragons of the KKK and the founders of Stormfront and the American NAZI party? That his "we the people" act would allow states to violate freedom of religion?
  That doesn't qualify as least bad to me. Not by a long shot.
82. Re:legally demand by Cederic · 2012-01-26 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Try
  Ann Widdecombe
  Palace of Westminster
  Parliament Square
  London
  England
  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
83. Re:legally demand by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-26 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  No we're not a Democracy and never have been. Study history some time. This country is a constitutional republic.
  You're a representative democracy, meaning that you have people electing representatives who then propose and vote on laws. The words "democracy" and "republic" describe concepts which are largely orthogonal, and in case of U.S., they both apply. Study a modern English dictionary some time.
84. Re:legally demand by frank_adrian314159 · 2012-01-26 09:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We dont have a party that is more liberal.
  Yes. This is what we call a "defect".
  
  --
  That is all.
85. Re:legally demand by Ihmhi · 2012-01-26 10:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  communism does not provide sufficient incentive to the individual to contribute to the public good.
  Star Trek is the endgame of a socialist/communist utopia.
  When you never have to worry about food, housing, medical care, education, and entertainment, then the only things you have to do are either sit on your ass, explore the human condition (through philosophy, art, etc.), or contribute to the human race as a whole.
  The thing a lot of people don't get is that in such a perfect society, you don't need an incentive. There's no need for currency or anything of the like because you are taken care of. Therefore there is no need to work (how many of us would quit our jobs if we hit the lotto?). Since you don't have to work, you would probably pursue something.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
86. Re:legally demand by Ihmhi · 2012-01-26 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh god, it's happening, isn't it?
  We don't even have to invent doublespeak. The current system has the people so ignorant and riled up that they don't even know what the hell the words mean. It's basically the same effect of disenfranchising people through the doubleplus ungoodness of language.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
87. Re:legally demand by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-01-26 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  There are no liberal democrats, only democrats slightly less conservative than the average republican.
  According to Norwegian standards, and I believe to the standards of most western social democratic nations, both your dominant parties are *far* right - as in the corporatism aspect of fascism, sprinkled with a very unhealthy dose of religion. Good thing that your insane laws don't apply to us... Oh, wait. Damnit, we're screwed.
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
88. Re:legally demand by rsilvergun · 2012-01-26 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but what if he's a Scotsman?
  
  --
  Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
89. Re:legally demand by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-01-26 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Let me stress again that this was not because he was a progressive. But the actions themselves do qualify as being progressive.
  To continue your "Hitler-geared-for-war" theme: After WW1 Germany had heavy restrictions on production of hardware for military applications, but Hitler was very clever in constructing a civilian infrastructure which could be used for military purposes as well.
  He made the "People's Car" a reality (Volkswagen), a cheap, reliable car which was accessible to a great many Germans who previously couldn't afford a car. This was in order to be able to appropriate the (hopefully) ubiquitus Volkswagens for troop transport in the next war.
  He also succeeded in pushing a network of high-quality roads on which to drive those cars, which is still one of the best sets of roads you'll find anywhere in the world. Today they're rated for speeds upwards of 300 km/h, and have no blanket speed limits whatsoever. I've been a passenger in a Mercedes <some powerful sedan model> on those roads at 260 km/h, it was as comfortable as a train. A buddy rode his Honda VFR 750 (top speed 240 km/h) flat out there, and couldn't use the fast lane because of higher speed traffic.
  Of course, in addition to gaining the affection of the German people, Hitler's goal was to use those roads for military traffic in the oncoming war.
  TL;DR: He did a lot of progressive things for non-progressive reasons, as my parent states.
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
90. Re:legally demand by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-01-26 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. If liberty is the status quo then the conservative position is pro-liberty. If communism is the status quo then the conservative position is pro-communism etc, etc.
  The US at it's founding was radically pro-liberty, despite not extending that liberty to everyone. So a conservative can be pro-"the liberties we already have" and anti-"the liberties you want that we don't agree with".
  As I understand it, conservative politic perspectives in the U.S. are closely tied to fundamentalist religious viewpoints, which in turn leads to mass suggestion and holier-than-thou politicians becoming successful. It's curious to note that while none of your politicians will officially condone pornography, you are still one of the largest producers of porn in the world.
  Utah buys a lot of it (I had some difficulties finding a good source due to noise from mormons trying to explain it away). But let's perpetuate the myth that we give a damn about denying gay marriage, because that's what voters want. That's what they chat with their neighbours about, they'll vote according to who is most adamant about those issues because that's what important in a nation. Yours is a strange society.
  PS due to a faulty 'm' key i almost wrote "ass suggestion" above. It'd probably have been appropriate in some manner.
  
  --
  Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
91. Re:legally demand by Formalin · 2012-01-26 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you can't hide in a western country with American fingers in it, obviously.
  Anything in grey on this map doesn't (or didn't - I'd imagine Slovenia has one now, being EU member, for example) have a treaty. Of course that doesn't preclude uh... let's say 'extrajudicial extradition' from happening. map
92. Re:legally demand by TapeCutter · 2012-01-26 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, as an Aussie I can't help but laugh when Americans say their MSM is a "godless, left-wing propaganda machine".
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
93. Re:legally demand by TapeCutter · 2012-01-26 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  While we are on the subject, I should also tell you that love and marriage are not related in any way.
  I dunno about that, many conservatives seem to love the money they married.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
94. Re:legally demand by jc42 · 2012-01-26 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah, but the traditional name for your reasoning is "the Etymological Fallacy". It's based on the assumption that people are using the language's word-construction methods normally and honestly, to convey information. But we're talking politics here, so people's normal use of words is to persuade and convert, not to honestly inform. So the meanings of words are often unrelated to (or the opposite of) what you'd expect from an honest parsing according to the language's rules.
  The major example of this in the past century, of course, was the use of "commun-" words to mean an authoritarian oligarchy, with everything owned and controlled by a small, powerful clique; pretty much the opposite of the general meaning of that root.
  Similarly, American self-described "conservatives" are nowadays mostly radical reformers, intent on abolishing the 2+ centuries of slow expansion of personal liberty (which is what literal "conservatives" would support), and replacing it with an authoritarian oligarchy controlled by a small, powerful clique. They aren't trying to conserve anything; they're trying to overturn the liberal social order and replace it with a religious and financial system with strong central control.
  Similarly, "progressive" has been appropriated by people whose intents are pretty much the opposite of the literal meaning of the term. And so on.
  Probably the best example of this inversion of words' literal meaning is the way that in the US, the term "liberal" has been redefined so radically that most American voters don't even realize that it's related to "liberty". It's not too clear exactly what US politicians actually mean by "liberal" these days, and the definition is probably different for every politician. But it clearly has nothing to do with "liberty", despite the obvious etymological relation between the two words.
  Anyway, you really can't understand politics anywhere if you think that words mean what they're "supposed to mean" according to dictionaries and grammars of the language in use.
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
95. Re:legally demand by Whiteox · 2012-01-26 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH Blacklisting the US and forcing US citizens to VPN or IP spoof to access an international site with disclaimers of no sales to the US would be pretty safe.
  A purchaser would need to have a redirect mail address set up in the country for delivery and payments.
  That puts the onus on the US citizen and not on the foreign company.
  If enough companies do that, and 3rd party mechanisms are set up to enable this, then the US Law courts will have nothing to go on.
  That's like creating international border(s) on a regional level or building a firewall around the US. Outsiders can get in, but restricted access outward.
  I can see an access denied page that says something like:
  You have been redirected here as we do not supply items to your country due to your laws.
  To access the products on this site, you need to have a mailing address and payment from an authorized escrow company operating outside of USA.
  That could work!
  
  --
  Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
96. Re:legally demand by jduhls · 2012-01-26 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  OVERRATED!?!? Fuck off!!! Everyone and their grandma knows it's a constitutional republic...on paper. In reality-ville it's a damn oligarchy run by 5% of us. Don't tell me to read my history. I didn't tell you to open your eyes.
97. Re:legally demand by SimonInOz · 2012-01-26 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  In Australia, many organisations (such as banks) are forbidden to hold customer information in a location where it may be seized by a non-Australian court order.
  This effectively prevents us from doing business with American outsourcing companies. UK is ok, and Singapore, the list is surprisingly short.
  If this were true of other countries, as I suspect, isn't American business going to get a bit cross about being ostracised by foreign companies.
  "Buy our cool new cloud service!" ... sorry, can't do that until your laws become more business friendly. (Did you ever expect to see non-business friendly, and USA in the same sentence? No, nor did I).
  
  --
  "Cats like plain crisps"
98. Re:legally demand by mdm42 · 2012-01-26 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  No need to worry about warrants or detention... just send in a team of Seals to shoot the fucker and dump the body in the ocean.
  
  --
  New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
99. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hitler was a progressive, the exact opposite of a conservative.
  No, no, you're supposed to say "Hitler was a socialist, because Nazi is short for National Socialism, therefore anyone who is not a Republican (who are anti-socialist) is a Nazi". Get it right.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
100. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  The GP's argument is the logical outcome of an extreme libertarian position. If government is prevented from any interference with business, companies will be able to pay low wages, avoid health and safety or environmental provisions, and so on. For further examples, just read any slashdot thread involving politics, there are plenty of libertarians who dislike government interference more than racism, sexism, homophobia or anything else.
  
  Their basic argument is always that the free market will magically sort everything out, so that, using GP's example, insurance companies who discriminate agains black people will simply fail to attract enough customers and will have to alter their policy in order to make money. This overlooks the fact that there are plenty of racists who would support such a company, in the same way that without legislation allowing trades unions, companies could simply sack anyone who asked for a pay rise or improved working conditions and threatened to strike.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
101. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  One problem is that anyone can claim anything as progressive. That's one of those meaningless words people love to use.
  Progress means that something changes for the better from the status quo. A law legalising the murder of sick children would raise the overall level of healthy children, which would be a change from the status quo. Therefore all progressives are child murderers.
  
  This is pretty much the "Hitler was a progressive" argument used above.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
102. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well said. If you had universal shared ownership of essentially infinite assets it wouldn't matter whether an individual contributed to the public good anyway.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
103. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  If conservaitves had their way laissez-faire would be a fact of life. There would be no government intervention.
  That is the definition of (economic) libertarianism, not conservatism.
  
  Conservativeso think that the world was a better place fifty years ago, and practically a paradise on earth two hundred years ago. They are wrong.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
104. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  They would rather have license to pour poison into the drinking water and kill thousands of people than be encumbered by a little environmental, health or safety regulation
  But, but...the people aren't forced to drink the water by the evil government, it's their free choice and nothing to do with the company pouring the poison into the water supply. Or something..
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
105. Re:legally demand by master_p · 2012-01-26 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they are in debt, and their credit rating depends on US credit rating companies.
  The above statement covers almost all countries...
106. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  You appear to be mistaking libertarianism with anarchy. They are not the same thing. Your statements on libertarian positions are incorrect. The argument I have heard is that strong protection of property rights (or in the example you give, laws against murder) is sufficient protection against pollution. You might reasonably argue how effectively those laws could be applied to environmental protection but to say that libertarians want the right to "kill thousands of people" is flat out wrong and I'm pretty sure you would have to know that.
  The libertarian argument from property rights would be that the relatives of the people who got their water poisoned would be able to sue the poisoner, and that therefore it wouldn't be in the poisoner's interest to do the poisoning, and therefore in the long run companies wouldn't poison rivers.
  
  If you had some system whereby everyone was more or less equally rich/, this might make some sense, and of course libertarians do believe that abolishing most government and relying on the free market would produce a magically wealthier society.
  
  In reality, large corporations or individuals with plenty of money would be able to do whatever they liked, which is what libertarians don't seem to be able to grasp, or else actually believe to be a good thing.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
107. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.
  Ah, nope! Might wanna consult a dictionary on that one.
  
  Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
  So by definition, conservatives are opposed to new laws that infringe on existing liberties. Actually, they are opposed to new laws in general.
  P.S. Most of the so-called "conservatives" in the US government aren't really conservative.
  No, there is a continuum from purely conservative (i.e. I want everything to stay exactly as it is now) to extreme reactionary (I want everything to go back to Victorian//Medieva/Ancient Romanl times). Conservatives in general support the existing political, religious and economic structure.
  
  So here in the Uk for instance, a moderate Tory (member of the Conservative Party with a big C) will believe in the Church of England, and the Monarchy, and the rights of landowners and businesses over tenants and workers. The more right wing/reactionary ones will be in favour of abolishing things like Trades Unions, Health and Safety legislation, racial discrimination laws, the National Health Service and so on.
  
  In US terms, the reactionaries are the Republicans, and the moderates are the Democrats. Sadly, the current Labour party doesn't seem to offer much of an alternative to the latter and have effectively abandoned socialism.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
108. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with the US is that not only are the vast majority of politicians of both parties pro-business (in the sense of placing the interests of business above everything else) but so are most of the population. The homogeneity of politicians reflects that of the population, so it's not the politicians' fault. You need to get a lot more people politically active, whose main goal in life isn't to become a multi-millionaire.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
109. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  No we're not a Democracy and never have been. Study history some time. This country is a constitutional republic.
  Why do you right wing nutjobs keep on saying this? As a citizen you get to vote for your leaders, so you are a democracy. If the US isn't a democracy, then nor is anywhere else in the world, so the word becomes meaningless.
  
  Repeat after me "direct democracy is not the same as representational democracy". You should study not only history but current affairs.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
110. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same in my country, the UK, we call our current office Labour
  You appear to have missed the general election a year and a half ago, and somehow overlooked any reference in the news to David Cameron being the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition.
  
  This leads to some doubt as to the value of the rest of your post.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
111. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 23:51 · Score: 2
  
  I think it's a joke that you call your current office 'liberal'.
  The fact that our liberal party is run by fascists doesnt change the fact that they are our liberals. We dont have a party that is more liberal.
  I'm sure you do, it's just that no one votes for them.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
112. Re:legally demand by tehcyder · 2012-01-27 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Each country is organized as its own subsidiary. This was probably expensive, but we can say "Go talk to the subsidiary in that country" because we don't have the data. International law is tricky, and you can be sure there are some very weasly lawyers at the top making sure everything is deniable.
  But if the parent company is registered in the US, surely all the subsidiaries would be chasable under US law anyway?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
113. Re:legally demand by rtb61 · 2012-01-27 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  The weirdest thing about that is those UK extradition requirements extend to all category 2 extradition countries. Where most countries have bilateral agreements, as for you as for me. The UK seems quite content to toss out as many citizens as possible as quickly as possible with it's lop sided regulations.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
114. Re:legally demand by jduhls · 2012-01-27 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck it - repost: OVERRATED!?!? Fuck off!!! Everyone and their grandma knows it's a constitutional republic...on paper. In reality-ville it's a damn oligarchy run by 5% of us. Don't tell me to read my history. I didn't tell you to open your eyes.
115. Re:legally demand by HiThere · 2012-01-27 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  First time I've heard those comments made about him. I don't think I'll believe them without creditable sources.
  OTOH, it doesn't really matter, as I'm *NOT* going to have a chance to vote for him. So I'm not going to bother to check.
  That said, I really doubt that he's actually the state's rights libertarian that he likes to present himself as. But again, I'm not going to research this because he's not going to be the candidate.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
116. Re:legally demand by Magius_AR · 2012-01-27 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics), it's these screwballs: "In the USA, John George and Laird Wilcox have identified the Communist Party USA, Socialist Workers Party (United States), Black Panther Party, Students for a Democratic Society and Progressive Labor Party (United States) as some of the groups active on what he refers to as the "far-left".[6]"
117. Re:legally demand by rohan972 · 2012-01-27 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well you'd still have laws against murder. In any case, assuming you're right and libertarianism would result in pollution amounting to mass murder, I think their is a vast difference between being terribly wrong about the results of policy decisions and actually desiring mass murder.
  
  You know something about public health care (I'm in a country with it)? It doesn't automatically generate enough funding to save every life. Decisions on what services to provide have to be made with budgets in mind and that inevitably means that some people will die having been ineffectively treated or untreated. That doesn't make it either helpful or valid to call the people who make budget decisions regarding health "death panels".
  
  How does that sort of negative framing of people's intentions contribute to debate in a civilized society? It doesn't matter who is doing it, it isn't an appeal to reason, it is a provocation to emotional opposition. To engage in that tactic as a political strategy is to endorse the current systems of propaganda and population control and repudiates the ideals of democracy, which depends on reason. The "winners" of such a contest will always be the people who control the media, religions and education system. The same type of corporations you think want to poison you for profit.
  
  The US isn't libertarian yet by this non-libertarianism has only managed to outsource your killing to places like Iraq. How many people are being killed in the war on drugs? Are the people you vote for aiming to stop that? How about actually doing it? As I understand it that war disproportionately harms black people in the US, should I call people who support strong drug laws genocidal? NO! They're just wrong about how do deal with drug problems IMO.
  
  As someone who probably disagrees with you strongly on many issues, I appeal to you to conduct yourself in such a way that whatever the outcome of an argument, reason wins. I'm not perfect at that myself, but if enough people attempt it consistently enough, for long enough it ought to be a force as unstoppable as science.
  
  There is a false dichotomy assumed by most people that power can only go to corporations or the government. While both institutions perform useful functions for us, both can also be detrimental. However, corporations are empowered by legislation. The free market exists because of legislation. I'm personally against perpetual existence and person-hood for corporations. Take that away and you don't need nearly so much government intervention to control them. To take power from both the government and corporations in favor of the people requires the widespread use of reason, to have resistance to manipulation. There's a lot of work to do to achieve that. We need everyone possible on board with that agenda, regardless of their political persuasion.
  
  If we abandon a commitment to reasoned debate because we are divided into groups based on ideology and our groups success becomes more important than a good political process, we all lose. There is no political system or idea good enough to operate independently of reason and ethics. That's what we need to promote, more so that "my side winning".
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
118. Re:legally demand by thejynxed · 2012-01-27 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's because with the wording of that treaty, it makes it quite easy for them to deny request of extradition for traditional, native, white Britons that "toe the line", while easily sending all of those non-natives (read: darker skinned immigrants and similar "citizens") packing off to foreign jails.
  At the time this was written, bus bombings and train bombings were going on smack in the middle of London and perpetrated by immigrants AND people that were considered citizens (but not of the "traditional" variety, AKA Muslims/Pakistanis).
  Back in the days of the Raj, they didn't even go that far, they just rounded them up and shot/hung them, screw all of this fluffy extradition stuff.
  
  --
  @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
119. Re:legally demand by thejynxed · 2012-01-27 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's because modern "Conservatism" has little to nothing to do with the true conservatism acted out in the past. Today's Republican Party is nothing more than the Dixiecrats that fled to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act and desegregation, along with the policies, opinions and ideals those former Democrats held.
  Today, you'd have to take a mix of Libertarian, Democrat AND a few of the Republican ideals to even approach the Conservatism of the past. By that, I mean closer to the policies of say, Teddy Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson than George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.
  So many Americans though look at our political parties with a blind eye, and don't realize that what we call Left and Right is still vastly more to the Right of Center than what most of Europe (or the rest of the world for that matter) considers to be Left and Right.
  I call modern US Democrats the "Republican Lite" of politics, for how little actual difference there is between the two. Sure they have some squabbles over a few social and fiscal matters, but that seems to me to be more a matter of twin children squabbling over the crayons than any actual real difference that matters.
  
  --
  @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
They can legally ask by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:07 · Score: 1

and we can legally tell them to go fuck themselves. Shame we don't do it though.
Copyright now? by Pieroxy · 2012-01-26 01:08 · Score: 1

The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S.
Except that, AFAIK, the Patriot Act doesn't have anything to do with Copyright. Or was it amended?

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
1. Re:Copyright now? by bleh-of-the-huns · 2012-01-26 01:10 · Score: 2
  
  That depends, one of the charges against him was money laundering, if said laundering was used to fund terrorism (yes, that is a huge stretch by any imagination...), the Patriot act would apply...
  Law enforcement (Federal and Local) have been known to stretch the facts to get what they want though...
  
  --
  I came, I conquered, I coredumped
2. Re:Copyright now? by Darkness404 · 2012-01-26 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Since the PATRIOT act allows the government to pretty much get logs of whatever for whatever reason they feel like, they can easily say they are fighting "terrorism" and gain these logs and then see that there was a "crime" committed (or plant evidence) and then charge you with that "crime".
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
3. Re:Copyright now? by Robert+Zenz · 2012-01-26 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  You man the U.S. sues him for violating their Copyright by illegally sharing money with other people?
4. Re:Copyright now? by Brian+Feldman · 2012-01-26 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Using what warrant? Standard crimes must be dealt with in the normal fashion.
  
  --
  Brian Fundakowski Feldman
5. Re:Copyright now? by jamstar7 · 2012-01-26 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not much terrorism in Vegas the last hundred years or so. Course, that little fact didn't stop them from using the Patriot Act to prosecute them for corruption. It was easier for them to go that way than it was to use the RICO Act like they should have. Course, I haven't met a cop or a judge yet that wouldn't take the easy way out of any situation...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
6. Re:Copyright now? by jamstar7 · 2012-01-26 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Ack. Prosecute a couple Vegas politicians under the Patriot Act. Not enough coffee, outhought my fingers this morning.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
7. Re:Copyright now? by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but filing a false charge to mislead the court or overcharging is a good way to get the whole case dismissed. The real problem in our system is:
  file a false charge against A to get discovery
  use that discovery to get a warrant against B as part of the investigation against A
  drop the charge against A
  go after B
Kim will keep user data safe. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:08 · Score: 1

Kim Jong Un, of course. Place your new datacenters in fabulous downtown Pyongyang!
1. Re:Kim will keep user data safe. by cuog · 2012-01-26 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  That may actually be a wise move... I don't see many countries being willing to cooperate with an extradition order to North Korea.
Rape Whistle by SJHillman · 2012-01-26 01:10 · Score: 4, Funny

"countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist"
They need a nation-sized Rape-aXe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_device#Rape-aXe
1. Re:Rape Whistle by nosfucious · 2012-01-26 01:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, It's called "having nukes".
  The various North Korean and Iranian despots are well aware of this fact.
  
  --
  Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
2. Re:Rape Whistle by Archtech · 2012-01-26 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is a case where simply saying "No" would actually work. Try it, "No, you may not have the data."
  See, very simple. No need for weapons or belligerence.
  Very nice, until you suddenly find that your company's operations in the USA have been closed down, or all your money in US-controlled banks has been frozen. That no one who has ever met you, or any of your family, or anyone with the same initials as you, is allowed to enter the USA or any of its widespread dominions. That no US-based corporation (or corporation that ever hopes to do any business in the USA, or with US-based corporations) will give you the time of day. That all your communications may be tapped, and diligently searched for the slightest excuse to harass or prosecute you for further alleged wrongdoing. That no one will hire you. That other governments hoping for favour from Washington (i.e. all governments except perhaps Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea) will presently follow suit. And on, and on, and on.
  Oh, and you may unexpectedly find yourself being extradited to Sweden on multiple charges of aggravated rape.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why does a bully have power over others? Because others don't put up a fight.
expanding FATCA by lynnae · 2012-01-26 01:11 · Score: 2

So, bascially they take took FATCA and expanded the idea to get a worldwide power to get data on anyone. nice.
Powerless, my backside by SoftwarePearls · 2012-01-26 01:12 · Score: 2

"Largely powerless to resist"... what a load of trash. Just let them try, and see what kind of "powerless resistance" comes back at them. These are fascist laws.. and here in Europe, we've learned a lesson or two on that subject which makes us less inclined to raise our right arm to the furher again.
1. Re:Powerless, my backside by Darkness404 · 2012-01-26 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Really now? Europe has tons of really, really, stupid laws (of course they differ depending on the countries), some criminalize belief (like the French law preventing people from saying that the killing of Armenians was not genocide) others criminalize even basic dress (Burqa bans), still others have the net effect of preventing religious freedom (minaret ban in Switzerland), etc.
  
  Yes the US is screwed up but Europe is just as screwed up too in their laws.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:Powerless, my backside by CFBMoo1 · 2012-01-26 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Can't say America hasn't given it the old college try, just ask Julian Assange how it's going. I must say he's putting up a good fight.
  
  --
  ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
3. Re:Powerless, my backside by Captain+Hook · 2012-01-26 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  some criminalize belief (like the French law preventing people from saying that the killing of Armenians was not genocide)
  To be fair, laws like that are designed specifically to prevent another rise of the far right.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
4. Re:Powerless, my backside by Darkness404 · 2012-01-26 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Heaven forbid that we actually you know, base decisions on fact and the marketplace of ideas. Instead we need our supreme overlords to tell us what to think/believe!
  
  Of course there will be some irrational people who don't look at the facts and conclude that the holocaust/genocides never happened. But its a small minority and you are only feeding them by banning debate over it.
  
  It is counterproductive to ban debate over these issues because what will inevitably occur is that there will be a rise in anti-antisemitism and the like because of these bans. Which is more likely to get a following?
  
  A) Using an obscure incorrect mathematical calculation, the furnaces used to burn the Jews could have only killed a 2,000 of them, ignoring all the historical evidence otherwise.
  
  Or:
  
  B) My theory is illegal because the evil Zionist Jewish bankers/new world order are suppressing the truth! Look! They've banned public discussion about it simply to shut us up! Clearly this shows that we know something that they don't! And the facts must be shaky because they don't open up debate!
  
  By banning debate over these topics, not only are you committing an absolutely massive human rights violation but you are also creating the very problem you are trying to stop. Given enough time, lies will fade away, but if you try to suppress ideas they will grow even stronger. After all, every cause needs martyrs...
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
5. Re:Powerless, my backside by gbjbaanb · 2012-01-26 02:10 · Score: 2
  
  How does banning the burqa block the rise of the far right?
  it's the same one that bans the use of the swastika, designed to stop the fanatical (not necessarily far-right politically, but far-to-the-right-of-intelligence for sure) groups from subverting the common law for their own nefarious purposes.
  The burqa issue is less one of free right to dress like you want, and more to prevent forcing of that dress on people. The French state doesn't really care what you wear, but the groups that promote the burqa do, and have a less than free attitude about it. In the end, the state determined the disadvantage to those women who wanted to wear the burqa was outweighed by the advantage to those who had no choice in the matter.
6. Re:Powerless, my backside by misexistentialist · 2012-01-26 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Banning the "far-right" is a flexing of muscle of the far-left, which actually more likely to implement campaigns of terror and mass dehumanization. In a free state Muslim girls always had the option of reporting their oppressors to the police, but a leftist dress code means that the police are themselves the oppressors.
7. Re:Powerless, my backside by bidule · 2012-01-26 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  some criminalize belief (like the French law preventing people from saying that the killing of Armenians was not genocide)
  Well, if it's falsifiable it's not a belief. And if it has been proven wrong, it's a lie.
  And are those examples part of the Criminal Code, or the Civil one?
  
  --
  ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
8. Re:Powerless, my backside by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  calling it a "burka ban" is a sensationalist view on something much broader, it's a ban on hiding your face in public, i can't wear a carnaval mask, of full ski-mask either under the same law.
9. Re:Powerless, my backside by V+for+Vendetta · 2012-01-26 05:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you don't want women to wear a burqua, simple enough, convince them.
  
  Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with conviction/belief, but with too many girls and women forced to wear the burka by their (male) family (members). They get killed for not obeying to their demands. This is to protect those girls and women who want to execute their freedom rights.
10. Re:Powerless, my backside by ImprovOmega · 2012-01-26 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  They technically had the option of reporting it, but if you do report it you may well end up dead. It's like how wife-beating goes under-reported even in the U.S. Oppression of women is historically under-reported so the French government felt the need to step in and stop at least that form of it.
11. Re:Powerless, my backside by misexistentialist · 2012-01-26 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like either the result of the socialist/fascist system failing to protect individuals (disarmed for their own protection) or the socialist/fascist doctrine of dismantling religion and the family (women are not allowed free choice of religion or husband).
12. Re:Powerless, my backside by Anonyme+Connard · 2012-01-26 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  some criminalize belief (like the French law preventing people from saying
  No belief is criminalized (how could this be enforced?), neither simply "saying" anything. What is forbidden in many European countries is hate speech using mass media (newspapers, radio, TV, internet) because they are essentially one-way : you could say to many people any horror based on false facts or twisted reasoning without anyone being alowed to contradict you.
  We have some serious historical reasons for that.
13. Re:Powerless, my backside by meadowsp · 2012-01-26 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  And you're happy with the government controlling what you can wear?
14. Re:Powerless, my backside by Savantissimo · 2012-01-27 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Right. In moderate, predominantly Muslim countries such as Turkey there is broad, liberal public support for banning the wearing of headscarves in parliament and in other places. This keeps the fundamentalists from enforcing a dress code for women via social and extra-legal means and results in more real freedom for women. Banning the hajab isn't about cultural discrimination but about keeping religious nuts from running everybody else's lives.
  
  --
  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Alarmist by nysus · 2012-01-26 01:14 · Score: 1

The US also has the power to launch one thousand nukes and wreak devastation across the globe. Why aren't we writing articles about that?

--
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
1. Re:Alarmist by MoonBuggy · 2012-01-26 01:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because the US hasn't nuked anyone in over half a century, and doesn't appear to show any inclination to. They have, however, seized data from New Zealand in the last week or so, and are currently trying to extradite a British citizen for actions that occurred solely within the UK and were already deemed not to constitute a crime under British law.
2. Re:Alarmist by lexa1979 · 2012-01-26 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  isn't it something like 18 000 nukes ? and they're whining because some other country would like to have one or two ? When the cowboy in front of me will let the gun down, I'll drop mine.
3. Re:Alarmist by TheDarkMaster · 2012-01-26 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  The US does not need to use for real, just need to have the ability to do so.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
4. Re:Alarmist by Robert+Zenz · 2012-01-26 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Because no-one will launch nukes. Even the U.S. pissed their pants when they saw what they had done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The cold-war is over, and so are the last changes for a *real* nuclear conflict around the world. Sure, there are still two or three muppets out there which would throw a nuclear weapon at somebody...but no-one is dumb enough to throw one back just for the sake of it. It's over, get over it, worry about economy instead.
5. Re:Alarmist by JasterBobaMereel · 2012-01-26 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  If the USA nuked anyone for *almost* any reason, then they would really know what being a globally shunned would be like
  Forget agreements, they would be cancelled overnight ...
  Nuking a nuclear country is not an option, Nuking a non-nuclear country is counter productive ... that leaves no-one ...
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
6. Re:Alarmist by mindcandy · 2012-01-26 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, they asked the NZ authorities to do it on their behalf. That is a big difference. In the Mega[upload|video] case, they subjected themselves to US jurisdiction by using a colo in Virginia. Had he used .. say .. PRQ (who I picked as an example because of their general "pfft with your stupid laws" attitude) he'd probably have a lot better case (which isn't to say the US wouldn't have tried anyway, but they pretty clearly have jurisdiction.
7. Re:Alarmist by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  When George Bush was president and the US was getting iffy on the whole NPT regime Europe was critical. The policy of the European governments, and the population by and large is that the NPT is a key component to world peace. If you disagree, convince your population of that.
8. Re:Alarmist by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Nuking a nuclear country is not an option
  
  Of course it is. There hasn't been a nuclear war yet. That doesn't mean one won't happen. A small number of nuclear weapons is far less of a deterrent than is commonly believed. Heck think about how many wars the US has had to fight and that was when it has had thousands of weapons with excellent guidance and delivery systems.
9. Re:Alarmist by SplashMyBandit · 2012-01-26 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  > "Seized data in the last week or so"
  LOL! Why don't people realise that in *every* modern country *all* traffic is currently being monitored by the FBI. The US has used trade treaties and agreements to have "Lawful Intercept" (now there's a misnomer if ever there was one) equipment in the ISPs of all its trading partners. This can be used to watch packets flying around the world in real time (oops, still believe TOR can't be defeated?). The Lawful Intercept installations are recent, but the ECHELON network has been used for half a century to collect signal intelligence. Some of this signal intelligence is shared with the host countries but mostly after the Cold War it is being used to assist US businesses beat competition in the hosting country. This 'seizing of data' is not new and not particular to New Zealand (nb: I'm from New Zealand).
10. Re:Alarmist by mdm42 · 2012-01-26 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  Because the US hasn't nuked anyone in over half a century
  I guess you've forgotten about all that depleted uranium lying around Kuwait and Iraq, then. I appreciate that it doesn't make a nice, big mushroom cloud, but its still pretty nasty stuff.
  
  --
  New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
Smells like hyperbole by BlueParrot · 2012-01-26 01:14 · Score: 2

So if US cops "demands" Iran hand over the details of their nuclear scientist's e-mail traffic it is just going to happen?
I call bullshit. The only reason they'd be able to acquire such data would be if the host country agreed to let it happen. That would be a problem with the host country's lack of privacy protection for their own citizens, and has little to do with the patriot act itself.
1. Re:Smells like hyperbole by Pecisk · 2012-01-26 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Really? How they could harass for example Germany if it refused to bow to such demands? Please keep hyperbole at home. Yes, US laws are overreaching, stupid and borders with control freakism at it's best. Yes, they are trying to push several laws very strongly (*caugh*Intelectual "property"*caugh*). No, they can't get everything unless address country decides to give them.
  
  --
  user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
2. Re:Smells like hyperbole by hawks5999 · 2012-01-26 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  We'll, if we don't get those emails, we will have to assume the worse and assassinate the scientist, blockade Iran and send drones in to blow up any alleged facilities where he was working.
3. Re:Smells like hyperbole by fuzzytv · 2012-01-26 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. The belief that the Megaupload case (arrest of those who ran it) somehow proves that USA can ask (and get automatically) whatever they want is just crazy. First, AFAIK the case has nothing to do with Patriot Act, mentioned in the case. Second, a US government by itself can't improse laws on businesses in different countries, unless those governments are run by US citizens (to some extent). All the other rules have to be somehow negotiated (international laws).
  They can ask for whatever they want, the other party is free to tell them to ... go away. I'm not saying it's that simple (the are powerful lobyist groups that are pushing the governments to cooperate with US (as for example motion-picture associations in the megaupload case).
  One option to prevent this bullying is to move the infrastructure to countries that compete with the US so they probably won't be too keen to cooperate with the US. I mean Russia, China, ... Yes, I'm fully aware there are other risks connected to these countries.
4. Re:Smells like hyperbole by berashith · 2012-01-26 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  It looks like the issue is foreign businesses, not foreign governments. If the businesses fought tooth and nail and could convince their government to take a stand, then there is likely going to be some pushback. Now, getting the businesses government to care will take quite some time, and likely some egregious action by the US, or things will just get pushed under the rug. The businesses that refuse will suffer by not being allowed into the US market.
5. Re:Smells like hyperbole by Archtech · 2012-01-26 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  So if US cops "demands" Iran hand over the details of their nuclear scientist's e-mail traffic it is just going to happen?
  Iran is one of maybe four or five nations in the whole world that does not automatically do what Washington tells it to do. That, of course, is why it is at ground zero for the most terrifying display of nuclear sabre-rattling that Washington can muster.
  There used to be a few other countries that refused to follow orders from Washington. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... are you seeing a pattern here yet?
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
6. Re:Smells like hyperbole by fuzzytv · 2012-01-26 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  What? How is a *law* imposed on other countries comparable to a *requirement* imposed on businesses willing to operate on the US soil? The requirement is still a bit weird (as they will impose US rules to businesses in other countries), but it's your decision to go to US. The law is going to be imposed on businesses that have nothing to do with the US (except that their website might be reachable).
  Forcing businesses outside US to follow US laws is like prohibiting people in China to wear red caps.
7. Re:Smells like hyperbole by berashith · 2012-01-26 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  It looks as if this is a sales pitch warning businesses against relations with businesses that have data/compute/storage capabilities that have a presence in the US. Those businesses can be compelled to turn over information to US authorities. Genius sales pitch actually. I worked within AT&T for a while, and the sheer number of subpoenas served daily to a company that size is outrageous. They cant fight every one. Now, if you choose to allow AT&T to hold you data ( or EC2 , or sungard , or google) , then those companies may be forced to turn over information. If you want to comply with your local privacy laws that actually take human dignity into account, then you will need to take careful consideration of where you purchase and locate any cloud based IT initiative.
  The conversation was leaning too far towards " The US uses the patriot act to force other governments to have no secrecy". This is not the case. The US uses the patriot act as an excuse to gather any information that it can, and companies on US soil, or companies that share data with companies on US soil may have a hard time defending data from this nonsense.
  TFA mentions that cloud sharing is a bit nebulous, and care is needed. It isnt certain at what point US based services (gmail) may allow this reach to occur. Think of the ad data shared from facebook or youtube, and then if your country actually enforces strict privacy then you may have a hard time protecting your data if you are selling ads using preferences gathered through these tools.
8. Re:Smells like hyperbole by Ihmhi · 2012-01-26 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  So if US cops "demands" Iran hand over the details of their nuclear scientist's e-mail traffic it is just going to happen?
  No, it won't. That's when we go to Plan B, which is demonize the hell out of Iran as justification for an invasion.
  It is already happening.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
America, f*** yeah! by captainpanic · 2012-01-26 01:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Team America: World Police
Intended as satire. Used instead as guidebook.
1. Re:America, f*** yeah! by PlatyPaul · 2012-01-26 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  I, for one, welcome our puppet-sexing vomit gag overlords.
  
  --
  Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
AYBABTU by phildobbin · 2012-01-26 01:19 · Score: 1

lets really hurt these arseholes & take down their online Porn empire...

--
SELECT * FROM Dubya WHERE clue > 0; 0 rows returned
FTFY by mapkinase · 2012-01-26 01:21 · Score: 1

"US cops can legally demand data from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist"
US can demand anything from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are powerless to resist

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Legality? by bleh-of-the-huns · 2012-01-26 01:22 · Score: 1

This is complete speculation... but I suspect it has alot to do with money, or rather the requirements and policies the US puts on other countries to trade with the US.
Everyone hates the US blah blah blah, is a sentiment of the populations, however, the governments of those same countries (with the exception of a few like Iran, Venezuela, cuba etc) all want to be in the US governments good graces, and will in many cases give up way to much power to the US to remain in the US's good graces..

--
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Governments are inherently evil by roman_mir · 2012-01-26 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

The real State of the Union is very weak. The US debt is bigger than ever, the liberties of people are weaker than ever, the government is more powerful in terms of what it can do to individuals (and even citizens of other countries) than ever.
The economy of USA (and Europe) are weak and getting weaker, the inflation is higher and getting higher, the wars are long and getting longer, the corruption - meddling of government in business and as a corollary meddling of business in government is enormous. Iran and India are now trading oil for gold, and in USA people who show the obvious illegitimacy of government power are thrown to jail - political prisoners.
Do not forget.
Government is supposed to be there to protect your liberties and freedoms, but this does not mean to protect your liberties and freedoms against other non-government civilians.
Government is inherently evil, but it must exist to occupy the space where otherwise the evil would exist that didn't have public legitimacy on its side.
The point of government is to exist to occupy space of where the inherent evil lives and to protect the individuals from the inherent evil that occupies that space. Now, whether it is realistic to expect some entity to occupy space of evil and not turn evil itself ... (and my argument goes further, but I am not going there in this discussion), but basically government exists to protect people FROM ITSELF.
It is the government force that we are all vulnerable to. Other individuals and companies - that's a private matter.
Now governments failed people completely, including the court system, the Supreme Court in USA as well, so this just shows how inherent the evil is and how it permeates into whatever entity that is occupying that space.
But the Constitution is law above government, and government broke that law long ago and it continues to brake it every day. Government protecting people from government does not mean that government must protect people from other people.
The theory of government and understanding of government is completely flawed.
The system that exists to supposedly protect people from crime should not be the same and must not be conspiring with the system that exists to occupy the space of evil government power.
Once you mix together the system of government, which is supposed to provide you with freedoms from itself, and you mix it with system that may be set up to provide you with security from other individuals, you end up with a government system that has the tools and the will to destroy your liberties.
The separation of power (legislative, judicial, executive) in government is not done correctly and that's where the fault in current government theory shows itself.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:Governments are inherently evil by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  This libertarian rant is a bit off.
  -- The US debt is bigger than ever,
  The US debt is 100% denominated in a fiat currency 100% under the control of the government. You use the debt to argue government weakness in a profound sense.
  -- the wars are long and getting longer,
  As opposed to the decades of the cold war, the problems with Cuba and Vietnam?
  -- Iran and India are now trading oil for gold
  If gold implies strength then between Fort Knox and Federal Reserve bank of NY we have tons of strength. Besides gold doesn't mean much of anything.
  Etc..
2. Re:Governments are inherently evil by roman_mir · 2012-01-26 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  The US debt is 100% denominated in a fiat currency 100% under the control of the government. You use the debt to argue government weakness in a profound sense.
  - what a wonderful argument.
  It's false of-course. It doesn't matter what the debt is 'denominated' in, what matters is that it can never be repaid in anything worth anything. Printing currency is not the same as doing productive work to give back anything of value, of-course that will never be done. But it's not the creditors who have worthless dollars in their hands that will suffer the most, it's US population, because it will find out what it's like not to be able to buy anything from anybody abroad for the dollars.
  
  As opposed to the decades of the cold war, the problems with Cuba and Vietnam?
  - Cuba? Really? You are comparing to that? Vietnam lasted a long time and something like 60thousand were killed and 300thousand wounded just on US side, and in total about 1.5 million were killed and over 2 million wounded. That was pretty big of-course.
  But at the time US was still a productive country, those wars were still not fought on debt.
  
  If gold implies strength then between Fort Knox and Federal Reserve bank of NY we have tons of strength. Besides gold doesn't mean much of anything.
  - so gold means nothing. Does USD mean anything? People are looking a way out of that currency (and other currencies) and we are seeing gold becoming de-facto money, that's what it means.
  As to Fort Knox and Fed - when was the last real audit of all of that?
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
3. Re:Governments are inherently evil by jbolden · 2012-01-26 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's false of-course. It doesn't matter what the debt is 'denominated' in,
  
  Sure it does. Owing 1 billion corn flakes is less debt than owing a billion bars of gold. The rest of your stuff is about inflation. The government can do what they want with currency, like create a new one for the population.
  
  But at the time US was still a productive country, those wars were still not fought on debt.
  
  A currency account surplus is the flip side of a trade deficit. What you seem to mean by "productive" was we were a net exporter then. Yes we were. And if our currency drops like a stone as you predict above we'll be a net exporter again. You can't argue that running a low currency that leads to exports is bad one paragraph and then in this one argue it was a gold age and thus foreign wars shouldn't count. You can support strong money and wanting an overly strong currency, like we have nor, or you can support an export driven economy. You can't support both.
  
  so gold means nothing. Does USD mean anything? People are looking a way out of that currency (and other currencies) and we are seeing gold becoming de-facto money, that's what it means.
  
  Really that's what we are seeing? The vast majority of the means of production globally like say 99.9% are controlled by fiat currencies. Gold isn't being used as a medium of exchange almost anywhere. The Swiss Franc one of the last gold currencies dropped off.
  I'll agree that gold has had a nice run. At the absolute height of gold's value all the world's gold was worth $1.5t or about 2.5% of the value of the world's fiat currencies. The gold derivative market is in the hundreds of billions, not the hundreds of trillions. Gold is not a de-facto money. It is a collectors item. Just look at real data.
  
  As to Fort Knox and Fed - when was the last real audit of all of that?
  
  Of their physical holdings? Daily audits to the best of my knowledge.
4. Re:Governments are inherently evil by roman_mir · 2012-01-26 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Sure it does. Owing 1 billion corn flakes is less debt than owing a billion bars of gold. The rest of your stuff is about inflation. The government can do what they want with currency, like create a new one for the population.
  - you don't understand something. It's not what government declares to be currency/money that is important. What is important what people think is money.
  That's why there is no investment in USA anymore, as government prints dollars, nobody who has real savings wants to hold it in dollars, they are saving/investing in other countries, where they see better money, and many have gone into commodities not for speculation.
  It's NOT uncertainty that drives investors, it's CERTAINTY that US dollar is gone.
  
  A currency account surplus is the flip side of a trade deficit. What you seem to mean by "productive" was we were a net exporter then. Yes we were. And if our currency drops like a stone as you predict above we'll be a net exporter again
  - Of what?
  I say USA will be a net exporter again. Do you know why? Because in order to import any of the goods US will want to buy from other countries, it will have to export something that other countries will want to take for the goods. It's only now that ships are coming to USA filled with things and are leaving empty.
  USA will b a net exporter.
  USA will be a net exporter of oil, gas and other raw materials. It will not do the majority of population much good in the beginning, but in the long run the savings will be rebuilt, when US population will have to overproduce (maybe catch more fish, maybe grow more crops) and these savings will eventually buy some new tools from abroad and some of the manufacturing will come back eventually, but of-course the standard of living will be very very low at that time.
  You seem to be under common misconception that a weak currency is somehow good for the economy. That's nonsense. Weak currency is terrible for the economy, because people move their real investment capital out of weak currency, and they move it into stronger currency or into real money and they invest where they have that money, so businesses grow where real money is.
  Switzerland is trying to commit suicide now, it tied Franc to Euro, so that's a huge mistake. With 3% unemployment and a very strong currency, the Swiss are very productive, they export their products for the comparative advantage of importing foreign goods into the country. Of-course there are politicians on top there who also don't understand economics, so they decided to destroy the Swiss Franc. Well, now people are moving into gold.
  So yes, strong money and strong exports are not somehow at odds with each other at all. Do you know why the Fed lowers interest rates when they say: we must increase economic activity?
  Because lowering interest rates basically takes away real purchasing power, and with government setting labour laws and wage prices, this means simply making the labour force cheaper with inflation, that's all that low interest rates do (and of-course ability to print money, give it to banks and have them monetise the debt).
  Weakening the currency to increase exports simply cheapens the exports, lowers the purchasing power of the exporter. Yes, you can export more (IF YOU HAVE MANUFACTURING, which you don't, so you'll be exporting raw goods and energy), but it means you are working more for less money, that's all that this does. Maybe it looks right on a quarterly corporate and federal report - there is more nominal dollars moving around, but it's terrible in the real economy - you can buy so much less for those same dollars.
  
  Really that's what we are seeing? The vast majority of the means of production globally like say 99.9% are controlled by fiat currencies.
  - sure, it's changing.
  
  Gold isn't being
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
5. Re:Governments are inherently evil by jbolden · 2012-01-26 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's why there is no investment in USA anymore
  
  First off the US is a net importer. There is an investment in US bonds. If we were net exporting, like we were in the 1960s then you could argue that people aren't investing here. The fact is people are perfectly content to invest, about $2b a day per day every day in the USA. That's why we are having such a large trade problem. People need to export to us to get the currency to invest here.
  You obviously have an interest in economics. You need to stop talking in rhetoric and read standard econ 102 macro economics books about stuff like flow of funds.
  
  they are saving/investing in other countries, where they see better money
  
  No they aren't. They are saving/investing in the USA. You may not like that fact, those are the facts. That is why we have 3% interest rates people are desperately fleeing other economies to put their wealth in our fiat money. We have an excess of savings in dollars not a lack of it.
  
  What's behind US Treasury bond?
  
  The full faith and credit of the United States. Government assets in the $50t range (federal lands...). Private assets several times that which it can tax. The world's largest military by far. That's what is behind it if we had hard money.
  But we don't. So on top of all that, it is denominated in a fiat currency which the government can create at will in unlimited quantities.
  
  You seem to be under common misconception that a weak currency is somehow good for the economy. That's nonsense. Weak currency is terrible for the economy, because people move their real investment capital out of weak currency, and they move it into stronger currency
  
  That can't be happening. Think about it. You are arguing as the price of something goes down the demand will decrease. You are absolutely right that a weak currency means investment is moving out of the country. Which is opposite of what is happening today.
  You need to decide if you like capital inflows or outflows. You seem to be against both.
6. Re:Governments are inherently evil by roman_mir · 2012-01-26 13:27 · Score: 2
  
  First off the US is a net importer. There is an investment in US bonds. If we were net exporting, like we were in the 1960s then you could argue that people aren't investing here.
  - this is 100% backwards.
  People used to invest in USA before the money started losing all that value (especially after 1971) and all the real investments were leaving for other countries.
  Buying bonds does not mean investing, as I said: Fed gives discount window price of 0 to the bailed out banks, who are all insolvent the moment interest rates go up, because they turn around and buy US Treasury debt at somewhere between 2 and 3%.
  
  The fact is people are perfectly content to invest, about $2b a day per day every day in the USA. That's why we are having such a large trade problem. People need to export to us to get the currency to invest here.
  - do you even understand that there is nothing new being built in USA? Invest into what? Nobody is building anything new in US. Money that's pumped into government absolutely prevents (crowds out) all investments in private sector.
  The fear trade based on complete misunderstanding of the fundamental economics based on Keynesian ideas is still prevalent, that's why all those bond holders will lose their shirt.
  It's like Greece, but worse, because USA can print, and thus it can go out Zimbabwe style.
  
  You obviously have an interest in economics. You need to stop talking in rhetoric and read standard econ 102 macro economics books about stuff like flow of funds.
  - there is 0 difference between 'macro' and 'micro' economics, like there is 0 difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution. It's complete nonsense.
  
  No they aren't. They are saving/investing in the USA. You may not like that fact,
  - LIKE the FACT?
  Like what fact? Like the fact that no company is building any new capacity in USA?
  
  The full faith and credit of the United States.
  - yeah, and Greece had very high ratings too, just 2 years ago.
  
  Government assets in the $50t range (federal lands...).
  - nobody needs land in USA unless that land can produce something that can be exported.
  Of-course when people with US dollars in hands actually TRIED to buy something in US with those dollars, they weren't allowed.
  
  That is why we have 3% interest rates people are desperately fleeing other economies to put their wealth in our fiat money.
  - no. Central banks of other nations are putting money that doesn't belong to them into US bonds, because they see how weak US dollar is and it's a STUPID DESPERATE attempt at keeping the dollar afloat.
  Of-course it's an act of desperate madness, because you don't put money into bonds denominated in dollars, when in fact you are doing it because you are trying to save the dollars from its own weakness - this is not a business decision, it's a political decision.
  As to mutual funds and pension funds, these have charters that legally prevent them from buying real assets that make sense. It's like: nobody was fired for hiring IBM, and so the Titanic of US dollars will sink, and those who are 'investing' into it think they will avoid the blame, because everybody was so sure that the ship couldn't sink, and if they instead put their investments into some other boat, probably loaded with something worthwhile, they could be sued if anything at all went wrong with that boat.
  This is a shell game, no funds manager is investing his money that way for his own gain.
  
  But we don't. So on top of all that, it is denominated in a fiat currency which the government can create at will in unlimited quantities.
  - yes, and this is exactly THE problem. This is why the economy is dying.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
Mixing apples and oranges by MikeRT · 2012-01-26 01:32 · Score: 3, Informative

The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S."
MegaUpload maintained a large nexus in the US, which is what exposed them to prosecution. We can disagree about the extradition (not particularly in favor of it myself, but it is probably legal under treaty), but if an American citizen set up a business with a nexus in NZ or Germany that severely broke their copyright laws, they would be fair game the moment they set foot on their territory or of a sympathetic state's territory. Let's not conflate these issues. They're bad enough on their own.
the USA is good at bullying weak nations by FudRucker · 2012-01-26 01:36 · Score: 1

lets see the USA charge head first in to China or Russia like they do the weaker little nations, i bet the other two big boys on the block wont lay down to having their sovereignty violated like the rest of the world is forced to tolerate

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It all boils down to the war. by Karmashock · 2012-01-26 01:36 · Score: 2

The patriot act and all these powers were granted to the government to fight the war... to hunt down the terrorists and snuff them out. That was the point.
To that end, I don't think many people would have a problem with the powers IF they used them expressly for that purpose and no other. Sadly, government being run by people and people being people... the power is abused... frequently. My favorite is the guy that got his ex-wife on a terror/no-fly list so she couldn't fly out of town. There are other examples but few are that petty.
The patriot act needs to be rescinded. It has done most of the work it was put in place to do in the first place. We're pulling our troops back... it's time to retire the act. By all means, let the CIA still go hunting for bad guys. It was foolish ever to chain them. That didn't happen until the Clinton Administration and that point is by some credited as being one of the things that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. But the legal authorities granted by the patriot act beyond letting the CIA do it's job should be retired.
As to data not being legally safe in other countries... US law has no effect on foreign countries. They don't have to comply unless they wish to comply. In which case it has more to do with what those countries wish then the US.
Really, if you're afraid for your data... fear the NSA... they don't bother with warrants and never have... not their game. They get the information because they can not because they have a right. I don't especially fear them though... they're always after bigger fish then little ol' me.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Re:It all boils down to the war. by EmagGeek · 2012-01-26 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  "The patriot act and all these powers were granted to the government to fight the war... to hunt down the terrorists and snuff them out. That was the point."
  Yes, that was the point. However; they conveniently did not take the time to define just exactly what a terrorist was, and later adopted the mantra that "anyone who speaks critically of the Regime" is a terrorist.
  Now, having a pro-NRA bumper sticker on your vehicle is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and police can stop you solely on that basis - all thanks to the Patriot Act.
2. Re:It all boils down to the war. by alexo · 2012-01-26 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  The patriot act and all these powers were granted to the government to fight the war... to hunt down the terrorists and snuff them out.
  No. Those powers were sought for the sake of having more power.
  
  That was the point.
  Again, no. That was the excuse.
3. Re:It all boils down to the war. by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  It was foolish ever to chain them. That didn't happen until the Clinton Administration
  
  Huh? Most of the chaining of the CIA happened under the Ford administration, with some under Carter. Clinton did very little to change US intelligence posture.
4. Re:It all boils down to the war. by Karmashock · 2012-01-26 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't mean to blame anyone. Blame is an overrated concept.
  I'm merely saying it was a mistake to chain the CIA. The two provisions that I am referring to are the downsizing of the CIA and the data barrier between the FBI and the CIA which was put in place during those years.
  Again... I am not blaming anyone for it. I don't care who's fault it is because it doesn't matter. When a house is on fire do you really care if the cat started it? It doesn't matter. Put the fire out.
  If it's anyone's fault then it's OUR fault for letting it happen.
  One of the few things I've learned over the years talking to radicals from other countries over the years on the internet... and yes, I do that... is that they fear the US CIA. It's one of the few powers on earth that gives them pause. I'd prefer if they'd just behave themselves. But when I talk to Palestinian radicals or communist radicals... they're not open to negotiation or any kind of reasonable compromise. They see us as weak and the weak don't get to negotiate. So... fund the CIA and send them after the monsters in the dark. We have no other options. But contain this sort of cloak and dagger bullshit to the CIA and NSA. There's no reason to give these sorts of powers to wider agencies.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
5. Re:It all boils down to the war. by Karmashock · 2012-01-26 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, the Illuminati council of Big Feet and Vampires triggered 9/11 along with their alien allies on Pluto to take over the world!
  Take your medication and get off the internet.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
6. Re:It all boils down to the war. by jbolden · 2012-01-26 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  . The two provisions that I am referring to are the downsizing of the CIA and the data barrier between the FBI and the CIA which was put in place during those years.
  
  The data barrier between the CIA and FBI always existed. The OSI and OCI were part of the intelligence directorate in the war department. The FBI reported to the attorney general. The USA has always, and still does separate domestic and foreign agencies. There is more cooperation and communication since the 9/11. But Americans have always been hesitant to allow much. Clinton doesn't deserve particular blame there, he didn't do anything.
  In terms of the CIA, there was a drop off but the cold war cleanup was happening. Most of the Bush-41 happened early.
  http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxknWPOP4m371QHlbS6Y6yNzU5lUym7dbLyXylpubB3whZ0M6m
  There is no huge cutting of the CIA, relative to what was happening generally to defense. I guess you can argue that Clinton was not particularly focused on intelligence, but no president since Kennedy had been huge on the CIA until Bush-43.
7. Re:It all boils down to the war. by Karmashock · 2012-01-26 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Again. I'm not blaming clinton. I knew that political people would step in to defend their political faction of choice. Stop it.
  I don't care about your political party or your various little taboos. I don't care. I'm not blaming them. Your fearless leader can rule the whole world for all I care with a giant beard and beret. Go for it. Total military dictatorship where ONLY your ideas are allowed to be imposed.
  I'm not ideological. I don't care.
  What I care about is that things WORK properly. And indifferent to who's fault it is, those agencies were cut back during that time and it was a bad move. I'm not blaming anyone because I don't care who's fault it is... it doesn't matter.
  It was dumb.
  As to agencies being seperate that's a different issue. I'm not talking about that. The CIA prior to that time could and DID pass lots of information to the FBI about national threats all the time. After that period it was made more complicated and that resulted in it not happening much.
  You want to blame republicans for that? Fine... I don't care. Blame the man in the moon if that makes you happy. I do not care.
  What matters is that it was done by SOMEONE and it was bad. Don't do that. Who is in charge and calling the shots and to blame are not relevant to me. And I don't think it really should matter to anyone else. If things work and everyone gets what they want and need then who cares? It doesn't matter.
  Lets say the US government were run by aliens from Pluto but everything was awesome. Would you care? Why? Everything is awesome.
  Blame is overrated.
  I am goal oriented. I care about the mission. How I get from point A to point B isn't really important so long as everything is the same in the end.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
8. Re:It all boils down to the war. by jbolden · 2012-01-26 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  I care about the claim it was Clinton that was always my objection. If you are withdrawing that then we can talk information sharing.
  America has always had a "Democracy in Athens, tyranny abroad" policy. I don't want to see our tyranny abroad imported. If that makes our counter intelligence less effectual, prior to 9/11 that was a reasonable choice. Today we seem to have much more blowback threats so I can see going further down the road. But I don't think these things were "mistakes" they were complex judgement calls with lots of plusses and minuses.
9. Re:It all boils down to the war. by Karmashock · 2012-01-26 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  That was never my claim. I said it happened during the clinton administration... and it did. As to who's fault it is... you care and I don't. Blame your political boogeyman of choice. It's a waste of time and beyond childish but if that's what you like then go for it. I won't complain.
  As to your further comment you seem to be trying to avoid blame again. Why? I'm not assigning blame. Stop it. You don't need to protect people that I'm not attacking. People were in charge and mistakes were made. People are human... they make mistakes. That's fine. We've now learned that was a mistake whatever our thoughts were at the time. Don't make that mistake again.
  As to the athens approach as you call it, the CIA cannot protect the US if it can't coordinate with US agencies. I'm not saying the CIA enters the US and conducts itself the same way. But if it learns something that is useful to the defense of this country then it should be communicated to all relevant agencies.
  Don't make the same mistake again. Or blame will be required if only to remove people from power that have learning problems.
  See, mistakes are fine. That's life. But you must learn from them. If for ideological reasons you have learning problems then you cannot be tolerated in places of power or authority because your presence there causes suffering and misfortune for the whole country while not materially benefiting anyone but our enemies.
  Be ideological if you want... protect your political faction... I don't care. But learn from your mistakes and do not repeat them.
  Cutting the CIA off from US domestic intelligence was a mistake. We have learned that mistake.
  This is an intelligence test.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
10. Re:It all boils down to the war. by jbolden · 2012-01-26 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm tired of being lectured.
  Read what I wrote. It wasn't a mistake it was a choice. It was a choice made for good reasons. We have no idea of what happens historically if we had made the opposite choice. The US could be a lot like the Soviet Union was, where the intelligence services are part of day to day politics and law enforcement and political enforcement are completely intermixed. We saw a lot of that happening during the Bush administration. Under Nixon when FBI counter intelligence was used against student radicals we saw student radicals become actual subverses and start to coordinate with foreign elements skilled in using US counter intelligence.
  This is not about "blame" it is about knowing who did what and why. Knowing facts rather than platitudes. If you "don't care" then don't bring the topic up.
11. Re:It all boils down to the war. by Karmashock · 2012-01-26 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  The same argument can be made about the US invasion of Iraq. Most would agree that was a mistake. But by your logic it was simply a complex decision made at the time when weighing pros and cons.
  Fault isn't relevant. Whether it was a good idea or not is what is relevant.
  As to it not being about blame but rather who is to blame for doing it and why... you're talking in circles.
  If you care about the goal and not blame then stop focusing on who or why. Focus instead of when, what, and how. Who and why are for blame. When, what, and how gets us to the problem and how to avoid it.
  Controlling who and why doesn't stop anything. Controlling when what and how controls things.
  Consider the next president of the US. Is who a long term solution to any problem? No. Who will always be different and unpredictable from our current vantage. What about why? That also can't be controlled. Future voters will choose presidents according to their own values and not ours. However, we can control when presidents are selected. We can control what the office means and the various factual peremeters of that system. And we can control how. But who and why? Pointless.
  Your insistence on who and why in regards to intelligence failures does nothing to correct those problems or see that such mistakes are not made again. However, what the mistakes are, when they were made, and how they were made is relevant and we can fix that.
  As to my disinterest in blame as it relates to intelligence failures. Right there you've proven how blame orrented you are on the issue. That's all you seem to care about. You don't care about what damage was done. You don't care about when the damage was done. You don't care about how the damage was done. You simply care about who is to blame especially if you can pin it on a political rival or if you need to protect a political ally.
  It's petty. And for that you deserve to be lectured at until you change. Because that attitude will solve no problems. It is not adaptive behavior. You will perpetuate mistakes and not learn because you've never focused on the actual mistake that was made. By focusing on WHO and WHY instead of WHEN, WHAT, and HOW you learn nothing.
  Why is all about intentions. Intentions are frequently irrelevant. If I intend to help a friend and cut him open without any medical knowledge then how is "why" at fault? My "why" was that I wanted to help. My "why" is no different from a doctor that might also want to help. What is instead relevant is what and how. When in this case probably doesn't matter.
  Intentions are sometimes relevant in a court of law but if you want to avoid killing people you had better focus on more relevant issues like when, what, and how. Who and why... only really useful for blame.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
12. Re:It all boils down to the war. by Savantissimo · 2012-01-27 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  The unprovoked, cowardly act of war that wiped out Sudan's pharmaceutical plant with no investigation or warning? The one where there was no evidence that it was making weapons? The one that murdered an innocent janitor and probably thousands of Sudanese who couldn't get the medicines made by the plant? The one that the US has refused to apologize for or even to investigate?
  
  --
  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Re:Legality? by sunderland56 · 2012-01-26 01:38 · Score: 1

It may have something to do with the world's largest military force, backed by several thousand nuclear warheads.
Re:Legality? by TheDarkMaster · 2012-01-26 01:39 · Score: 2

"...however, the governments of those same countries (with the exception of a few like Iran, Venezuela, cuba etc) all want to be in the US governments good graces, and will in many cases give up way to much power to the US to remain in the US's good graces.."

US have nukes. Lots of then.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Business Opportunity by sunderland56 · 2012-01-26 01:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

It looks like there is a great business opportunity here - set up cloud services and guarantee in writing that (a) no data will be hosted in the USA, it's protectorates, or in extremely US-friendly countries (England, Canada), and (b) you won't turn over data to any US authority under any circumstance.
1. Re:Business Opportunity by JasterBobaMereel · 2012-01-26 02:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Two words Julian Assange ...No US server, no connections to US companies, all hosted in US unfriendly countries ...
  He tried this, and look what happened ...
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
2. Re:Business Opportunity by sharpneli · 2012-01-26 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Accepting payment is going to be a hassle. You cannot accept any credit cards (I doubt there is any credit card in existence which does not work in USA yet works in other countries) nor can you use banks to save your money because they're almost certainly 'tainted' by VISA/MasterCard.
3. Re:Business Opportunity by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-26 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  He got a talk show?
4. Re:Business Opportunity by SplashMyBandit · 2012-01-26 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  And what did those stolen documents show? that the US government was not only unethical in many cases it was also breaking or circumventing its own laws. As wrong as it was to steal the documents and leak some sensitive stuff (although care was taken that the more sensitive stuff was redacted) in this case one could possibly argue that the "ends justify the means" - otherwise the possibly illegal and definitely immoral behavior of the US government and agencies would never be exposed. Transparency is needed for good governance yet the US is currently hell-bent on covering up misdeeds rather than not do them in the first place. Exposing this is the only way citizens have to rectify the situation (which is why the thinkers on Slashdot are so concerned about the trajectory the US Government is currently on).
5. Re:Business Opportunity by mdm42 · 2012-01-26 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  no data will be hosted in the USA, it's protectorates, or in extremely US-friendly countries (England, Canada)
  You also need to add, "or countries that might easily be coerced by the US through threats of violence, embargo, trade sanction, asset-freezing, etc."
  I guess that leaves Elbonia.
  
  --
  New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
Sauve qui peut! by LeadSongDog · 2012-01-26 01:50 · Score: 1

Don't blame the US courts, or even the cloud providers. Blame the lazy sods who thought outsourcing security to a single cloud provider sounded like less work than doing it inhouse.

--
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Funny? How so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Pax Romana's a bitch, but not if you're Rome.
USA is THE bully... by killfixx · 2012-01-26 01:54 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, TFA is right. Look at what we did with Spain. Look at what were pressuring Canada into doing.
"Nice X ya got there, it'd be a shame if Y were to happen to it."
Why blow someone up, then they can't make you money. Duh.

--
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Re:Amerika by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:56 · Score: 1

Germany. Sup poor ass mother fucker.
This Service Not Available In Your Country by IonOtter · 2012-01-26 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dear American User:
We are very sorry, but your government is behaving like a spoiled child that thinks it can get it's way by screaming and kicking it's feet. While normally we would not be terribly concerned by this childish display, we are annoyed that you, the parents, are not doing anything to bring them under control.
As a result, you will not be permitted to utilize our service until you rein in your spoiled brat government and teach them proper manners, and how to act like a world citizen.
Thank you.
"Name of Service"

--
[End Of Line]
1. Re:This Service Not Available In Your Country by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-01-26 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us do try and rein in our government. Problem is more people don't care or think it makes them better off. If you fly enough I am sure you have heard people say "what ever it takes to keep me safe" or something similar which is a perfect example of the problem.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
2. Re:This Service Not Available In Your Country by rastoboy29 · 2012-01-26 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Please, by all means, go for it. Look what Wikipedia going black for a day did for ordinary (non geek) citizens' awareness of these issues.
  
  --
  expandfairuse.org
Re:Legality? by gbjbaanb · 2012-01-26 02:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

so does Russia, Britain, France, Israel and North Korea. they don't go around insisting that their laws apply to foreign firms with foreign data in foreign sovereignties.
the US is just lost the plot on internationalisation - they might have realised there are places outside the US borders, now they need to understand that those places *aren't* America.
I swear most of America's politicians and lawyers are about as mature as a 6 year old - not yet understanding that the world consists of people other than themselves.
Re:Legality? by JasterBobaMereel · 2012-01-26 02:03 · Score: 1

World largest standing Army, backed by Nukes - no that would be China

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
safe harbour provisions by Chrisq · 2012-01-26 02:05 · Score: 1

If that's true and safe harbour arrangements are not exempted it will be illegal for any European company storing data that can be linked to an individual to us a US company to store, hold or process it. Its lucky that India and China don't have the same laws.
Name by Sockatume · 2012-01-26 02:07 · Score: 1

Just to make it clear, the act is called the "U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act". It is an acronym. I know that under the British style guide, acronyms may be writtenas though they were proper nouns, but that is not appropriate here.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
1. Re:Name by p0p0 · 2012-01-26 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  No one calls it by that though because it is stupid. It's much simpler to say "the Patriot Act".
2. Re:Name by Skapare · 2012-01-26 03:47 · Score: 2
  
  When they have to promote something by putting the identification of certain aspects in the name, then we know the actual thing has no such aspects. There is no patriotism in the so-called patriot act.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
3. Re:Name by aevan · 2012-01-26 04:19 · Score: 2
  
  Curious: do you also type L.A.S.E.R. and R.A.D.A.R. and so forth?
Pedantict, but GET THE NAME RIGHT! by Insightfill · 2012-01-26 02:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's be sure to always write it PATRIOT so people know it's a acronym and hopefully ask questions. Seems like every bill is given a nifty acronym or backronym, usually with the intent of glossing over how horrid these bills are. I could propose a "Cats Underwater Teeth Extraction" bill, and call it the "CUTE" bill and nobody would be the wiser. You wouldn't vote against something "Cute" would you?
Worse is the more common case; the actual bill title seems perversely the opposite of what the bill accomplishes. "Clear Skies Initiative/Act", anyone?
Re:Legality? by Magada · 2012-01-26 02:22 · Score: 1

Ok. Let's make that "World's most powerful standing army, backed by enough nukes to kill most everyone"
Feeling better now?

--
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Cuts both ways by mindcandy · 2012-01-26 02:32 · Score: 2

Ironically, we're involved in the same debate, but in reverse.

We are involved in an 'outsourced email' discussion, and some companies (ie: G-something) say, quite literally, "we can't tell you what countries your data will be in, only which ones it won't be in". When pressed on how they come up with that, they say "well, it's not in the ones where we don't have datacenters".

Other companies (ie: M-something) have ITAR certified solutions that assure you it's US datacenters and US citizens.

I can understand Canada not warning their citizens about other countries' laws, but as a US entity involved in R&D we have the same concerns. Hey, at least they're OUR laws and OUR courts we can challenge them in.
Re: Jurisdiction by Lonewolf666 · 2012-01-26 02:39 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, even this is not enough. The non-US company would have to ensure any and all contact with the US is prevented, to ensure that there is not even a crack of a sliver of the door to US jurisdiction.
The question here is how compliant the local government is when the US asserts jurisdiction. If you live in a country that likes to suck up to the US, like most western countries, you may be out of luck even with a local company.
You might have better protection from abuse of US jurisdiction in a country like Russia (not too friendly with the US, and still powerful enough to be not easily bullied). Of course, you better avoid angering the local bigwigs ;-)

--
C - the footgun of programming languages
Treaties Are A Two Way Street by b4upoo · 2012-01-26 02:42 · Score: 2

While the US is out and about signing treaties and agreements with foreign governments that allow us to seize foreign files and evidence you can bet that we are giving other nations the right to do the same within the US. If that were not true we could never get them to sign those treaties and agreements. One issue where this has come to light in the past is in outrageous and deliderate gouging on international phone calls. You make a call to a nation in Africa for twelve minutes and get a phone bill with $3,000 for that one call. You refuse to pay and your local phone company gets involved and cuts you off as they are forced to honor reciprical arrangements.
No treaty or agreement should have any effect upon US citizens within our own borders.
1. Re:Treaties Are A Two Way Street by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-26 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  "No treaty or agreement should have any effect upon US citizens within our own borders."
  Good idea. Stop pushing them on the rest of the world.
  As far as the phone bill goes, your local phone company has an agreement (possibly through one or more third parties) with that African phone company. You make the call, your local phone company pays the bill, then they charge you. The Africans aren't billing you, they've already been paid.
In fairness, by GungaDan · 2012-01-26 02:45 · Score: 4, Funny

nobody expected the Spanish opposition.

--
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Re:Legality? by alaffin · 2012-01-26 02:51 · Score: 1, Troll

It has little to do with just the nukes. In fact the nukes would be over kill. It starts with geography (there are two nations that have ports on the North Atlantic and in the Pacific and only one of the them has the population and industrial base to take advantage of it) and continues with the economy (there is not a company on earth that would not sell it's corporate soul to gain a solid foothold in the USA - even given the dismal economic climate there's still no place better to be selling stuff). If the military get involved it probably won't be nukes - it'll be the navy enforcing an embargo. There is very little on the seas big enough to be called a ship that escape the eyes of the US Navy when they decide to shut down shipping and there's no navy in the world capable of tangling with the US Navy and coming out on top (no matter what Iran might think). Nukes - it doesn't ever get to nukes. Under a naval embarago the nation's economy withers and dies and the people start starving.
It's an unfortunate reality of this world that we live in. The US is ascendent - as the UK was a century ago and countless other nations before. And because of that all other nations are forced to pay homage to the king of the nations, lest they be utterly devestated.
Freshfields is not an American Law Firm by ryuko · 2012-01-26 02:57 · Score: 1

FWIW, Freshfields is a UK-headquartered law firm, one of the Magic Circle law firms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer

--
Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Bullcrap? by JustNiz · 2012-01-26 03:20 · Score: 1

This sounds like bullcrap to me.
No matter what some egoistic Americans may think, US law and US police have no jurisdiction in other countries, unless by special agreement.
1. Re:Bullcrap? by Skapare · 2012-01-26 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  It's up to the people of some country to make sure they have leaders in place that recognize that their country's laws (and enforcement thereof) should come from the people of that country, not from cronies of another.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:Yes, insightful, you pedant. 1984! by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-26 03:21 · Score: 2

You took the dictionary meaning of the word, when gp post was talking more about the label. Politics is all about corrupting the meaning of words so they don't apply any more. Orwell taught us that, if you didn't learn it anywhere else.
"U.S. conservatives" are more than happy with this type of thing. Looking at voting history, the "U.S. conservatives" typically vote for such things en masse, with maybe a few consistent dissenters like Ron Paul. The liberals vote for it too, but support is more spotty and this group is the one that goes on record with opposition sound bites.
Basically, Republicans will vote for anythng that gives police or military more power, because they appear to believe in small government everywhere but the military. And they would grant the military and/or police the authorization to go into your bedroom and make sure you're not having gay sex, sex for pleasure, using contraception, or doing anythhg that makes them feel "icky". That is the perspective of "U.S. conservatives".
They all want the same thing, big government, they just don't agree which parts to shrink or embiggenate.
Re:unrelated argument, Chewbacca Defense by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-26 03:39 · Score: 2

Why are you talking about people? It's irrelevant. I don't think you know what topic we're on. If a company blurs the lines of operation such that some work is done in the United States, US law applies where that line is crossed.
If you use an Australian company that houses e-mail in a Gmail server in the US, that e-mail can be snooped. Even if no one from the US is administering that server, its physical presence is what determines the law, not the person doing the work, or which company owns it.
This is really no different from shipping something that is only illegal in the US through the US to get from Mexico to Canada. It is not allowed in the US, so it is confiscated and people probably go to prison. Or a Canada-to-Canada phone call where the wires go through some part of the US, those can be tapped if someone decides it's necessary. Sovereignity is completely irrelevant.
Sure, doing these things might cause "a bit of bother" but that will pass and back to business as usual. Don't touch the US or you will be subject to its laws in some fashion.
What we need is a new law statute by vikingpower · 2012-01-26 03:59 · Score: 1

In 1609, Hugo Grotius published "Mare Liberum", that became the basis for international naval law as we know it. His treatise was born out of conflict, a conflict of interests between England and Holland. Basically, it states that beyond the three-mile limit, now more of a 12-mile limit, but still a very viable and respected one.
What we urgently need is an equivalent corpus of international law, protecting the rest of the world against USA interference with and encroachment upon both national and individual liberties. The situation is rapidly becoming intolerable.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
1. Re:What we need is a new law statute by vikingpower · 2012-01-26 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Please excuse the typo, and read: ".....but still a very viable and respected one, the sea was and is a free space, for all to use and peruse and navigate, to be claimed and colonized by none."
  
  --
  Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Re:Legality? by jbolden · 2012-01-26 04:36 · Score: 2

so does Russia, Britain, France, Israel and North Korea. they don't go around insisting that their laws apply to foreign firms with foreign data in foreign sovereignties.

Actually both France and Germany have tried to apply their hate crime statutes to business and organizations in the United States. Virtually every country in the world has aimed to apply their gun control laws in the United States. Israel was decades ago one of the main proponents of universal jurisdiction.
The US is not alone in wanting more international law. Arguably the US is one of the countries least interested in these complex international relationships.
Subject is shomewhat misleading by PPH · 2012-01-26 04:42 · Score: 1

Carnabuci said interpretation of the US Patriot Act was so broad it captured almost any communication or data held in the US or by Australian businesses with US "connections".
She related the story of how a Canadian Privacy Commissioner sided with US authorities to force CIBC to divulge private customer records because the bank outsourced data processing to a US company.
Its not just any "foreign data" that is at risk. It is foreign data held by firms with any kind of relationship with a US company, citizen or resident. True, Patriot Act jurisdiction reaches beyond data held by foreign concerns on behalf of a US entity. Once they have an American customer, all of their records are exposed.
If you (outside of the USA) do business with a company in your country and they can certify that they do no business or have no connections with any US companies or individuals, your data is safe. Sure, that will make lepers out of Americans around the rest of the world. But its a price we have to pay for electing the leadership we've got.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Subject is shomewhat misleading by VortexCortex · 2012-01-26 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  As a concerned US citizen I can only urge others to block the use of your systems by US citizens. Though I try mightily on a daily basis by writing letters to and calling my governmental "representatives" and inducing others to do the same, myself and those like me have little effect over our corrupt political arena.
  The problem is one of apathy. So long as most people don't care enough to raise a voice nothing will change. Please, help us feel the jackboots of oppression at our own throats before we awake to find ourselves crushed and voiceless.
  This will only get worse before it gets better. I implore everyone to help raise awareness via inconveniencing us in the US. Get your finances out while you still can (this is unfortunate, as it may damage the US economy). Prohibit those with US (IP) addresses from using your systems. We will only suffer so long as the evils remain sufferable...
  
  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
  -Declaration of Independence, United States of America
  
  I fear that if the security of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness continues to be eroded, we will have no choice -- It is our duty to throw off such oppressive governments. We are fast approaching a turning point that I wish we could be averted from ever reaching; However, a few sensible ones digging in our heels does little to slow the mindless march of millions.
Re:Legality? by alexo · 2012-01-26 05:22 · Score: 2

Why does a bully have power over others? Because others don't put up a fight.
It's a bit more than that.
The other kids in the playground can easily beat the snot out of the bully if they cooperate.
However, each and every one of them secretly dreams of being a bully himself, so they try to get on the bully's best side by being his toadies.
Re:Amerika by Phrogman · 2012-01-26 05:32 · Score: 1

The US is run by Corporations who are quite willing to break any law. Warmongering is merely the result of the fact that war is good for business. Oh, there are some figureheads called Elected Officials in the mix somewhere but they just do what they are told if they want to retain power and influence. When they retire they get a fat well paying position working for their corporate masters.
The US is an empire, ostensibly a democracy internally, outside its borders it is not very different from the Roman Empire in its actions.

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:Legality? by alaffin · 2012-01-26 06:06 · Score: 1

I would hazard that your nation would run out of submarines before the US ran out of carriers. If you could afford to buy submarines after the USA shut their borders to trade with you. And even if you managed to prevent all these things and wage unrestricted submarine warfare against the US, they would simply pick a nearby friendly country, give them special trading priviliges (because everyone wants to trade with the USA) and start making attacks from land bases against your industrial base and AA installations until you had nothing resembling an economy or defenses. At which point they'd continue bombing for two more weeks, then maybe offer you some kind of peace settlement.
Warfare is economic and there is no economy in the world that is stronger and more resistant to damage than the American economy.
Also see by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-01-26 06:23 · Score: 1

'States Rights' as in: a State's right to enslave, punish, or persecute the minority races, religions, or sexual orientations. That's the main problem with Libertarianism: the chant of 'get government off our backs' frequently harbors some very evil motivations.
1. Re:Also see by Baloroth · 2012-01-26 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  States only have the rights to control things that aren't established in the US Constitution, i.e. they can't do most of those things anyways. If there is a right that needs to be granted to minorities etc. it should be established by Constitutional amendment, not congressional fiat.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
BS by SuperDre · 2012-01-26 07:52 · Score: 1

The patriot act is only legal in the USA, not outside, as the US has no authority outside it's borders..

And even a company that has it's main office in the states, but it's servers in a country like the netherlands, the law of THAT country is in effect, not the US one.

Otherwise any country would make their own laws which gives them the right to just take anything they want.

Stupid american goverment think they own the world and can do anything they please, guess what, NOT!
We're the only country with a Navy by rsilvergun · 2012-01-26 11:09 · Score: 1

or at least, one that counts as a military power. It's not a pleasant though, but we'll just blockade your country. We don't really bother with Cuba because they're just a wedge issue to keep Florida voting Blue, but rest assured if you rile up the American ruling class you're in trouble. I remember Belgium tried to do it. They were selling CD duplicating hardware w/o serial codes built in (so you couldn't trace back duplicates). We threatened a trade embargo and they backed down...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Patriot Act? by chrismcb · 2012-01-26 12:15 · Score: 1

What does this have to do with the patriot act?
TFS says "U.S. cops can legally demand data from almost anyone." It seems to be a cop can ask anyone anything. You don't have to answer. Especially if you are another country. Patriot act or no patriot act.
Man does not live by bread alone... by TapeCutter · 2012-01-26 12:37 · Score: 1

you don't need an incentive.
Right there is the core problem with communism, flower power, and dare I say, libertarianism. They will never work because they completely disregard observable human nature in favour of the fantasy that their ideology is so great that people will somehow forget about greed, envy, avarice, ect and just start being nice to each other while snacking on the fruits that magically spring forth from the font of their chosen ideology.

Star Trek replicators could certainly satisfy everyone's needs, but nothing will ever satisfy everyone's wants. In fact I'm pretty sure one of the first uses of such technology would be a dictator replicating his loyal thugs as fast as he can.

Since you don't have to work
Hahaha. Sorry but in the 80's a lot of people (including me) thought that industrial robots would replace factory workers and by the early 21st century and we would all be working 3-4 days a week instead of 5-6. To a large extent factory workers have indeed been replaced by robots on a massive scale, the robots also took over a lot of clerical jobs such as bank tellers, but despite all the "spare time" these robots have created we're still working the same hours to maintain the same standard of living.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
1. Re:Man does not live by bread alone... by Ihmhi · 2012-01-26 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Hahaha. Sorry but in the 80's a lot of people (including me) thought that industrial robots would replace factory workers and by the early 21st century and we would all be working 3-4 days a week instead of 5-6. To a large extent factory workers have indeed been replaced by robots on a massive scale, the robots also took over a lot of clerical jobs such as bank tellers, but despite all the "spare time" these robots have created we're still working the same hours to maintain the same standard of living.
  That actually has already happened in some places IMO. In France, for instance, the work week looks a lot more like 30 hours instead of 40. The economy can't sustain the old workforce at 40 hours, so it reduces the hours. Here the same thing has happened, but rather than hire 2 people to work 30 hours at a fair rate we hire one person to work 60-70 hours at a low rate.
  It's entirely feasible. We'll never get back the old 40 hours a week economy, and every new piece of machinery that automates some task reduces the likelihood of that happening. The only solutions really are to reduce the workweek or have a permanently unemployed underclass. Right now, America and a lot of the world seems to be going for the latter.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
2. Re:Man does not live by bread alone... by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  Star Trek replicators could certainly satisfy everyone's needs, but nothing will ever satisfy everyone's wants
  They would theoretically be able to supply any physical wants. Once you don't need to buy it, if you want a Lamborghini or two, no problem.
  
  Clearly you would need some sort of legal system to prevent people whose wants involved mass murder or something, but in Star Trek you still have a military, courts and so on.
  
  In the Star Trek universe, if I wanted to live alone on a desert island making sculptures out of driftwoodwood, then I could. If I wanted to enslave whole planets and torture everybody on them to death, I couldn't.
  
  Sadly, until we discover a means of generating and harnassing effectively infinite power for free, this is just utopian talk.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Mom and apple pie. by TapeCutter · 2012-01-26 13:33 · Score: 1

Oddly enough, the conservative party here in Oz call themselves the Liberal Party because freedom is like motherhood and tasty pastry treats, everyone supports it. However the pertinent question to ask is; freedom to do what?
Conservative freedom: the freedom to kill millions by polluting our tap water.
Liberal freedom: the freedom to kill millions by removing chlorine treatments that pollute our tap water.
Liberal freedom: the freedom to get high and make an arse of yourself.
Conservative freedom: the freedom to get drunk and make an arse of yourself.

Likewise, "progress" is just another motherhood concept, with the pertinent question being; progress by what means, toward what goal?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Legality? by Formalin · 2012-01-26 16:37 · Score: 1

World's most expensive army, if nothing else.
Re:Legality? by JasterBobaMereel · 2012-01-31 02:01 · Score: 1

Powerful - Maybe? China has Jets, Tanks, and an active space program as well as a well trained army ...
Advanced/Technical - Probably?
Enough Nukes to kill most everyone - Yes China has enough to do this as well ...But then so do the UK and France ...and they have very technically advanced (but woefully underfunded) armies ...

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis