If it was Microsoft's data, I would probably agree with you but it is not Microsoft's data we are talking about. Read up on the case before commenting next time.
Your data belongs to Microsoft because you store it on their server? Your documents belong to your bank because you store them in their vault? Your furniture belongs to your landlord because you store it in his apartment? Your car belongs to your employer because you park it on his parking lot? Your car belongs to the government because you store it on their streets while driving it? Your ass belongs to the government because you park it on their bus/train while commuting?
Do you see why a company does not own your data just because you ask them to store it for you?
Microsoft's corporate data would be an entirely different beast than this. Are there differences between the banks books and correspondence between its officers and the pieces of paper the bank is storing for customers in its vaults (safe deposit boxes)?
"either it was all rhetoric from the start, or he just ended up caving to pressures he wasn't expecting when he got the job." Probably a mixture of both. It was obvious that he lacked the experience to realize what he was getting into and had absolutely no clue about how the world works. His choosing Biden as a running mate and trumpeting him as a foreign affairs expert should have been clue enough. He told you he wanted to fundamentally change America. What exactly were you expecting? The Chinese, Russian or Cuban workers paradise?
I do this all the time and then take the charitable contribution tax deduction. I've found that private charities do much better at helping those in need that are looking for help out of their situation than does the government which generally helps people remain in their situation.
PopeRatzo, are you employed? Do you earn enough that you are required to pay taxes? Do you work for an employer that withholds a portion of your paycheck to cover a portion of your health insurance premium? Do you declare that withheld money as taxable income and pay taxes on it? If not, you are practicing tax avoidance. Do you have dependents, including yourself? Do you deduct them or take the standard deduction? If so, you are practicing tax avoidance. That is, you are avoiding paying taxes which you could pay but are not legally obligated to pay.
And Obama will have achieved one of his objectives. It was Hillary who stated it publicly but Obama hired her and has expressed similar concerns. Something along the lines of it being scary how powerful the US is. Hillary said that when she (her husband) was in charge.
How is this about Microsoft and not the EU? The data being asked for is not Microsoft's data anymore than a piece of paper you put in a safe deposit box at your hometown bank is the bank's property.
I have many problems with the EU, especially when they create laws that demand that US companies stop indexing web pages about EU citizens, regardless of where those indexes are stored. I also find it somewhat amusing that we have fellow slashdotters siding with the EU court and against the US court.
They are following the law. You do realize that US law also demands that all employees of US based corporations follow all local laws as well as all US laws, right? This is not Microsoft's data we are talking about, this is data owned by a customer of Microsoft? The law of the locale where the data is physically located says that it cannot be handed out without a local court order. Just like US law says that a safe deposit box in a bank physically located in the US cannot be turned over to a foreign government without a US court issuing a court order demanding it happen. In other words, US law says that the government and the judge are wrong.
They are "hiding" electronic documents belonging to their customers in the exact same way that a bank holds documents in safe deposit boxes. The companies have no idea what information they are hiding because it is none of their business. They are actually trying to be respectful of privacy. Just one more right that this president (a supposed expert on the US Constitution) does not think you have.
As an insider, I am very positive that our current leader has exactly that goal in mind. His main, publicly stated goal is "to fundamentally transform America." This is just one of many policies doing that. Setting 5 senior terrorists free so that we can get a single deserter back and then treat him as a hero for deserting is another example. Simultaneously ignoring an active duty marine who made a wrong turn on the freeway suffer in a Mexican prison while releasing 4 Mexican police officers who accidentally crossed the border (also illegally and with weapons). Nah, he just wants the best for us.
But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about data that Microsoft is storing for someone else. And they are storing it in another country because that someone else is a customer of Microsoft's foreign subsidiary. An example, in reverse, is: The Irish government wants some papers that a US customer doing business with the Boston branch of the Bank of Ireland has stored in a safe-deposit box in that Boston branch. Does the Irish court have the right to ask that the box be opened and the contents sent to Ireland without the consent of the US citizen customer or does the Irish government have to get a US court to order the box opened and the contents shipped to Ireland?
But it does matter, as a matter of law. physicsphairy is correct that Microsoft or Google or Amazon, etc. should be under no more legal obligation to provide electronic documents than a bank is to provide access to a safe deposit box and the physical location of that box is very much germane to the conversation because electronic documents should be treated legally exactly the same as physical documents. I believe the US Constitution uses the language "papers and effects."
As for doing business with companies... If the Swiss suspected someone of violating Swiss laws, the Swiss government would be demanding access to those documents as well. They should not be turned over without a valid warrant.
Seriously, using RT as a source for a rant against the "collective"?!? Especially a rant against tax evasion laws? Putin has used tax evasion against many Russians. Wake up and pay attention, man.
Swiss banks do have subsidiaries here in the US. They also operated concierge services where their officers would bring documents into the US to be signed or bring in cash or other physical assets that were not declared. This was violating US laws in the US. The US mostly wanted the information about the US citizens and it used the crimes of the Swiss bank employees (committed within the physical boundaries of the US) as the leverage to get that information. Plea deals were made that kept non-US citizen employees of the Swiss banks out of the US legal system in exchange for information on US citizens.
As for US citizens having to pay tax on foreign income... I do believe it is generally a bad principle. The only defensible practice is that you can basically deduct any foreign taxes you did pay from what you are required to pay here so it shouldn't, in theory, be taxed twice. Theory usually works out better in theory than in practice.
And the real story on those Swiss banks is that bank officials were bringing papers in to the US to be signed and sometimes transporting goods as well. In other words, many of the banking functions they were claiming were not subject to US jurisdiction were actually being carried out on US soil and were very much subject to US banking laws. That was the real hook used to get the other data: give us all the other data that will help us build cases against US citizens and we'll be lenient on your company officials who broke our laws on our soil. I think the Swiss generally got a great deal.
Well, all kinds of countries have laws stating exactly that. Laws to the effect of "if you do business in our country, you cannot do business in or with [insert middle eastern country (or South Africa if traveling back in time a bit)]."
Oh, maybe hang it on a wall if you desire privacy? Maybe even have a wall built that is almost exactly the same size as the monitor sheet and have some sort of lighting in it.
Well, any article of the kind you are talking about includes details such as dates so anybody reading such articles will see how long ago that was and notice that nothing else came up so that is also informing them that you have changed and are no longer "behaving improperly." Or are you one of those that is just so much smarter than everyone else that you assume nobody would think that way?
Slashdot Mirror
If it was Microsoft's data, I would probably agree with you but it is not Microsoft's data we are talking about. Read up on the case before commenting next time.
Your data belongs to Microsoft because you store it on their server? Your documents belong to your bank because you store them in their vault? Your furniture belongs to your landlord because you store it in his apartment? Your car belongs to your employer because you park it on his parking lot? Your car belongs to the government because you store it on their streets while driving it? Your ass belongs to the government because you park it on their bus/train while commuting?
Do you see why a company does not own your data just because you ask them to store it for you?
Haven't you heard, Obama is an order of magnitude or so higher than God so he may not be included.
Microsoft's corporate data would be an entirely different beast than this. Are there differences between the banks books and correspondence between its officers and the pieces of paper the bank is storing for customers in its vaults (safe deposit boxes)?
"basic failure to understand reality" Pretty much sums up the current administration.
Well, according to Obama and Holder, you must comply with Obama and Holder because Obama and Holder. Oh yeah, and you are racist if you don't.
"either it was all rhetoric from the start, or he just ended up caving to pressures he wasn't expecting when he got the job." Probably a mixture of both. It was obvious that he lacked the experience to realize what he was getting into and had absolutely no clue about how the world works. His choosing Biden as a running mate and trumpeting him as a foreign affairs expert should have been clue enough. He told you he wanted to fundamentally change America. What exactly were you expecting? The Chinese, Russian or Cuban workers paradise?
Decimating the US economy would "not be so bad?" Well, at least we know where PopeRatzo stands.
So we are beyond the soapbox. Are we still at the ballot box or are we already at step 3?
I do this all the time and then take the charitable contribution tax deduction. I've found that private charities do much better at helping those in need that are looking for help out of their situation than does the government which generally helps people remain in their situation.
PopeRatzo, are you employed? Do you earn enough that you are required to pay taxes? Do you work for an employer that withholds a portion of your paycheck to cover a portion of your health insurance premium? Do you declare that withheld money as taxable income and pay taxes on it? If not, you are practicing tax avoidance. Do you have dependents, including yourself? Do you deduct them or take the standard deduction? If so, you are practicing tax avoidance. That is, you are avoiding paying taxes which you could pay but are not legally obligated to pay.
And Obama will have achieved one of his objectives. It was Hillary who stated it publicly but Obama hired her and has expressed similar concerns. Something along the lines of it being scary how powerful the US is. Hillary said that when she (her husband) was in charge.
How is this about Microsoft and not the EU? The data being asked for is not Microsoft's data anymore than a piece of paper you put in a safe deposit box at your hometown bank is the bank's property.
I have many problems with the EU, especially when they create laws that demand that US companies stop indexing web pages about EU citizens, regardless of where those indexes are stored. I also find it somewhat amusing that we have fellow slashdotters siding with the EU court and against the US court.
They are following the law. You do realize that US law also demands that all employees of US based corporations follow all local laws as well as all US laws, right? This is not Microsoft's data we are talking about, this is data owned by a customer of Microsoft? The law of the locale where the data is physically located says that it cannot be handed out without a local court order. Just like US law says that a safe deposit box in a bank physically located in the US cannot be turned over to a foreign government without a US court issuing a court order demanding it happen. In other words, US law says that the government and the judge are wrong.
They are "hiding" electronic documents belonging to their customers in the exact same way that a bank holds documents in safe deposit boxes. The companies have no idea what information they are hiding because it is none of their business. They are actually trying to be respectful of privacy. Just one more right that this president (a supposed expert on the US Constitution) does not think you have.
As an insider, I am very positive that our current leader has exactly that goal in mind. His main, publicly stated goal is "to fundamentally transform America." This is just one of many policies doing that. Setting 5 senior terrorists free so that we can get a single deserter back and then treat him as a hero for deserting is another example. Simultaneously ignoring an active duty marine who made a wrong turn on the freeway suffer in a Mexican prison while releasing 4 Mexican police officers who accidentally crossed the border (also illegally and with weapons). Nah, he just wants the best for us.
But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about data that Microsoft is storing for someone else. And they are storing it in another country because that someone else is a customer of Microsoft's foreign subsidiary. An example, in reverse, is: The Irish government wants some papers that a US customer doing business with the Boston branch of the Bank of Ireland has stored in a safe-deposit box in that Boston branch. Does the Irish court have the right to ask that the box be opened and the contents sent to Ireland without the consent of the US citizen customer or does the Irish government have to get a US court to order the box opened and the contents shipped to Ireland?
But it does matter, as a matter of law. physicsphairy is correct that Microsoft or Google or Amazon, etc. should be under no more legal obligation to provide electronic documents than a bank is to provide access to a safe deposit box and the physical location of that box is very much germane to the conversation because electronic documents should be treated legally exactly the same as physical documents. I believe the US Constitution uses the language "papers and effects."
As for doing business with companies... If the Swiss suspected someone of violating Swiss laws, the Swiss government would be demanding access to those documents as well. They should not be turned over without a valid warrant.
Seriously, using RT as a source for a rant against the "collective"?!? Especially a rant against tax evasion laws? Putin has used tax evasion against many Russians. Wake up and pay attention, man.
Swiss banks do have subsidiaries here in the US. They also operated concierge services where their officers would bring documents into the US to be signed or bring in cash or other physical assets that were not declared. This was violating US laws in the US. The US mostly wanted the information about the US citizens and it used the crimes of the Swiss bank employees (committed within the physical boundaries of the US) as the leverage to get that information. Plea deals were made that kept non-US citizen employees of the Swiss banks out of the US legal system in exchange for information on US citizens.
As for US citizens having to pay tax on foreign income... I do believe it is generally a bad principle. The only defensible practice is that you can basically deduct any foreign taxes you did pay from what you are required to pay here so it shouldn't, in theory, be taxed twice. Theory usually works out better in theory than in practice.
And the real story on those Swiss banks is that bank officials were bringing papers in to the US to be signed and sometimes transporting goods as well. In other words, many of the banking functions they were claiming were not subject to US jurisdiction were actually being carried out on US soil and were very much subject to US banking laws. That was the real hook used to get the other data: give us all the other data that will help us build cases against US citizens and we'll be lenient on your company officials who broke our laws on our soil. I think the Swiss generally got a great deal.
And the EU demands that you forget all about having heard that Person A was talking about Person B. How is this really any different?
Well, all kinds of countries have laws stating exactly that. Laws to the effect of "if you do business in our country, you cannot do business in or with [insert middle eastern country (or South Africa if traveling back in time a bit)]."
Oh, maybe hang it on a wall if you desire privacy? Maybe even have a wall built that is almost exactly the same size as the monitor sheet and have some sort of lighting in it.
Well, any article of the kind you are talking about includes details such as dates so anybody reading such articles will see how long ago that was and notice that nothing else came up so that is also informing them that you have changed and are no longer "behaving improperly." Or are you one of those that is just so much smarter than everyone else that you assume nobody would think that way?