You seem to be having some issues, so I will help. No one is complaining about getting a search in your home country, it is the remote country, that has separate distinct laws.... So If you are an Iranian, and someone get to the US for a Christian conference because you are a Christian, should the Iranians have the right to bypass the US government to get information from US servers to prove that you are a Christian, while in Iran? It is the same situation as what you are supporting, just from another countries side. It seems you are OK for the US to do it, but not other countries.
So I take it if you travel to any other country you have no issue if they get a warrant for your material back here to see if you are violating any of their laws while you are a t home...
There is a HUGE difference. Being a Christian is not illegal in the US, so having evidence of being one is not a crime. Your argument, that there is no such thing as national sovereignty is the idiotic argument.
I am pretty sure it is new to most people. Companies typically only have to obeys laws of the countries they are operating in, at the time they are operating in them, the same as citizens.
After looking at the source material for those wiki article, particularly the Urugauy one, I see why wiki is not a reliable source. After all sourcing proposed laws as enforced laws are exactly the same thing..
But of course the US also has anti-hate speech:
In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."
So being a multinational company you have to operate under all the laws simultaneously? So your US business depatment that only does business in the US has to obey all other countries laws, even through it does not do business there?
Again with this strawman. This is not what is happening here, this is the slippery slope argument the government is presenting, but still no. What is on foreign soil the US has NO right to without going through the other government. PERIOD.
what other foreign laws do you think the US has the right to trample on just because it feels like it?
So Iran should be able to get evidence that one of its citizens is a Christian, off US servers? I mean it is not like they are persecuted over there or something.
Greatest country in what regards? there are other countries with more freedom, better education, better economies...I am a US citizen myself, but am having a hard time figuring out what we are the best at, besides war and being a blind patriot.
Most defiantly yes. The government does not have free reign to just enter into our lives when it wants to and how it wants to, it has to follow local and global laws. Getting a warrant in the US is crazy easy, and there is little oversight. Requiring them to actually follow the law is not a bad thing. The law is there to protect the citizens, and allowing them to break it adds to the probably that innocents will be harmed.
You are using this "hidden the evidence" phrase as though this is the issue happening here. It is not. There is data of some possible issue on the other servers. There is no evidence that they hide it there as a direction action. And in any case, NO, China should be required to go to the US courts and ask permission to get that information, otherwise, as I stated previously, our privacy and freedom takes a direct hit. There is a reason for sovereignty of nations.
There is no evidence that they are using it as a "safe" to hide information. There is just evidence that it is on the other servers. The problem is this means that our servers are open to other countries who dont want to have to follow our laws, and we all lose security and privacy.
No, our government should be required to go through the other government to get that information. Our government does not have jurisdiction in other countries PERIOD.
There are a host of free services you can use overseas to do this, so any common person with an internet connection can afford it. And since libraries offer free internet connections, that means anyone.
Those you have no right to control...If they are outside your jurisdiction you can chose to block them, or oh well, you dont get to tell people what they can do when they are complying with their laws.
First you are confusing you unsubstantiated with unable to prove. There are just as many if not more of the latter., however that does not matter. There are laws on the books to deal with libel and slander, most of the things you argue fit into this category, as for news, a much better way to go at this would be to require news agencies to remove news content that talk about arrests, but where there were no convictions, after x amount of time, not go after the search engine, which in no way published the information. The problem is what this law does is censorship and no one in a free society wants to be branded for that, so they do a end round and try and get it removed from the search engine. It does not make it less censorship, but it is just obscure enough so the masses do not realize it.
The problem is that this is not just humans versus corporations/machine, this is human rights vs human rights. Free Speech Vs the Right to be Forgotten, why does the latter, which is no where codified, larger then the first which has been for centuries?
It's not as simple as you think. You haven't thought of the other side of the coin. When others put it out there (about you), it's out there too. And Laws must fix it. This is nothing new. Do you think the Jews put out stories in the world that they themselves are evil, are thieves, have crooked noses, and live like rats in filthy houses, shitting in their own kitchens while they eat? They did not, the Nazis did. And because the Nazis put it out there, it became true. As true as necessary to make ordinary people believe it, and do their bidding.
You should do things considering that it may get put out there. Why should I not be able to know that someone I may be hiring makes bad decisions just because they dont want me to know they did something stupid? Your latter argument is poor, as there are already laws that work well at getting rid of libel/slander...
Google collects all these stories about everyone indiscriminately. Some are true, some are not. Google's actions must be stopped. There must be an ethical, legal way to clean up information over time, and it must apply to all companies, Google, your local comic book store, etc. It is an important issue, and a very difficult one. Google can stay in business, but there must be some limits. And when in doubt, I favour human beings over companies, always. YMMV, but to say it's bullshit or a non-issue is putting your head in the sand.
Google does not collect stories, they collect links to stories. No When in doubt you you dont favor humans over companies, that is a confirmation bias that you have that as I pointed out above does not work, as this is about humans vs humans.
The person trying to force a new reality is you. People have always had to worry about their actions catching up with them, since the time of books and word of mouth, you want to change that reality so that it no longer works, and that your actions dont catch up with you.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be having some issues, so I will help. No one is complaining about getting a search in your home country, it is the remote country, that has separate distinct laws.... So If you are an Iranian, and someone get to the US for a Christian conference because you are a Christian, should the Iranians have the right to bypass the US government to get information from US servers to prove that you are a Christian, while in Iran? It is the same situation as what you are supporting, just from another countries side. It seems you are OK for the US to do it, but not other countries.
So I take it if you travel to any other country you have no issue if they get a warrant for your material back here to see if you are violating any of their laws while you are a t home...
There is a HUGE difference. Being a Christian is not illegal in the US, so having evidence of being one is not a crime. Your argument, that there is no such thing as national sovereignty is the idiotic argument.
Did you miss the example from the SCOTUS that I gave you? Or are you just ignoring things that dont agree with you?
I am pretty sure it is new to most people. Companies typically only have to obeys laws of the countries they are operating in, at the time they are operating in them, the same as citizens.
But of course the US also has anti-hate speech:
In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."
Glad your exception breaks the general rule....
So being a multinational company you have to operate under all the laws simultaneously? So your US business depatment that only does business in the US has to obey all other countries laws, even through it does not do business there?
Citation please
What does that have to do with anything?
New Zealand, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Iceland, just to name a few
what other foreign laws do you think the US has the right to trample on just because it feels like it?
So Iran should be able to get evidence that one of its citizens is a Christian, off US servers? I mean it is not like they are persecuted over there or something.
Greatest country in what regards? there are other countries with more freedom, better education, better economies...I am a US citizen myself, but am having a hard time figuring out what we are the best at, besides war and being a blind patriot.
Most defiantly yes. The government does not have free reign to just enter into our lives when it wants to and how it wants to, it has to follow local and global laws. Getting a warrant in the US is crazy easy, and there is little oversight. Requiring them to actually follow the law is not a bad thing. The law is there to protect the citizens, and allowing them to break it adds to the probably that innocents will be harmed.
You are using this "hidden the evidence" phrase as though this is the issue happening here. It is not. There is data of some possible issue on the other servers. There is no evidence that they hide it there as a direction action. And in any case, NO, China should be required to go to the US courts and ask permission to get that information, otherwise, as I stated previously, our privacy and freedom takes a direct hit. There is a reason for sovereignty of nations.
There is no evidence that they are using it as a "safe" to hide information. There is just evidence that it is on the other servers. The problem is this means that our servers are open to other countries who dont want to have to follow our laws, and we all lose security and privacy.
Itis a multinational with headquarters in China, so yes, so the same degree that it is a US company.
No, our government should be required to go through the other government to get that information. Our government does not have jurisdiction in other countries PERIOD.
There are a host of free services you can use overseas to do this, so any common person with an internet connection can afford it. And since libraries offer free internet connections, that means anyone.
Those you have no right to control...If they are outside your jurisdiction you can chose to block them, or oh well, you dont get to tell people what they can do when they are complying with their laws.
First you are confusing you unsubstantiated with unable to prove. There are just as many if not more of the latter., however that does not matter. There are laws on the books to deal with libel and slander, most of the things you argue fit into this category, as for news, a much better way to go at this would be to require news agencies to remove news content that talk about arrests, but where there were no convictions, after x amount of time, not go after the search engine, which in no way published the information. The problem is what this law does is censorship and no one in a free society wants to be branded for that, so they do a end round and try and get it removed from the search engine. It does not make it less censorship, but it is just obscure enough so the masses do not realize it.
It's not as simple as you think. You haven't thought of the other side of the coin. When others put it out there (about you), it's out there too. And Laws must fix it. This is nothing new. Do you think the Jews put out stories in the world that they themselves are evil, are thieves, have crooked noses, and live like rats in filthy houses, shitting in their own kitchens while they eat? They did not, the Nazis did. And because the Nazis put it out there, it became true. As true as necessary to make ordinary people believe it, and do their bidding.
You should do things considering that it may get put out there. Why should I not be able to know that someone I may be hiring makes bad decisions just because they dont want me to know they did something stupid? Your latter argument is poor, as there are already laws that work well at getting rid of libel/slander...
Google collects all these stories about everyone indiscriminately. Some are true, some are not. Google's actions must be stopped. There must be an ethical, legal way to clean up information over time, and it must apply to all companies, Google, your local comic book store, etc. It is an important issue, and a very difficult one. Google can stay in business, but there must be some limits. And when in doubt, I favour human beings over companies, always. YMMV, but to say it's bullshit or a non-issue is putting your head in the sand.
Google does not collect stories, they collect links to stories. No When in doubt you you dont favor humans over companies, that is a confirmation bias that you have that as I pointed out above does not work, as this is about humans vs humans. The person trying to force a new reality is you. People have always had to worry about their actions catching up with them, since the time of books and word of mouth, you want to change that reality so that it no longer works, and that your actions dont catch up with you.
The court is a government agency....
They have published unused capacity on Fios, not wireless.