European politicians tend to agree on many issues and it takes only one country to influence the rest.
Excuse me, but what Parallel Universe do you live in? Is it nice there? Because one thing is for sure here: European politicians do not agree on many things at all. I wonder what made you write that? There's not a single issue that doesn't come across differently in every European country. Take the War in Iraq, the EU CAP, the EU itself, religion and religious issues such as abortion, ethnic discrimination, immigration, European integration, NATO organisation and so on.
Fighting this new law is not only important to the people of Denmark, but also to the rest of the European Union
No, it's not important to the people of Europe. Any verdicts in Denmark will have practically zero value outside. If it was decided upon in the Court of First Instance perhaps. This case will not change anything in Europe in general.
Let the Danish courts play the same game of whack-a-mole that mail admins do
I'm sorry but you do realize the courts never bother with actual IP adresses? They just issue a general directive that requires the ISP to block access regardless of what it takes or if it's even possible.
The courts don't have to bother with such mundane issues as the time and money it will take to block a moving target. They will just fine the ISP if they don't take enough action in the eyes of the court. The target can move, the ISP will suffer increased costs - but the users will still find their site.
Don't give me that "they only block it because it violates copyright laws" because on The Pirate Bay there is open source materials and files in the public domain
You are totally and utterly wrong. If the majority of files on the Pirate Bay were legal it would perhaps be a different matter. But the vast majority of files on The Pirate Bay are illegal and violate copyright laws in many or most countries. So the few legal torrents available don't change things at all.
If you sell pirated and legal CDs out of the trunk of your car - you are still guilty of selling illegal copies.
They won't censor the Mohamed Cartoons that Muslims find offensive, but they'll go out of their way to censor a BitTorrent web site?
What rubbish! The Danish government has no responsibility for what the press does in a free country. As long as the press is not in violation of Danish law they're free to publish what they want.
And if you didn't read the facts it was the IFPI that brought the [Pirate Bay] case to court. That's not the Danish government either - so you are way out of line.
The Fogderetten (court) of Fredriksberg decided on Tuesday the 29/1 that Danish Internet provider Tele 2 must block their customers from accessing The Pirate Bay.
While the reasoning and contents of the verdict has not reached the public yet, the consequences are already clear: Danish Internet users have been censored and cannot visit the world's largest bittorrent tracker - The Pirate Bay. With this Denmark joins the company of Turkey and China, the two and only other countries in the world that blocks their citizens from accessing the site.
The case was brought to the court by the IFPI who had previously successfully used the same strategy with regards to the Russian music site AllofMP3. The IFPI is fighting a desperate struggle to keep control over how music is distributed, and The Pirate Bay has been a thorn in their eye for a long time.
On this page you can learn how to circumvent the block. We do not want to let the recording industry decide what information we as Internet users have access to.
P.S. I did not use a lot of time on this translation, it might have some typos and errors. Also I'm Norwegian and not Danish so please excuse any mistakes.
there are places right here in the USA like that...
Haha, you mean there are areas in the US where Communist guerrilla rules? Or where militant Islamists are fighting for independence from the government with terrorist attacks, killings and kidnappings? I don't think so.
people will be swayed by Apple's marketing if Nokia doesn't do something
This is all about convergence, not so much the marketing efforts. The iPod is doomed and so is the non-MP3 playing cellphone. Sure, Apple has a strong brand with consumers, and especially so in the US. The iPod without wifi and cellphone tech would have been a dead end in a few years time.
I remember so well the quote from one leading figure at Sun that said: "I refuse to buy an iPod because the music should not be on my device but on the network". We're not there yet, but we're moving in that direction.
In other words the phone/personal entertainment device as we know it will change a lot in the coming years. And the services will be the real issue. iTunes as a streaming service probably. Apple is desperate to survive in the future and Nokia needs to move soon. Apple is squeezing everything they can out of their iPod now because soon it'll be as dead as the non-networked PDA.
And a user interface that a monkey can mash successfully.
This is where they will win or loose the war. Like most people here I love gadgets, and complex interfaces does not scare me. I however have the social skills needed to recognize that not everyone is me and need simpler and better solutions. Designing good user interfaces is what Apple is all about, that's certainly one of the keys to their success with the iPhone.
I'm making applications right now for the iPhone because I know my boss and clients have it, and love it, even here in Norway where the iPhone is not sold by any licensed partner. The very fact that I know my users will actually know, understand and use my applications is my inspiration to create applications for it. That can't be said for any other cellphone maker out there.
This isn't going to happen by relying on platform specific programs by Apple and Microsoft or third party web sites.
I don't know if you're referring to my 3rd party website or not. But take zyb.com. It uses open standards implemented by both SonyEricsson and Nokia (amongst others) that allows your phone to sync with any provider you choose. The standards are all that's needed for the service providers to get in on the game. Google will probably offer it once they discover it. Or here's hoping!
Configuring the sync is incredibly easy, so easy that ordinary consumers can get into it. The provider just sends an [specially formatted] SMS with the config settings right into your phone. You just have to accept it [and any local security prompt]. Voilá! Third parties can do a lot for a product's success, but you have to enable them and create the features.
Next, I would like to point out Nokia's very promising media portal called Ovi. Here's a good example of Nokia understanding the future needs of it's products - and more importantly it's customers;)
Apple's sleek design and marketing prowess are proving tough to beat.
Sorry, but that's just not true. In the US Apple sold a lot of iPhones, but Nokia is a dominant world leader in cellphones and especially cell networks (Nokia-Siemens). The US is a weird and rather small market compared with the rest of the world. Europe and Asia is where the real action is, as you may well know. And real smartphones from the likes of Nokia have been here a lot longer than the iPhone. Apple has done just fine [in the US], but it has in no way managed to challenge Nokia for the real markets.
Oh, and I don't have anything against Apple. I'm European and I just ordered my iPhone from the US because I like the look and features. It will go nicely with my Macs.
However the iPhone will be my #3 phone as I change phones depending on my needs. I have a real smartphone in the SonyEricsson P1, a creditcard sized Samsung for going out and now the iPhone for entertainment.
Microsoft can integrate with Windows, and Apple can integrate with Mac OS. What's left for Nokia?
Easy, they'll just bring the services to you over the Internet using free, open standards. SyncML is certainly interesting in that regard. I sync my phones from *my phone* using Zyb.com and it stores the information on the Internet. iCal syncs my calendar back from a feed.
And why focus on the desktop OS anyway? Today files are more or less independent of the OS it was created on if you want to. Webservices, my friend, is the future. And Nokia already has good sync software for their phones. And on the Mac iSync does a good job of communicating with many phones. I also believe Nokias sync well with Linux if you want to.
P.S. And Windows Mobile is not doing that well in Europe either. We like phones that work, go Symbian.
Generally, it is what the legislative body thinks a law means that counts, and a large part of what judicial bodies do is try to figure out what the majority of the legislative body thought a given law meant when they passed it.
Yes, and no. The different European legislative systems are on a whole similar in that they are not like the UK/US Common Law system but amongst each other they can differ a lot. There is a great leap between the French system to the Scandinavian-German tradition in interpreting, codifying and the value of past verdicts.
The EU can create new laws in many shapes and many ways. Laws can be proposed by the European Parliament or more importantly the Commission.
The way laws are created in European nations are not uniform and thus the European Union has chosen a middle path. European Union treaties and laws have preambles explaining the context and intention of the following text. As opposed to say the Scandinavian tradition of interpreting the wording of the text, and any unclear passages, within the context of the proposed text(s) of the law (drafts), Parliament's intentions with the law, the intention of the law itself (higher goals, values and morals), theory and textbooks..
Why don't you include the fact that for Microsoft the European market is actually larger than the US? Microsoft takes home a lot more money from Europe than the US! I believe I heard something like 50%+
It's actually illegal to be a monopoly in the EU. That's what's fundamentally different between the US and EU. If a corporation like Microsoft just by existing harms consumers (and companies) it's illegal and punishable. In the US you would have to prove that they did something harmful other than being a monopoly.
Actually the Russian Federation consists of several republics, provinces and territories, and Chechnya is one of the self-governing states under the federal government. They have their own President, Parliament and Constitution.
You may certainly discuss the amount of self rule. Since the end of the hostilities the Russian Federal government has poured large amounts of money into reconstruction - and today Grozny looks like a proper city again. The political leadership in Chechnya is officially pro-Russian.. but who cares as long as the Russian money keeps rolling in, the open war is over and only the enemies of the ruling elite "disappear"?
our laws don't permit the prosecution of someone for a crime committed outside of the country
With the notable exception for war crimes of course. And a quick look brought up other interesting examples such as PART II.1 Section 83.18(3)(c)(ii) of your Criminal Code relating to committing an offense "... an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence;". Now, I'm not a Canadian lawyer but I would hazard a guess that there are more examples.
The Canadian Nazi won't be "held accountable" in Canada
And according to PART XIV on Jurisdiction, Section 481.2 says: "... where an act or omission is committed outside Canada and the act or omission, when committed in those circumstances, is an offence... proceedings in respect thereof may, whether or not the accused is in Canada, be commenced, and an accused may be charged, tried and punished within any territorial division in Canada in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.".
And its unconstitutional to extradite for something that isn't an offense in Canada.
Actually that's not the whole truth after the Extradition Act of 1999 the crime no longer has to pass the same "duality test". I quote: "The new process instead requires a analysis of the alleged offense for which extradition is sought and if a similar offense prevails in Canada,... the test will have been met".
Also extradition is probably subject to the long line of treaties with individual countries that Canada has with most the Western world at least. I found this article on the subject very interesting.
In conclusion the answer has be that it certainly appears as though Canada can prosecute crimes committed abroad however as always certain conditions have to be met. I won't press my point further as I am not familiar with Canadian law and I might also be plain wrong:)
No, that's not exactly true. They are covered by EU/US law for their actions, even if it's in a foreign jurisdiction. Both commercial and non-commercial activity, including libel speech, is subject to domestic laws. The only problem is the actual prosecution of the people involved. Blocking the offending website is easy of course.
If it's a major company in the Western world you can be sure they will be held accountable. And possibly even extradited to the US/EU if need be. If it's a Russian hacker, you can be sure he'll be arrested if/when he visits the US for a conference. And if it's a Canadian Nazi he can be held accountable when he returns home for his Christmas holiday.
The issue is not jurisdiction, but prosecution. And there are several laws both in the US and EU that target criminal activities in foreign jurisdictions [that are only illegal from a domestic point of view]. The most recent case of this has been hate speech, terrorist activities and training abroad (for the US). And the EU has in addition to the above mentioned issues been concerned with sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
Commit the crime abroad, legal as it may be there, but serve time at home.
AllofMp3.com has to abide by US law because it may be commonly accessed by US Citizens
Yes, that's exactly it. They are covered by US law for their actions in the US. Any commercial activity or libel speech is subject to US laws. The only problem for the US legal system is prosecuting the owners of said company. If it's a major company in the Western world you can be sure they will be held accountable and possibly even extradited to the US. If it's a Russian hacker, you can be sure he'll be arrested when he visits the US for a conference.
Again, assuming the laws in the EU are similar to other jurisdictions.
And that's where you're most wrong of all. Not only are the laws different in the EU but they are interpreted and used in a different manner. (read more below)
You said:..it is not illegal to have a monopoly..
The whole case against Microsoft in the EU is the best example there is of the difference between passive US regulation and aggressive EU regulation. The EU steps in where the US would wait.
To quote the LA Times: "In the U.S., antitrust law is based more on the effects. If you commit an illegal practice, that practice has to have an effect on the market"... "In Europe, you don't need to go so far. To prove you've committed an illegal practice is enough to punish your company, irrespective of the impact."
U.S. antitrust regulators rely more on economic analyses than assumptions of how consumers will be affected, antitrust experts say. While the EU philosophy is that protecting competitors helps consumers by ensuring more competition, which could drive down prices.
And finally, of course, the greatest difference is that the EU uses the Civil Law legal system (from Roman Law) with the exception of the UK. The UK/US Common Law system has a very different view and methods. On a sidenote the majority of the world's nations use the Civil Law legal system.
The EU has no jurisdiction over the acquisition
How terribly naive of you. Of course the EU can block it. That's why it merits a news item. Google and DoubleClick both operate in the EU, mergers and aquistions are subject to EU approval even if they have US HQ's. This goes for every major merger in the world today. If you don't get both the US and the EU to accept it - it's not happening. We're talking about WTO rules here to be precise.
but it is the case with the systems of they countries I know people in
Are you suggesting it's the rule or the exception? Because either way it's not very a scientific method or sample.
medical problem after two years on a waitlist
I would then suggest the problem, in that specific country, would be with the management. Because they could easily organize their system the way my country does by giving the patient freedom of choice with user hospital selection. And like I said when the national or regional capacity is not available they can have the surgery done abroad. And, yes, there's always some country in Europe, or some other place, with capacity for the precise problem in question. We already do this here, we both export [to Germany] and import patients [from Denmark].
Since nationalized insurance would cause an large increase in patients without an increase in the number of physicians
It would also probably mean an increase in government spending on healthcare leading to greater demand and probably an increase in supply as well. Otherwise they could probably be sent abroad [payed for by the government] like many wealthy people are doing today. Did you see the "60 minutes" show on Indian commercial health resorts? They provide excellent healthcare for a very reasonable price - and the patient gets to recover in a nice tropical environment. From what I hear there are plenty of Indian doctors are already working in the US, so quality is not the issue. Globalization could probably benefit us all.
And years of experience is that the majority of spam comes from compormised machines "overseas."
Do you have any evidence or links that proves this? Because I would like to point out that the US has quite a large percentage of the worlds computers (and Microsoft Windows). China is obviously the biggest market for PCs nowadays, but they also prefer a cheap Linux OS.
The owner of the spamvertized website... might in fact be American, but for my purposes that, too, is irrelevant.
Sure, I agree, the ownership is irrelevant for this discussion. But they're still the ones contracting the spam campaigns.
"Many of these spam operations pretend to operate 'offshore' using servers in Asia and South America."
And I should of course have said blocking all of the Americas would solve my problem. Russia and Asia are obviously on the hit list as well. My own country would be enough, just like you. See, I have full sympathy for your situation.
Remember, too, that this conversation is about "*Russian* Phishers."
And who do you think purchases spam advertising from these Russians? Not Russians for sure. The phishing activites are of course a different issue - but we ended up discussing spam...
Of course there's probably a link between purchasing spam ad campaigns, "financing" their bot networks, and ultimately supporting their phishing activities.
Believe what you will. I know it works for me. Opinions/beliefs to the contrary are irrelevant.
Good luck with that. I'll remember that next time I get another "mortgage offer". It might work for you, but the truth is that the majority of spam is from Americans, for Americans and by Americans.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-American in general, but I hate getting vast amounts of spam for products that I will never buy because I'm in another country. If I blocked every national TLD except my own I would not receive ANY spam, so I see your point. But don't delude yourself about who profits from spam and who it's meant for.
blocking all traffic sourcing anywhere except North America reduces the spam load by 98%
I find that very hard to believe since most spam comes from the United States according to Spamhaus. As a European I would block the US, Russia and China to keep the load off my servers.
Also, yes, I am familiar with the national health care systems in some EU countries.
No, no, no. Please, do not refer to European countries as "EU"-countries. We are not all members, and do not want to be either.
And the reason I mentioned it was, of course, just to highlight the differences. Not advocating either system really. But I must say I appreciate that if I were to need major surgery I would not have to pay anything before, during or in recovery after the operation. And the welfare benefits that would kick in to aid you while you're not working. Haven't needed it yet though.
I would be willing to put up with the "waitlists" of national healthcare
Yes, there was that problem a few years back. At least here in my part of Europe we don't have them any longer. Freedom of choice, it's called now, the money follows the patient and you can choose which ever hospital you want to perform the operation. It even works so that you can have surgery done abroad if there's no available capacity in our country at that moment.
It doesn't matter what is taught in Norwegian history and what isn't.
It does matter when you criticize the poor fellow for not knowing about it and tell him to: "study more". I'm just saying you should give him a break for not knowing.
The assertion that it is impossible for involuntary servitude to be contractual is false.
I did claim it was illegal to force someone to work, but what you described is obviously the other way around. At least from what you presented I can see how that situation at least resembles indentured servitude. It's really sad especially for the average American worker. But it's not the company's fault that your system is organized the way it is. Under the average European health care system you are automatically covered regardless of employment status and condition. And it's cost free, even for major surgery. And, yes, it is always available and good quality. I appreciate it more and more.
Indentured servants (aka white slaves in the early American colonies) were contractually obligated to work
Well, you see, that is interesting to Americans but only mentioned in History classes in Norway. Yes, the parent poster is from Norway. So you can't expect a Norwegian to know much about that.
Besides that the European system of law works in a very different manner and would never permit that kind of unbalanced contract. It would simply become void and illegal. And I doubt it is legal in the US today either.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, but what Parallel Universe do you live in? Is it nice there? Because one thing is for sure here: European politicians do not agree on many things at all. I wonder what made you write that? There's not a single issue that doesn't come across differently in every European country. Take the War in Iraq, the EU CAP, the EU itself, religion and religious issues such as abortion, ethnic discrimination, immigration, European integration, NATO organisation and so on.
No, it's not important to the people of Europe. Any verdicts in Denmark will have practically zero value outside. If it was decided upon in the Court of First Instance perhaps. This case will not change anything in Europe in general.
Kjære nabo, is this when I tell you that Tele2 in Denmark is a division of Norwegian Telenor? ;)
I'm sorry but you do realize the courts never bother with actual IP adresses? They just issue a general directive that requires the ISP to block access regardless of what it takes or if it's even possible.
The courts don't have to bother with such mundane issues as the time and money it will take to block a moving target. They will just fine the ISP if they don't take enough action in the eyes of the court. The target can move, the ISP will suffer increased costs - but the users will still find their site.
You are totally and utterly wrong. If the majority of files on the Pirate Bay were legal it would perhaps be a different matter. But the vast majority of files on The Pirate Bay are illegal and violate copyright laws in many or most countries. So the few legal torrents available don't change things at all.
If you sell pirated and legal CDs out of the trunk of your car - you are still guilty of selling illegal copies.
What rubbish! The Danish government has no responsibility for what the press does in a free country. As long as the press is not in violation of Danish law they're free to publish what they want.
And if you didn't read the facts it was the IFPI that brought the [Pirate Bay] case to court. That's not the Danish government either - so you are way out of line.
The Fogderetten (court) of Fredriksberg decided on Tuesday the 29/1 that Danish Internet provider Tele 2 must block their customers from accessing The Pirate Bay.
While the reasoning and contents of the verdict has not reached the public yet, the consequences are already clear: Danish Internet users have been censored and cannot visit the world's largest bittorrent tracker - The Pirate Bay. With this Denmark joins the company of Turkey and China, the two and only other countries in the world that blocks their citizens from accessing the site.
The case was brought to the court by the IFPI who had previously successfully used the same strategy with regards to the Russian music site AllofMP3. The IFPI is fighting a desperate struggle to keep control over how music is distributed, and The Pirate Bay has been a thorn in their eye for a long time.
On this page you can learn how to circumvent the block. We do not want to let the recording industry decide what information we as Internet users have access to.
P.S. I did not use a lot of time on this translation, it might have some typos and errors. Also I'm Norwegian and not Danish so please excuse any mistakes.
Haha, you mean there are areas in the US where Communist guerrilla rules? Or where militant Islamists are fighting for independence from the government with terrorist attacks, killings and kidnappings? I don't think so.
This is all about convergence, not so much the marketing efforts. The iPod is doomed and so is the non-MP3 playing cellphone. Sure, Apple has a strong brand with consumers, and especially so in the US. The iPod without wifi and cellphone tech would have been a dead end in a few years time.
I remember so well the quote from one leading figure at Sun that said: "I refuse to buy an iPod because the music should not be on my device but on the network". We're not there yet, but we're moving in that direction.
In other words the phone/personal entertainment device as we know it will change a lot in the coming years. And the services will be the real issue. iTunes as a streaming service probably. Apple is desperate to survive in the future and Nokia needs to move soon. Apple is squeezing everything they can out of their iPod now because soon it'll be as dead as the non-networked PDA.
This is where they will win or loose the war. Like most people here I love gadgets, and complex interfaces does not scare me. I however have the social skills needed to recognize that not everyone is me and need simpler and better solutions. Designing good user interfaces is what Apple is all about, that's certainly one of the keys to their success with the iPhone.
I'm making applications right now for the iPhone because I know my boss and clients have it, and love it, even here in Norway where the iPhone is not sold by any licensed partner. The very fact that I know my users will actually know, understand and use my applications is my inspiration to create applications for it. That can't be said for any other cellphone maker out there.
I don't know if you're referring to my 3rd party website or not. But take zyb.com. It uses open standards implemented by both SonyEricsson and Nokia (amongst others) that allows your phone to sync with any provider you choose. The standards are all that's needed for the service providers to get in on the game. Google will probably offer it once they discover it. Or here's hoping!
Configuring the sync is incredibly easy, so easy that ordinary consumers can get into it. The provider just sends an [specially formatted] SMS with the config settings right into your phone. You just have to accept it [and any local security prompt]. Voilá! Third parties can do a lot for a product's success, but you have to enable them and create the features.
Next, I would like to point out Nokia's very promising media portal called Ovi. Here's a good example of Nokia understanding the future needs of it's products - and more importantly it's customers ;)
Sorry, but that's just not true. In the US Apple sold a lot of iPhones, but Nokia is a dominant world leader in cellphones and especially cell networks (Nokia-Siemens). The US is a weird and rather small market compared with the rest of the world. Europe and Asia is where the real action is, as you may well know. And real smartphones from the likes of Nokia have been here a lot longer than the iPhone. Apple has done just fine [in the US], but it has in no way managed to challenge Nokia for the real markets.
Oh, and I don't have anything against Apple. I'm European and I just ordered my iPhone from the US because I like the look and features. It will go nicely with my Macs.
However the iPhone will be my #3 phone as I change phones depending on my needs. I have a real smartphone in the SonyEricsson P1, a creditcard sized Samsung for going out and now the iPhone for entertainment.
Easy, they'll just bring the services to you over the Internet using free, open standards. SyncML is certainly interesting in that regard. I sync my phones from *my phone* using Zyb.com and it stores the information on the Internet. iCal syncs my calendar back from a feed.
And why focus on the desktop OS anyway? Today files are more or less independent of the OS it was created on if you want to. Webservices, my friend, is the future. And Nokia already has good sync software for their phones. And on the Mac iSync does a good job of communicating with many phones. I also believe Nokias sync well with Linux if you want to.
P.S. And Windows Mobile is not doing that well in Europe either. We like phones that work, go Symbian.
Yes, and no. The different European legislative systems are on a whole similar in that they are not like the UK/US Common Law system but amongst each other they can differ a lot. There is a great leap between the French system to the Scandinavian-German tradition in interpreting, codifying and the value of past verdicts.
The EU can create new laws in many shapes and many ways. Laws can be proposed by the European Parliament or more importantly the Commission.
The way laws are created in European nations are not uniform and thus the European Union has chosen a middle path. European Union treaties and laws have preambles explaining the context and intention of the following text. As opposed to say the Scandinavian tradition of interpreting the wording of the text, and any unclear passages, within the context of the proposed text(s) of the law (drafts), Parliament's intentions with the law, the intention of the law itself (higher goals, values and morals), theory and textbooks..
Why don't you include the fact that for Microsoft the European market is actually larger than the US? Microsoft takes home a lot more money from Europe than the US! I believe I heard something like 50%+
It's actually illegal to be a monopoly in the EU. That's what's fundamentally different between the US and EU. If a corporation like Microsoft just by existing harms consumers (and companies) it's illegal and punishable. In the US you would have to prove that they did something harmful other than being a monopoly.
Actually the Russian Federation consists of several republics, provinces and territories, and Chechnya is one of the self-governing states under the federal government. They have their own President, Parliament and Constitution.
You may certainly discuss the amount of self rule. Since the end of the hostilities the Russian Federal government has poured large amounts of money into reconstruction - and today Grozny looks like a proper city again. The political leadership in Chechnya is officially pro-Russian.. but who cares as long as the Russian money keeps rolling in, the open war is over and only the enemies of the ruling elite "disappear"?
With the notable exception for war crimes of course. And a quick look brought up other interesting examples such as PART II.1 Section 83.18(3)(c)(ii) of your Criminal Code relating to committing an offense "... an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence;". Now, I'm not a Canadian lawyer but I would hazard a guess that there are more examples.
And according to PART XIV on Jurisdiction, Section 481.2 says: "... where an act or omission is committed outside Canada and the act or omission, when committed in those circumstances, is an offence ... proceedings in respect thereof may, whether or not the accused is in Canada, be commenced, and an accused may be charged, tried and punished within any territorial division in Canada in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.".
Actually that's not the whole truth after the Extradition Act of 1999 the crime no longer has to pass the same "duality test". I quote: "The new process instead requires a analysis of the alleged offense for which extradition is sought and if a similar offense prevails in Canada, ... the test will have been met".
Also extradition is probably subject to the long line of treaties with individual countries that Canada has with most the Western world at least. I found this article on the subject very interesting.
In conclusion the answer has be that it certainly appears as though Canada can prosecute crimes committed abroad however as always certain conditions have to be met. I won't press my point further as I am not familiar with Canadian law and I might also be plain wrong :)
No, that's not exactly true. They are covered by EU/US law for their actions, even if it's in a foreign jurisdiction. Both commercial and non-commercial activity, including libel speech, is subject to domestic laws. The only problem is the actual prosecution of the people involved. Blocking the offending website is easy of course.
If it's a major company in the Western world you can be sure they will be held accountable. And possibly even extradited to the US/EU if need be. If it's a Russian hacker, you can be sure he'll be arrested if/when he visits the US for a conference. And if it's a Canadian Nazi he can be held accountable when he returns home for his Christmas holiday.
The issue is not jurisdiction, but prosecution. And there are several laws both in the US and EU that target criminal activities in foreign jurisdictions [that are only illegal from a domestic point of view]. The most recent case of this has been hate speech, terrorist activities and training abroad (for the US). And the EU has in addition to the above mentioned issues been concerned with sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
Commit the crime abroad, legal as it may be there, but serve time at home.
And that's where you're most wrong of all. Not only are the laws different in the EU but they are interpreted and used in a different manner. (read more below)
The whole case against Microsoft in the EU is the best example there is of the difference between passive US regulation and aggressive EU regulation. The EU steps in where the US would wait.
To quote the LA Times: "In the U.S., antitrust law is based more on the effects. If you commit an illegal practice, that practice has to have an effect on the market" ... "In Europe, you don't need to go so far. To prove you've committed an illegal practice is enough to punish your company, irrespective of the impact."
U.S. antitrust regulators rely more on economic analyses than assumptions of how consumers will be affected, antitrust experts say. While the EU philosophy is that protecting competitors helps consumers by ensuring more competition, which could drive down prices.
And finally, of course, the greatest difference is that the EU uses the Civil Law legal system ( from Roman Law ) with the exception of the UK. The UK/US Common Law system has a very different view and methods. On a sidenote the majority of the world's nations use the Civil Law legal system.
How terribly naive of you. Of course the EU can block it. That's why it merits a news item. Google and DoubleClick both operate in the EU, mergers and aquistions are subject to EU approval even if they have US HQ's. This goes for every major merger in the world today. If you don't get both the US and the EU to accept it - it's not happening. We're talking about WTO rules here to be precise.
Are you suggesting it's the rule or the exception? Because either way it's not very a scientific method or sample.
I would then suggest the problem, in that specific country, would be with the management. Because they could easily organize their system the way my country does by giving the patient freedom of choice with user hospital selection. And like I said when the national or regional capacity is not available they can have the surgery done abroad. And, yes, there's always some country in Europe, or some other place, with capacity for the precise problem in question. We already do this here, we both export [to Germany] and import patients [from Denmark].
It would also probably mean an increase in government spending on healthcare leading to greater demand and probably an increase in supply as well. Otherwise they could probably be sent abroad [payed for by the government] like many wealthy people are doing today. Did you see the "60 minutes" show on Indian commercial health resorts? They provide excellent healthcare for a very reasonable price - and the patient gets to recover in a nice tropical environment. From what I hear there are plenty of Indian doctors are already working in the US, so quality is not the issue. Globalization could probably benefit us all.
Do you have any evidence or links that proves this? Because I would like to point out that the US has quite a large percentage of the worlds computers (and Microsoft Windows). China is obviously the biggest market for PCs nowadays, but they also prefer a cheap Linux OS.
Sure, I agree, the ownership is irrelevant for this discussion. But they're still the ones contracting the spam campaigns.
And I should of course have said blocking all of the Americas would solve my problem. Russia and Asia are obviously on the hit list as well. My own country would be enough, just like you. See, I have full sympathy for your situation.
And who do you think purchases spam advertising from these Russians? Not Russians for sure. The phishing activites are of course a different issue - but we ended up discussing spam...
Of course there's probably a link between purchasing spam ad campaigns, "financing" their bot networks, and ultimately supporting their phishing activities.
Good luck with that. I'll remember that next time I get another "mortgage offer". It might work for you, but the truth is that the majority of spam is from Americans, for Americans and by Americans.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-American in general, but I hate getting vast amounts of spam for products that I will never buy because I'm in another country. If I blocked every national TLD except my own I would not receive ANY spam, so I see your point. But don't delude yourself about who profits from spam and who it's meant for.
No, no, no. Please, do not refer to European countries as "EU"-countries. We are not all members, and do not want to be either.
And the reason I mentioned it was, of course, just to highlight the differences. Not advocating either system really. But I must say I appreciate that if I were to need major surgery I would not have to pay anything before, during or in recovery after the operation. And the welfare benefits that would kick in to aid you while you're not working. Haven't needed it yet though.
Yes, there was that problem a few years back. At least here in my part of Europe we don't have them any longer. Freedom of choice, it's called now, the money follows the patient and you can choose which ever hospital you want to perform the operation. It even works so that you can have surgery done abroad if there's no available capacity in our country at that moment.
It does matter when you criticize the poor fellow for not knowing about it and tell him to: "study more". I'm just saying you should give him a break for not knowing.
I did claim it was illegal to force someone to work, but what you described is obviously the other way around. At least from what you presented I can see how that situation at least resembles indentured servitude. It's really sad especially for the average American worker. But it's not the company's fault that your system is organized the way it is. Under the average European health care system you are automatically covered regardless of employment status and condition. And it's cost free, even for major surgery. And, yes, it is always available and good quality. I appreciate it more and more.
Besides that the European system of law works in a very different manner and would never permit that kind of unbalanced contract. It would simply become void and illegal. And I doubt it is legal in the US today either.
But you forgot to mention the one month minimum by law requirement even in Norway. Three months is just the normal amount of time for employees.