It doesn't matter that they aren't a Chinese corporation, they have a presence in China that can be held to Chinese law and jurisdiction.
That's entirely what's happening in this case with Microsoft - the US administration is not simply saying "all US corporations must adhere to US law, regardless of where the data is actually stored", they have actually gone as far as to say "if you have operations in the US, you are subject to US jurisdiction even if you are a foreign corporation and even if the data is not in the US."
So the grand parents situation is entirely valid - what happens when China says to Apple "give us all your data, wherever it is held"?
The US court does not care about the rules of another jurisdiction (as they should not) - they will make it quite plain that they still expect the court order to be fulfilled and its up to the party that is subject to the court order to fulfil it. The fact that the party would do something illegal in a foreign jurisdiction is something the court should not have to take into consideration because the party is in the courts jurisdiction.
Its up to the party involved to not put themselves in such a conflicting situation in the first place.
Its actually very relevant to the discussion at hand because it shows that there is already precedence set for data in a foreign country being accessible by US courts if there is a US presence of the company holding the data.
If I am hit by your acquaintance while they are giving you that free lift, their private insurance will cover my medical bills for as long as needed.
If I am hit by a taxi from a regulated company, their business insurance will cover my medical needs for as long as needed. The fact that they have adequate insurance is something that is checked by the taxi licensing people.
If I am hit by an Uber driver, well who knows how much insurance they have - Uber covers them for $1Million but that doesn't necessarily cover even a year in medical expenses or long term care, so I am left recouping the cost of my care from the Uber driver themselves. Uber drivers are not regulated or inspected (yet - wait for that shitstorm to hit Slashdot when it happens) so there is no guarantee that when you get into that Uber car you are actually insured at all.
No they dont, aircraft hand on zero visibility all the time - heavy fog, torrential rain etc etc. If the conditions are right, you can be non-visual right up to the point where your main gear touches down - you can do that either manually or you can do that on autoland and have the autopilot put it down for you.
It depends entirely on how you expose the crime - posting the blackmail material into the public eye while exposing the blackmailer hasn't done the victim any good, nor would publishing a sexual predators photographs or videos help the victim.
I guess you are forgetting the multitude of Flash and Java applet vulnerabilities that have come to light over the past few years, most of them cross platform in nature.
I think the main issue I have is that this EC spokesman is expecting Google to make decisions regarding the public interest rather than erring on the side of caution and removing everything - the moment they do make decisions regarding the public interest, you can bet your arse they will be hauled back into court and have to justify themselves.
So by going to the extreme and implementing the ruling across the board (barring obvious requests that can be rejected), Google is protecting themselves and showing what a stupid ruling it is in the first place. There is no alternative approach that Google can take that doesn't open them up to further legal action.
If you have ever had to debug a webforms page with multiple controls, masterpages and an extremely convoluted page lifecycle, then there is no fucking way you would call MVC more complicated.
WebForms needs to die, not have new users - if you want to go down the route of.Net then at a minimum it needs to be ASP.Net MVC, or you can go for a third party framework like NancyFX. ASP.Net vNext is worth keeping an eye on as well.
Not only that, but its tied into the search engine as well - you can only establish canonical authorship on your own website of something by linking it with your Google+ account. Which means that not having a Google+ account can affect your page rank.
They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.
Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.
Then users should record TV content for personal use - which isn't the same as what Dish are doing, as they are retransmitting their own recording of the content. Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
Authors have right to be paid for their work. They do not have a right to be paid for paying customers selling the customers' property.
Not entirely applicable here due to the type of property being resold, but the European Union disagrees with you under the 2001 Resale Rights Directive 2001/84/EC which entitles artists to receive a royalty on the resale of their original or limited works up to a total of 12,500 Euros. The directive sets out a sliding scale of royalty levels, from 4% up to a resale price of 50,000 Euros, to 0.25% for greater than 500,000 Euros.
This right is seen as an inalienable right of the artist.
Yes, one of the two major professional tools in the market place being discontinued for a yet-to-be-detailed replacement intended to cover both the prior professional market and the consumer market is indeed the same as Microsoft killing a product hardly anyone had heard of.
Try walking in some areas of Israel - they have some pretty radical Judaism based religions that treat other Jews and Christians much like you describe your fear of Muslims treating you.
None of this has anything to do with data protection, as its all public information that Google has been told to remove - if it is untrue or unfair information that you are wanting expunged from the public record, then there are already processes in place for you to do so, for example libel or slander against untrue or unduly unfair information posted on a website.
Removing private data from websites has long been covered under EU data protection laws, but this new ruling expands the powers to data that is already public and, more importantly, will remain public - just that little harder to find. Its the equivalent of a librarian being told they cannot carry certain books, but instead of removing them from the library they remove them from the index instead. The books are still on the shelves, can still be found through browsing, but if you are searching the index for a title on a subject it won't show up.
B&N also lost my support when they bought Fictionwise and along with it eReader and my library of 500 odd ebooks - I received an email from B&N saying they were migrating my library to the Nook library:
Thank you for opting to transfer your Fictionwise or eReader Bookshelf to a NOOK Library.
We will continue the transfer process in the New Year, by delivering your transferrable titles directly to your new NOOK Library. If you have already created an account at NOOK.co.uk, then you do not need to do anything more in this process as any transferrable remaining titles will appear automatically in your NOOK Library.
If you have not already done so, please create an account at NOOK.co.uk by January 31, 2013. Please note that we cannot transfer titles until you have created your NOOK UK account and the account you create must use the email associated with your Fictionwise or eReader account. The sooner you create your NOOK UK account the sooner we will be able to populate your NOOK Library in the New Year. When you create your new NOOK UK account, you will be asked for a credit card. A credit card is required to access some secured titles. Please note, however, that your credit card will not be charged for any of the titles that you transferred from Fictionwise, nor for the transfer itself.
Can you guess how many of my titles were "transferrable"? Out of about 500? None. B&N never responded to emails either.
Fuck em.
Took my backups, ripped the DRM off of them and went on my merry way.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter that they aren't a Chinese corporation, they have a presence in China that can be held to Chinese law and jurisdiction.
That's entirely what's happening in this case with Microsoft - the US administration is not simply saying "all US corporations must adhere to US law, regardless of where the data is actually stored", they have actually gone as far as to say "if you have operations in the US, you are subject to US jurisdiction even if you are a foreign corporation and even if the data is not in the US."
So the grand parents situation is entirely valid - what happens when China says to Apple "give us all your data, wherever it is held"?
The US court does not care about the rules of another jurisdiction (as they should not) - they will make it quite plain that they still expect the court order to be fulfilled and its up to the party that is subject to the court order to fulfil it. The fact that the party would do something illegal in a foreign jurisdiction is something the court should not have to take into consideration because the party is in the courts jurisdiction.
Its up to the party involved to not put themselves in such a conflicting situation in the first place.
Its actually very relevant to the discussion at hand because it shows that there is already precedence set for data in a foreign country being accessible by US courts if there is a US presence of the company holding the data.
A company is as fictitious as the property deeds for your home or car...
Its worth noting that the politician that announced it comes from a Scottish constituency...
The F-35 program started with the VSTOL requirement and had the conventional and navy variants added on.
If I am hit by your acquaintance while they are giving you that free lift, their private insurance will cover my medical bills for as long as needed.
If I am hit by a taxi from a regulated company, their business insurance will cover my medical needs for as long as needed. The fact that they have adequate insurance is something that is checked by the taxi licensing people.
If I am hit by an Uber driver, well who knows how much insurance they have - Uber covers them for $1Million but that doesn't necessarily cover even a year in medical expenses or long term care, so I am left recouping the cost of my care from the Uber driver themselves. Uber drivers are not regulated or inspected (yet - wait for that shitstorm to hit Slashdot when it happens) so there is no guarantee that when you get into that Uber car you are actually insured at all.
No they dont, aircraft hand on zero visibility all the time - heavy fog, torrential rain etc etc. If the conditions are right, you can be non-visual right up to the point where your main gear touches down - you can do that either manually or you can do that on autoland and have the autopilot put it down for you.
It depends entirely on how you expose the crime - posting the blackmail material into the public eye while exposing the blackmailer hasn't done the victim any good, nor would publishing a sexual predators photographs or videos help the victim.
SpaceX do not "already have" a Falcon 9 heavy, its still in development and won't have its first launch until next year at the earliest.
I guess you are forgetting the multitude of Flash and Java applet vulnerabilities that have come to light over the past few years, most of them cross platform in nature.
I think the main issue I have is that this EC spokesman is expecting Google to make decisions regarding the public interest rather than erring on the side of caution and removing everything - the moment they do make decisions regarding the public interest, you can bet your arse they will be hauled back into court and have to justify themselves.
So by going to the extreme and implementing the ruling across the board (barring obvious requests that can be rejected), Google is protecting themselves and showing what a stupid ruling it is in the first place. There is no alternative approach that Google can take that doesn't open them up to further legal action.
SMS is a service they provide you, they can charge what they want for that service - and you can choose whether or not to use that service.
If you have ever had to debug a webforms page with multiple controls, masterpages and an extremely convoluted page lifecycle, then there is no fucking way you would call MVC more complicated.
Webforms needs to die.
WebForms needs to die, not have new users - if you want to go down the route of .Net then at a minimum it needs to be ASP.Net MVC, or you can go for a third party framework like NancyFX. ASP.Net vNext is worth keeping an eye on as well.
You don't need to install Exchange to handle mail on a Windows box, the included SMTP, POP and IMAP services work fine.
Not only that, but its tied into the search engine as well - you can only establish canonical authorship on your own website of something by linking it with your Google+ account. Which means that not having a Google+ account can affect your page rank.
People flee Mexico by the thousands or tens of thousands, why aren't we hating Mexico?
They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.
Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.
Then users should record TV content for personal use - which isn't the same as what Dish are doing, as they are retransmitting their own recording of the content. Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
Authors have right to be paid for their work. They do not have a right to be paid for paying customers selling the customers' property.
Not entirely applicable here due to the type of property being resold, but the European Union disagrees with you under the 2001 Resale Rights Directive 2001/84/EC which entitles artists to receive a royalty on the resale of their original or limited works up to a total of 12,500 Euros. The directive sets out a sliding scale of royalty levels, from 4% up to a resale price of 50,000 Euros, to 0.25% for greater than 500,000 Euros.
This right is seen as an inalienable right of the artist.
Yes, one of the two major professional tools in the market place being discontinued for a yet-to-be-detailed replacement intended to cover both the prior professional market and the consumer market is indeed the same as Microsoft killing a product hardly anyone had heard of.
Try walking in some areas of Israel - they have some pretty radical Judaism based religions that treat other Jews and Christians much like you describe your fear of Muslims treating you.
None of this has anything to do with data protection, as its all public information that Google has been told to remove - if it is untrue or unfair information that you are wanting expunged from the public record, then there are already processes in place for you to do so, for example libel or slander against untrue or unduly unfair information posted on a website.
Removing private data from websites has long been covered under EU data protection laws, but this new ruling expands the powers to data that is already public and, more importantly, will remain public - just that little harder to find. Its the equivalent of a librarian being told they cannot carry certain books, but instead of removing them from the library they remove them from the index instead. The books are still on the shelves, can still be found through browsing, but if you are searching the index for a title on a subject it won't show up.
I can't read Nook titles on my Windows Phone, for a start, and the portability of ePubs are no good if they are DRMed, as most of the Nook store is...
B&N also lost my support when they bought Fictionwise and along with it eReader and my library of 500 odd ebooks - I received an email from B&N saying they were migrating my library to the Nook library:
Can you guess how many of my titles were "transferrable"? Out of about 500? None. B&N never responded to emails either.
Fuck em.
Took my backups, ripped the DRM off of them and went on my merry way.