Spain and the other countries are willing participants in that crime. Way more than half of the ACTA issues were raised by other countries. Three strikes was never a US idea.
There is no evidence the US can or will try anyone from wikileaks for espionage.
The case against Wikileaks is very weak, and even most US lawyers and constitutional scholars do not believe the US would succeed, and the majority don't believe they will even try.
I just saying don't try to enforce those EU laws in the US by telling a US company they have to violate a US court order and perhaps be sentenced to jail just because your web browser happened to reach their US servers.
The subpoena was issued for twitter to turn over information from their San Francisco servers. San Francisco is well within the jurisdiction of the US Court, even the most rabid US Basher will have to concede.
As mentioned above, I don't support this subpoena. But clearly US law rules here.
Actually what I'm saying is that a website that is reachable from anywhere (and takes no money) can not fall under the laws of every country from which it can be reached.
It is totally unworkable.
If by simply putting up a web page, or offering services free service on my server in the middle of Kansas I become subject simultaneously to the laws of every country on earth, then the Internet can no longer exist.
China understands that their laws apply within their borders. And they take all steps they feel necessary to enforce their laws in their country.
They don't stomp their feet and insight petulantly that every website in the world follow their laws.
They just block what they don't like.
I'm starting to become a fan of that approach. The EU should simply block twitter. Far less arrogant.
The bulk of their infrastructure, if not all, is in the US.
Why should they get tossed in a jail in the US, to please a European court?
How can any rational person suggest that each person must choose which set of foreign laws they must follow, or that they can ignore their own country's laws?
Slashdot Mirror
Or more to the point, when did apt, or rpm restrict your access to some package you wanted to install.
Perhaps we should agree not to feed the trolls.
ACTA is a totally different matter.
Spain and the other countries are willing participants in that crime. Way more than half of the ACTA issues were raised by other countries. Three strikes was never a US idea.
No foreigner was ever extradited to the US for following a subpoena issued by their own country's courts.
In fact no country will honor an extradition request for an act that was not ALSO a crime in their own country.
Well true, the populations do crash.
But perhaps the natural oil seeps that are known to occur in the gulf (even before the first oil well was ever drilled) are enough to keep them alive.
Sadly, such was not the case in Prince William Sound, where there no such natural growths and the water was too cold.
There are often news stories about seeding these populations at other spill sites.
Define "Doing Business".
Do you pay for twitter?
If fact its pretty hard to determine what keeps twitter afloat.
Twitter did not come to Germany and set up a business.
Twitter is in San Francisco. Not part of Germany.
The fact that your web browser can reach a US website does not make that website fall under German law.
If it did, I will point out that all German websites can be reached by US web browsers. Does the shoe fit as comfortably when its on the other foot?
There is no evidence the US can or will try anyone from wikileaks for espionage.
The case against Wikileaks is very weak, and even most US lawyers and constitutional scholars do not believe the US would succeed, and the majority don't believe they will even try.
Treaty or no treaty, no extradition would happen for someone who's only offense was following a legal court order.
No EU country would turn over a citizen for following their own court orders either.
Define "Collected in the EU". These people logged on to a US website. They created their account on a US server in San Francisco.
Microsoft and google have offices in the EU.
Microsoft charges money for their products.
Google put cars on the ground in EU streets.
The fact that your web browser can reach all the way to San Francisco is NOT the same thing.
Define customer.
Do you pay for twitter?
Nope. Don't put words in my mouth mcvos!
I just saying don't try to enforce those EU laws in the US by telling a US company they have to violate a US court order and perhaps be sentenced to jail just because your web browser happened to reach their US servers.
When served by a subpoena by a US court and a warning from the EU courts not to comply, who does Twitter obey?
If A US Court told a European company not to obey a EU court order, would you still be making such a silly argument?
Or would you be burning the US flag in front of the US embassy?
Define market. Does anyone PAY for twitter?
That your browser can reach a US web server does not make the US web server subject to your laws.
My browser can reach a web servers in the EU. Does that mean US law applies to all these servers?
My phone can dial your phone. Does that mean YOU must comply with US law while sitting in your house?
Have you spent one second thinking about the reverse situation?
The subpoena was issued for twitter to turn over information from their San Francisco servers. San Francisco is well within the jurisdiction of the US Court, even the most rabid US Basher will have to concede.
As mentioned above, I don't support this subpoena. But clearly US law rules here.
Define doing business.
Do you pay for your twitter account?
Just because you can reach my server does not mean I operate in the EU.
At which time it becomes the EU's problem to block twitter, because the US is not going to change its laws for the EU.
The Chinese government can provide some expert assistance.
How is your position any different?
You seem to believe that just because you can reach a server in a foreign country that that country's laws no longer apply.
Someone please mod parent insightful.
It amazes me the degree to which US bashers will argue against their own interests just to twist their pathetic knives that one last turn.
But somehow the rules change when the shoe is on the other foot.
Actually what I'm saying is that a website that is reachable from anywhere (and takes no money) can not fall under the laws of every country from which it can be reached.
It is totally unworkable.
If by simply putting up a web page, or offering services free service on my server in the middle of Kansas I become subject simultaneously to the laws of every country on earth, then the Internet can no longer exist.
China understands that their laws apply within their borders. And they take all steps they feel necessary to enforce their laws in their country.
They don't stomp their feet and insight petulantly that every website in the world follow their laws.
They just block what they don't like.
I'm starting to become a fan of that approach. The EU should simply block twitter. Far less arrogant.
Congratulations. You have just destroyed the Internet.
No website can afford to exist beyond the borders of its home country, for fear that by doing so they may run afoul of some law somewhere.
Sorry. We won't play that silly game. Don't like our websites? Come get us. How many divisions can you muster?
Do the have offices in the EU?
Store fronts?
Bank Accounts?
The fact that someone from Europe can access a US website DOES NOT RENDER US LAW NULL AND VOID.
Why do you refuse to recognize that simple fact?
They simply CANNOT IGNORE A LEGALLY SERVED SUBPOENA!
Are you so dense that you can't see this?
Exactly the point i've been trying to get across.
The bulk of their infrastructure, if not all, is in the US.
Why should they get tossed in a jail in the US, to please a European court?
How can any rational person suggest that each person must choose which set of foreign laws they must follow, or that they can ignore their own country's laws?
They are a US company.
Their servers are in the US.
They Operate in the US.
They got a subpoena from a US court.
So by your own pontifications above, they must comply.
Why are you arguing?
What are you saying?
Do you have an actual point?
Ok, your honor.
Let's say the subpoena is upheld as valid.
US court says twitter must comply.
EU court says they must not comply.
Give one rational reason twitter execs should sit in a. US jail for refusing to comply with a legal order just to please a European Union court.
There very good reasons foreign laws can not override a domestic laws.