Your link to Scientology was about a conspiracy involving leadership the 1970s, 50 years ago. So what? Lutherans started WWII that doesn't mean we ban the Lutheran church. The child abuse scandal was a conspiracy involving leadership possibly up to the Pope and certainly involving cardinals all over the planet. The situation is very similar. But even if they were different so what? Deciding to ban a faith because you don't like the leaders is the opposite of freedom of religion. I'm sure the Tzar's had specific gripes about members of the Jewish leadership but they didn't have audacity to claim they had freedom of religion while trying a persecute a religion into extinction. Freedom or Religion is the right of people to practice you don't like, not their Freedom to choose between state approved faiths.
I'm not applying different standards to France. I'm saying that the problems with European laws are differences in kind not just minor difference in policy. It would never occur to an American government official to do to a church they didn't like what France and Germany are doing to Scientology. I'd object equally if the American government were trying to ban a religion but they don't do that or anything like it.
Similarly with speech. Every American right to express any opinion about anything, period. Without any qualification what-so-ever and without any regulation what-so-ever. American defamation laws are designed to protect speech not to have state control of it. The only thing that defamation is America covers is knowingly conveying false information that is damaging. That's not remotely like the French situation where the state disagreed with her opinion and so fined thousands of Euros.
Apparently, the parents were actually charged with criminal defamation of Italian police regarding the treatment of Amanda Knox by police while in police custody. That seems like a completely different charge to me.
Yes it is. The parents spoke about official misconduct and were charged with a crime for doing so. That is America is 100% protected speech. I can freely talk about how much I dislike Obama making policy with the aliens from Jupiter and how that resulted in him assassinating Steve Jobs using cancer causing rays and no one could possibly touch me for that. That's what free speech means. Europeans just don't have it.
I don't think we disagree on the awkward spot. Let me add, it is worse then just contempt. Setting up a system to permanently hide data (i.e. allowing the Irish employees to obey European law) so that fulfilling a legal subpoena isn't possibly isn't merely contempt its obstruction of justice. That's a more serious charge.
Microsoft not handing over the data when asked = contempt Microsoft making it impossible to hand over the data when asked = obstruction
Contempt can involve sanctions but you can't be convicted of contempt there is a very low ceiling or what can be done. They could be fined or jailed until they comply but that's about it. Obstruction on the other hand is open ended. If it obstruction people who attended meetings where they discussed ways of allowing the Irish employees to hide the data committed conspiracy even if they themselves had nothing to do with not handing over the date. In theory if this happened multiple times the courts could find that Microsoft Operations of Ireland is fundamentally a criminal enterprise and simply confiscate it under RICO. Microsoft doesn't want to go there.
But in practice what I would add is that MOIL doesn't have control of the data. So the Irish guys don't have a problem. They are unable to obey European privacy laws. Whether MOIL should be able to offer services in Europe which are structurally unable to comply with European law is then the actual question.
But here is the Google translate of the article: Cape Ferret may be paradise, but it is clear that there is a place once charming, that hardly evokes neither Eden nor that of Epicurus: the little restaurant Il Giardino specializing in pizza (but not only!) as his Italianate name might assume, and where we used to make us once or twice a year. This year, not departing from this tradition now anchored in the course of our holiday, we went to dinner.
As the title of this article suggests, we were disappointed. For convenience, I'll leave it there for the simple past you narrate this adventure that does not lack spice, but which leaves against desired drink side and kindness.
When we arrived, the first waiter asked, logically, if we wanted to eat outside or outside, and as there was a lot of wind, we opted for inside, and so went we install a table. Immediately, a harpy in fluorescent jacket on the coat stares us to scold to move us without authorization (while, and one, we had one, authorization, and two... I do not yell at me too by servers in general - per person, however, but at least when I'm the customer). In short, it does not start very well, but the misunderstanding up, it slips through our menus. And the first fatal error which will result everything else: it does not ask us, as is the custom, if we want a drink. However, an appetizer, we wanted one (as very few customers obviously, but still, it is our right anyway). Comes a second waitress who took our order, but always ask us if we wanted a drink (logic: his colleague was supposed to have done), we are therefore obliged to ask (we wanted).
Ten minutes pass, and still no shade or our appetizer, or our bottle of wine elsewhere. So immediately after taking our order, the second waitress should have us prepare and serve us: the principle of appetizer, it is possible to quietly wait for his flat. Finally, it seems to me. So I hailed a third server (we will lower this thorny issue of web servers) and told him (kindly!) It would be nice to serve us a drink, because otherwise, our dishes will arrive before him . And bingo, while server # 3 brings us (finally! We started to dry us) as our appetizers desired (without peanuts. Was a long time ago, in this restaurant, we were given peanuts with an aperitif. Elsewhere, even gives us true tapas for not more expensive. Ta Panta Rei), our dishes come with waitress # 1. Dishes we refer because damn, suddenly we're only a drink (their fault) and the accompanying evil pastis steak-frites. The grumpy waitress.
And it continues. While we drank comes the boss, unfriendly despite what she will say well (next to the Café Marly servers deserve the Palme d'Or of courtesy), just tell us to let us know when we want our dishes because they already come to throw a steak and that if it should last 1/2 hour in our history, it would be nice to say. We try to explain our concern, and to point out that, for us and for many years, is the source of the problem in many restaurants that servers have more tables and FHLMC they vadrouillent in the wind, so it is no longer any order and reigns utter disorganization. But now she has an excuse (and, I swear I'm not making): it can not work its servers over 44h and it must give them days off, then understand my brave people, it would make it too personal to pay.
Stop! What? She has no right to work employees 24/24 7/7? But frankly, that's the world!
Brief. We brought our own wine (cold!) And our dishes, claimed twice. The steak was new, ok, that was not the case of pizza, dry around the edges. Good. We, nevertheless, a dessert (that were not the people of the next table, parties swearing they would not return). Ok, the ice balls were great. But good.
My mom will pay, and trying to get back on the incident, and is a patron send graze always foul-mouthed and dismissive. And paid aperitifs, source of conflict, then it is customary in restaurants, to
Parent or joint venture? Those aren't the same things. The parent company can ultimately walk away from the Chinese child.
But yes I think the China is within its rights to demand the parent hand over data as part of the terms under which the child is able to operate in China.
I agree it has been enshrined. But it is constantly undermined by the laws. For example to take your response to (2).
If a religious institution commits crimes you charge the individuals for the crime. You don't ban the religion. No one supports the Catholic church having engaged in child molestation, that doesn't mean the practice of the religion of Catholicism should be a crime. Your cavalier disregard for freedom of religion is precisely the point. The idea that you can casually support the use force, the criminal, and civil law system against the practitioners of Scientology because the church has done specific acts the government objects to is why Americans believe Europeans just don't have Freedom of Religion or even know what the concept of Freedom or Religion means. If there was Freedom of religion in France than any French or German person who wanted to congregate to discuss or practice the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics or any other leaders from the Religious Technology Center should be able to do so unmolested by the state. Period.
(1) shouldn't be about balance. The state shouldn't be regulating whether they agree with her assessment or not. Her claim was the service sucked and thus I don't think people should eat there. Whether bad service should or should be a reason people don't go to Il Giardino is not a matter for the state to decide. Again that's what freedom of speech means, the right of people to say and write things that the state disagrees with.
(4) you are just wrong. That's what for example Amanda Knox's parents were charged with and they even tried to go after a Seattle paper. So it absolutely happens.
(3) has gotten brought up all the time. The International Criminal Court (ICC) which is essentially a European institution being a great example which has upheld disagreeing with human rights law as a crime in and of itself.
The Americans in this case have access to the data. The global infrastructure is maintained form the USA company.
The hypothetical that was being discussed was the Irish subsidiary blocking access deliberately as a way of the US owners getting around the US legal problems. I agree the Irish employees can't get involved in anyway.
I agree with you. The argument being presented by others (including the other AC) was that the USA officials would be in trouble or that those laws would be effectual. But absolutely following USA laws might very well violate European law. There may be no way for Microsoft to resolve this. They might not be a way to offer a global cloud solution given conflicting laws.
Nonsense that is governed by international treaty. And Microsoft Corp of Washington State can disband Microsoft Operations of Ireland Limited Tomorrow if they want.
That's possibly true. It may be that there is no way to operate in both countries legally. Or there are going to need to be treaties written. But my point in this thread is US law and the fact that the US government can and will enforce it on US companies and will get the data.
Europeans are not going to be able to simultaneously have their data protection laws be effectual and have free access to internet services from USA companies without some agreements. Until such agreement One or the other is going to have go.
No you don't. The person suing you has the burden of proof. They have to show by preponderance of the evidence that you were factually incorrect and that you knew you were factually incorrect.
In the USA that's not libel. If I literally requested service 3 times then even though saying I had to ask 3 times is misleading saying it is not libel. So your example serves its purpose, but it does prove the difference.
It was written so it would be libel not slander. And yes the USA does have such laws. But the bar is very high to prove libel. The review in question, which mainly gave a factual analysis of bad service, wouldn't be remotely close to libel in the USA.
When the United States started we had a bunch of different states with radically different cultures. Free immigration between them eliminated that. The open borders policy and free trade union will do to Europe what the 1760s+ did to the USA if it runs for long enough.
Well I for one want to make sure the Streisand effect is in full force so...
1) Il Giardino, the Italian restaurant in Cap-Ferret, France mentioned in this article could sue Caroline Doudet for an opinion expressed in Les Chroniques Culturelles ( link) itself is pretty bad. You read the article and the review gives specific examples of terrible service and recommends that people avoid the restaurant. That is fundamentally what free speech is all about.
2) The war on Scientology. The whole concept that governments have the right to regulate religious beliefs.
3) The idea that objecting to policy by writing articles critical (for example being opposed to the Geneva conventions) constitutes war crimes.
4) Calumnia laws or the idea that defense witnesses can be charged with a crime for disagreeing with the police about what happened.
European countries lack free speech protections. Their system is terrible and it deserves criticism.
Read the thread. I've hit this enough times. The overseas guys indirectly work for a Washington State company. They can be told to comply by that Washington State company.
Of course Microsoft owns the data. Microsoft owns Round Island LLC which owns Round Island One which owns Microsoft Operations of Ireland. Everything MIOL owns is owned indirectly by Microsoft. Microsoft can with a few simple documents take possession of every piece of carpet, every chair, every office pen and yes every server.
as I no more have legal access to my office-mate's purse than I do to my neighbor's house.
In context this was from a judge. Presumably in this hypothetical (see the context) you would have a warrant. The point was that the judge can nullify BS property claims and thus avoid situations where companies create ambiguous ownership so that no document requests can be met.
Likewise, your statement implies that you could hand me a subpoena when I am sitting in Starbucks and force me to take keys out of the purse of the stranger sitting next to me, just because I saw her put them in her purse.
Correct it does imply that. And that's correct. I doubt a judge would issue such a subpoena but they most certainly could. You are obligated to cooperate.
Even more important, you might have a subpoena for house keys, and although I know that Betsy keeps keys in her purse, I do not know she keeps house keys there, and even if I did, I doubt I could pick them out.
You are obligated to cooperate to the best of your ability, "a reasonable belief that there might be evidence in the records requested".
And why would they want to do that? The purpose of Apple software is to sell Apple hardware. If there is a demand for VMs they are going to want those VMs to run on a reincarnated XServer.
Sure. Take leisure and hospitality. The big vendors (and these have all hundreds of thousands of users): Par, Micros, Ceniua, Maestro, Infor, Agilysys don't have good applications that can tie to the guests or visitor mobiles. So there is no way that guest can use these systems to make requests, people still have to call the front desk to get more towels. Guests have no way of knowing about other services the hotel is offering. Most of these systems don't have good applications for their ground level workers as far as logistics so the maid can't put in she wants to pick up extra shifts and then get notified that the hotel is short so she can show up to work 3 hrs early.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but yes. If an American kills someone in country X having been given permission by the USA government they can't be extradited for it because it is not a crime in the USA.
First off it is American then there is not a US main company There is a USA branch and a Chinese branch. Such a company is fundamentally Chinese . There is no reason a Chinese joint venture should be treated as anything other than a Chinese company. There shouldn't be any "secret stuff" which the people using it don't believe goes to the Chinese government. Chinese companies are regulated by the Chinese government.
The people who setup that system are Russians not Americans and the company is Russian so that doesn't present the same problem legally.
What it does mean though is that the company is more likely to just be treated as a foreign criminal enterprise not a company possibly involved in some wrongful behavior (tort).
Slashdot Mirror
Your link to Scientology was about a conspiracy involving leadership the 1970s, 50 years ago. So what? Lutherans started WWII that doesn't mean we ban the Lutheran church. The child abuse scandal was a conspiracy involving leadership possibly up to the Pope and certainly involving cardinals all over the planet. The situation is very similar. But even if they were different so what? Deciding to ban a faith because you don't like the leaders is the opposite of freedom of religion. I'm sure the Tzar's had specific gripes about members of the Jewish leadership but they didn't have audacity to claim they had freedom of religion while trying a persecute a religion into extinction. Freedom or Religion is the right of people to practice you don't like, not their Freedom to choose between state approved faiths.
I'm not applying different standards to France. I'm saying that the problems with European laws are differences in kind not just minor difference in policy. It would never occur to an American government official to do to a church they didn't like what France and Germany are doing to Scientology. I'd object equally if the American government were trying to ban a religion but they don't do that or anything like it.
Similarly with speech. Every American right to express any opinion about anything, period. Without any qualification what-so-ever and without any regulation what-so-ever. American defamation laws are designed to protect speech not to have state control of it. The only thing that defamation is America covers is knowingly conveying false information that is damaging. That's not remotely like the French situation where the state disagreed with her opinion and so fined thousands of Euros.
Yes it is. The parents spoke about official misconduct and were charged with a crime for doing so. That is America is 100% protected speech. I can freely talk about how much I dislike Obama making policy with the aliens from Jupiter and how that resulted in him assassinating Steve Jobs using cancer causing rays and no one could possibly touch me for that. That's what free speech means. Europeans just don't have it.
I don't think we disagree on the awkward spot. Let me add, it is worse then just contempt. Setting up a system to permanently hide data (i.e. allowing the Irish employees to obey European law) so that fulfilling a legal subpoena isn't possibly isn't merely contempt its obstruction of justice. That's a more serious charge.
Microsoft not handing over the data when asked = contempt
Microsoft making it impossible to hand over the data when asked = obstruction
Contempt can involve sanctions but you can't be convicted of contempt there is a very low ceiling or what can be done. They could be fined or jailed until they comply but that's about it. Obstruction on the other hand is open ended. If it obstruction people who attended meetings where they discussed ways of allowing the Irish employees to hide the data committed conspiracy even if they themselves had nothing to do with not handing over the date. In theory if this happened multiple times the courts could find that Microsoft Operations of Ireland is fundamentally a criminal enterprise and simply confiscate it under RICO. Microsoft doesn't want to go there.
But in practice what I would add is that MOIL doesn't have control of the data. So the Irish guys don't have a problem. They are unable to obey European privacy laws. Whether MOIL should be able to offer services in Europe which are structurally unable to comply with European law is then the actual question.
I don't know whether it is untrue.
But here is the Google translate of the article: Cape Ferret may be paradise, but it is clear that there is a place once charming, that hardly evokes neither Eden nor that of Epicurus: the little restaurant Il Giardino specializing in pizza (but not only!) as his Italianate name might assume, and where we used to make us once or twice a year. This year, not departing from this tradition now anchored in the course of our holiday, we went to dinner.
As the title of this article suggests, we were disappointed. For convenience, I'll leave it there for the simple past you narrate this adventure that does not lack spice, but which leaves against desired drink side and kindness.
When we arrived, the first waiter asked, logically, if we wanted to eat outside or outside, and as there was a lot of wind, we opted for inside, and so went we install a table. Immediately, a harpy in fluorescent jacket on the coat stares us to scold to move us without authorization (while, and one, we had one, authorization, and two ... I do not yell at me too by servers in general - per person, however, but at least when I'm the customer). In short, it does not start very well, but the misunderstanding up, it slips through our menus. And the first fatal error which will result everything else: it does not ask us, as is the custom, if we want a drink. However, an appetizer, we wanted one (as very few customers obviously, but still, it is our right anyway). Comes a second waitress who took our order, but always ask us if we wanted a drink (logic: his colleague was supposed to have done), we are therefore obliged to ask (we wanted).
Ten minutes pass, and still no shade or our appetizer, or our bottle of wine elsewhere. So immediately after taking our order, the second waitress should have us prepare and serve us: the principle of appetizer, it is possible to quietly wait for his flat. Finally, it seems to me. So I hailed a third server (we will lower this thorny issue of web servers) and told him (kindly!) It would be nice to serve us a drink, because otherwise, our dishes will arrive before him . And bingo, while server # 3 brings us (finally! We started to dry us) as our appetizers desired (without peanuts. Was a long time ago, in this restaurant, we were given peanuts with an aperitif. Elsewhere, even gives us true tapas for not more expensive. Ta Panta Rei), our dishes come with waitress # 1. Dishes we refer because damn, suddenly we're only a drink (their fault) and the accompanying evil pastis steak-frites. The grumpy waitress.
And it continues. While we drank comes the boss, unfriendly despite what she will say well (next to the Café Marly servers deserve the Palme d'Or of courtesy), just tell us to let us know when we want our dishes because they already come to throw a steak and that if it should last 1/2 hour in our history, it would be nice to say. We try to explain our concern, and to point out that, for us and for many years, is the source of the problem in many restaurants that servers have more tables and FHLMC they vadrouillent in the wind, so it is no longer any order and reigns utter disorganization. But now she has an excuse (and, I swear I'm not making): it can not work its servers over 44h and it must give them days off, then understand my brave people, it would make it too personal to pay.
Stop! What? She has no right to work employees 24/24 7/7? But frankly, that's the world!
Brief. We brought our own wine (cold!) And our dishes, claimed twice. The steak was new, ok, that was not the case of pizza, dry around the edges. Good. We, nevertheless, a dessert (that were not the people of the next table, parties swearing they would not return). Ok, the ice balls were great. But good.
My mom will pay, and trying to get back on the incident, and is a patron send graze always foul-mouthed and dismissive. And paid aperitifs, source of conflict, then it is customary in restaurants, to
Parent or joint venture? Those aren't the same things. The parent company can ultimately walk away from the Chinese child.
But yes I think the China is within its rights to demand the parent hand over data as part of the terms under which the child is able to operate in China.
I agree it has been enshrined. But it is constantly undermined by the laws. For example to take your response to (2).
If a religious institution commits crimes you charge the individuals for the crime. You don't ban the religion. No one supports the Catholic church having engaged in child molestation, that doesn't mean the practice of the religion of Catholicism should be a crime. Your cavalier disregard for freedom of religion is precisely the point. The idea that you can casually support the use force, the criminal, and civil law system against the practitioners of Scientology because the church has done specific acts the government objects to is why Americans believe Europeans just don't have Freedom of Religion or even know what the concept of Freedom or Religion means. If there was Freedom of religion in France than any French or German person who wanted to congregate to discuss or practice the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics or any other leaders from the Religious Technology Center should be able to do so unmolested by the state. Period.
(1) shouldn't be about balance. The state shouldn't be regulating whether they agree with her assessment or not. Her claim was the service sucked and thus I don't think people should eat there. Whether bad service should or should be a reason people don't go to Il Giardino is not a matter for the state to decide. Again that's what freedom of speech means, the right of people to say and write things that the state disagrees with.
(4) you are just wrong. That's what for example Amanda Knox's parents were charged with and they even tried to go after a Seattle paper. So it absolutely happens.
(3) has gotten brought up all the time. The International Criminal Court (ICC) which is essentially a European institution being a great example which has upheld disagreeing with human rights law as a crime in and of itself.
The Americans in this case have access to the data. The global infrastructure is maintained form the USA company.
The hypothetical that was being discussed was the Irish subsidiary blocking access deliberately as a way of the US owners getting around the US legal problems. I agree the Irish employees can't get involved in anyway.
I agree with you. The argument being presented by others (including the other AC) was that the USA officials would be in trouble or that those laws would be effectual. But absolutely following USA laws might very well violate European law. There may be no way for Microsoft to resolve this. They might not be a way to offer a global cloud solution given conflicting laws.
Nonsense that is governed by international treaty. And Microsoft Corp of Washington State can disband Microsoft Operations of Ireland Limited Tomorrow if they want.
That's possibly true. It may be that there is no way to operate in both countries legally. Or there are going to need to be treaties written. But my point in this thread is US law and the fact that the US government can and will enforce it on US companies and will get the data.
Europeans are not going to be able to simultaneously have their data protection laws be effectual and have free access to internet services from USA companies without some agreements. Until such agreement One or the other is going to have go.
Yes we do.
https://translate.googleuserco...
No you don't. The person suing you has the burden of proof. They have to show by preponderance of the evidence that you were factually incorrect and that you knew you were factually incorrect.
In the USA that's not libel. If I literally requested service 3 times then even though saying I had to ask 3 times is misleading saying it is not libel. So your example serves its purpose, but it does prove the difference.
It was written so it would be libel not slander. And yes the USA does have such laws. But the bar is very high to prove libel. The review in question, which mainly gave a factual analysis of bad service, wouldn't be remotely close to libel in the USA.
When the United States started we had a bunch of different states with radically different cultures. Free immigration between them eliminated that. The open borders policy and free trade union will do to Europe what the 1760s+ did to the USA if it runs for long enough.
Well I for one want to make sure the Streisand effect is in full force so...
1) Il Giardino, the Italian restaurant in Cap-Ferret, France mentioned in this article could sue Caroline Doudet for an opinion expressed in Les Chroniques Culturelles ( link) itself is pretty bad. You read the article and the review gives specific examples of terrible service and recommends that people avoid the restaurant. That is fundamentally what free speech is all about.
2) The war on Scientology. The whole concept that governments have the right to regulate religious beliefs.
3) The idea that objecting to policy by writing articles critical (for example being opposed to the Geneva conventions) constitutes war crimes.
4) Calumnia laws or the idea that defense witnesses can be charged with a crime for disagreeing with the police about what happened.
European countries lack free speech protections. Their system is terrible and it deserves criticism.
Read the thread. I've hit this enough times. The overseas guys indirectly work for a Washington State company. They can be told to comply by that Washington State company.
Of course Microsoft owns the data. Microsoft owns Round Island LLC which owns Round Island One which owns Microsoft Operations of Ireland. Everything MIOL owns is owned indirectly by Microsoft. Microsoft can with a few simple documents take possession of every piece of carpet, every chair, every office pen and yes every server.
In context this was from a judge. Presumably in this hypothetical (see the context) you would have a warrant. The point was that the judge can nullify BS property claims and thus avoid situations where companies create ambiguous ownership so that no document requests can be met.
Correct it does imply that. And that's correct. I doubt a judge would issue such a subpoena but they most certainly could. You are obligated to cooperate.
You are obligated to cooperate to the best of your ability, "a reasonable belief that there might be evidence in the records requested".
And why would they want to do that? The purpose of Apple software is to sell Apple hardware. If there is a demand for VMs they are going to want those VMs to run on a reincarnated XServer.
You can redirect services to your own servers, that's part of the enterprise SDK. Most people access that functionality through their MDM/EMM.
Sure. Take leisure and hospitality. The big vendors (and these have all hundreds of thousands of users): Par, Micros, Ceniua, Maestro, Infor, Agilysys don't have good applications that can tie to the guests or visitor mobiles. So there is no way that guest can use these systems to make requests, people still have to call the front desk to get more towels. Guests have no way of knowing about other services the hotel is offering. Most of these systems don't have good applications for their ground level workers as far as logistics so the maid can't put in she wants to pick up extra shifts and then get notified that the hotel is short so she can show up to work 3 hrs early.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but yes. If an American kills someone in country X having been given permission by the USA government they can't be extradited for it because it is not a crime in the USA.
First off it is American then there is not a US main company There is a USA branch and a Chinese branch. Such a company is fundamentally Chinese . There is no reason a Chinese joint venture should be treated as anything other than a Chinese company. There shouldn't be any "secret stuff" which the people using it don't believe goes to the Chinese government. Chinese companies are regulated by the Chinese government.
The people who setup that system are Russians not Americans and the company is Russian so that doesn't present the same problem legally.
What it does mean though is that the company is more likely to just be treated as a foreign criminal enterprise not a company possibly involved in some wrongful behavior (tort).
I did. And I explained how they do at length multiple times.