No, we rejected public health care. This means that rich people can still pay people to find ways to extend their life further then what some government death panel says your worth spending insurance money on.
It's quite possible that within 50 years or so, anyone alive today might have the ability to be alive in 100 years from today.
And yes, rhetoric aside, this is still true regardless of public health care or not. I see no reasons why government wouldn't openly accept anything that extends a person's life if it makes their productive portions of life last longer. (ie 65 year old with the mental capaity of a 35 year old and all the knowledge of 65+ years of experience).
And the real point is that if you wanted to learn something about armadillos, you will learn more wrong things at one place then the other.
Or to put it another way, if you were attempting to research an armadillo for a pet, while you might have more information at one place then the other, you will have more incorrect information at the same time. So you go out and buy an armadillo, you bring it home, your family falls in love with it. Then guess what, they tent to swim pretty well and like the water so your moat surrounding his natural enclosure you created because of some incorrect fact on the site with more information and you thinking it's inhumane to keep it in a cage doesn't work to contain them and he ends up in the road as possum on the half shell for hillbillies.
If more information means more wrong information, then it's worse if you ask me. People go to these sites for more then enriching their collective noodles. They look for answers to real life questions for real life situations. Now granted, the other source could have just as easily been wrong on the same piece of information, but with more wrong information hidden in more information period, you have a greater chance of getting the wrong information period.
Perhaps their position on the grants give them the ability to take the IP from the research.
Anyways, I'm curious to how this isn't obvious from general insects carrying virus' and other things or old school biological warfare. I mean if we were hurdling dead cows over the castle walls in medieval times in order to infect the populations during a siege, then isn't prior art somewhat already established? What's new and novel here besides using it to cure instead of infect? And outside of that, the entire concept of using parasites to treat illness or administer medicine is nothing new. They were talking about genetically manipulating cells and bacteria to deliver payloads for cancer treatments back in the 80's.
These systems were created in the 80's and 90's. They likely wouldn't be spec'ed for anything newer then cat5 and repair crews on the ground know better then to just put something that looks similar in place on something that can cost lives if it fails.
It's most likely cat5 shielded with some sort of covering to protect against EMP or radio frequency jamming. SO by using fiber, they are likely going past the simple weight advantage of replacing cat5 (even cat 6 or 7) and forgoing some of the weight from the shielding too.
We didn't really lose Vietnam. We gave up on it. This was due to political pressure back home and it was clearly obvious that politics played a large role in why Vietnam was such a clusterfuck throughout the campaign. Even the french made the same mistakes before we took over.
Your right. I think maybe I was concentrating on the significance of changing things around to make it look better.
I guess the bottom line is, no matter how you manipulate the statistics, you it showed that when viewing article per article, there are more mistakes in one verses the other. I don't think it really matters that one has a graphic novel for the article while the other has a few facts blurted on bullet points, you still get more wrong stuff from one over the other.
You can't claim that because you said more wrong things along with just more words, that you were wrong less times then someone who said less wrong things with less words covering the same subject.
Took me 5 minutes to find the funny part though. It's not really funny in the sense of ha ha that act was funny, but it's funny in the sense of Are you serious?
Shhh. you are going to hurt their feelings. I mean putting a man who has achieved so much more then them down can only be looked at as an attempt to feel better about themselves.
If you spoil that for them, they will have nothing. So quiet down now.
Well, there is another reason and the GP actually stated it without realizing it.
If it took a law called the Patriot Act that "enabled Intelligence agencies to reorder themselves to combat new threats, identified post-9/11, and out of that what is in place now is standard practice and procedure", then without that law all that will disappear and old standard practice and procedures will return.
As it turns out, the patriot act has a sunset clause in it. That clause requires it to be reexamined and renewed, altered if need be, to assess the changes in the threats and possible remove encroaches on out freedoms that might be within it while making it as effective as possible without hampering any, or as little as possible, our civil liberties. Because of this sunset clause, if it isn't renewed, those protections and/or changes the GP mentioned and seemed to agree with will be removed as the laws previous to it do not allow it to happen.
Lol.. This is a stupid argument I see made all over the place. Just because the left wing isn't left of some world allusions of center is doesn't mean it's not left of the right in America.
In referencing politics in America, there is a left and a right in connection to American politics. There is even a center in reference to it. The fact that they fall somewhere else on a scale used outside of the US means little when delving into the details of politics in the US. It's like saying your Chevy pickup truck is one of the fastest cars sold in America because Chevy makes the 2011 Corvette ZR1 which can go 205 mph (329.9 kph). You are concentrating too much on the adjectives and not enough on the details.
Besides, the terms left and right were historically resulting from the French revolution in which it was referring to the seating arrangement in parliament. Those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization. So instead of resorting it to some political scale, it can accurately be used to describe a state of politics completely separate from that scale.
Are you really, seriously saying that Reagan has devised MAD, or am I misunderstanding what you wrote?
I'm saying Reagan implemented it and it's the one true tactic that will stop a nuclear war.
It wasn't. In worst-case scenario, the only way you know about the attack is when the enemy missiles are in the air. At that point, you can strike all you like at the launch sites, it's too late to do anything about being hit.
It's also precisely why MAD implies an all-or-nothing approach to nuclear strike. If you launch, you launch all that you have, so that the enemy - when he also launches - has no way of crippling your strike.
Yes, and my understanding is that we had roughly 15 minutes from the time the launch was detected to determine where the missile was going and start out launches. Most of that was automated to a certain extent too, just to launch everything else if we couldn't hit the button ourselves.
This is also why nuclear subs because so important. Very few people actually know where they are at any given point in time.
You basically admit to the jurisdiction by saying they could go to the US, confess, and get capitol punishment.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear in this. I'm not saying that the US can storm into Germany and override their government. I'm saying that the US can levy charges against the person and when that person comes into US jurisdiction, whether it's by being extradited from somewhere else, or visiting a territory or stumbling onto a US military base, that person can be prosecuted in US courts under US laws. The same goes for the UK and other countries. In fact, Germany can charge a US citizen for murdering one of their citizens on US soil and if the US sees fit, they can extradite that person to Germany to be prosecuted by Germans as long as the basic tenets of the US constitution are followed in the prosecution.
There has even been situations where foreign countries have prosecuted foreign people under foreign laws in their own courts in order to keep jurisdiction over someone who killed one of their citizens.
The US held charges over the bombers in US courts under US jurisdiction and didn't remove those charges until they were prosecuted in Europe.
This is mentioned in the wikipedia articles for the masterminds of the bombings.
Lybya wouldn't extradite them so a deal was worked out to try them in The Netherlands under Scottish law. They were listed as fugitives from justice on the FBI's 10 most wanted lists until the trial. Then the US had to drop charges and accept the outcome because of the Double Jeopardy clause in the US constitution. Libya wouldn't hand them over unless they were charged and trialed for all the people who died in the incident to prevent the US from reserving one person's death to retain jurisdiction. That was a tactic used in the OK city bombing trial against Timothy McVeigh. The state who held original jurisdiction tried McVeigh for all but two counts in case he won then the Fed could charge with the remaining two counts and have a second stab at it.
You see, AFAIK, there really isn't any Twitter infrastructure located in the EU. It's all located in the US so even if an EU subject signs up, they are essentially doing so on US soil even though technology allows them to remain in their respective physical location.
The only thing concerning the EU at this moment is the people who were signed up for the accounts. And to that end, those people essentially travel to the US in order to conduct their business with those accounts. They even leave their information and dealings in the US when they return home- electronically.
The entire cold war was devised around the premise of being able to neutralize the very large and powerful at the time USSR before it's massive forces could cripple us. Well it was until Reagan came up with the only sane alternative that did not involve an illusions of us all just getting along and devised the Mutually Assured Destruction plan for Nukes. And even with this concept in mind, the idea was to have enough nuclear power to disable the enemy's ability to strike us in the moments we knew about the attack but before the attack hit us.
So the entire Annihilate back thing is pretty much off the table. And don't kid yourself, it's not like the US hasn't already devised plans to take out known ally installations should they ever risk falling into enemy hands. This is a tactic taken directly from Churchill which probably saved England from being completely isolated from America in WWII if the Germans got a hold of the french navy.
No it's not. It all depends on the structure of the corporation and which body was served (and complied with) the subpoena. AFAIUI, the legel entity that received the subpoena was Twitter, Inc. itself, not any of its subsidiaries (assuming there are any). That means that it the subpoena is found to violate EU laws, Twitter Inc. will be found liable.
As it's a corporation, you might expect a judge to not hold the employees of the satellite office personally accountable, but if a legal entity is found guilty in any country, all of its assets in that country are subject to the same ruling. So whether or not the EU offices are in danger depends on the corporate structure: if the offices are assets of Twitter, Inc. they may be seized. If, on the other hand, the offices belong to a separate legal entity (Twitter, EU or something like that) that just happens to belong to the same corporation, they should be fine.
Well, yes and no. Yes in principle and I don't disagree with you. But if the information is held in one of the subsidiaries that might reside in some EU territory, then that subsidiary would be subject to EU law and could block transferring any of the information to the US counterpart as EU laws demand. The judge would have to realize the limitations of it's jurisdiction and not punish the US company for acts it can't legally produce.
Now I bring that up only because people have seen this stuff happening elsewhere and conflate the situations to more then universal application. They don't seem to understand the fine line differences between X and Y and want to argue X for Y and Y for X depending on how they percieve it's aid to their argument.
And what is the US doing? Maybe subpoena information of (penalize) non-citizens of the US, for actions not done in the US?
Well, no. You see, they are asking a US company to produce records kept on a US server under US jurisdiction according to US law in connection to a violation of US law by a US citizen who was residing in the US at the time. It's really little more then that. The search was issued in connection with Manning's release of information and what is being determined is the extent that he was coaxed into the release of information and what intent they were. If Manning intentionally released the information knowing it would end up in enemy hands, he could get the death penalty. If he was acting recklessly, then the sentence could be less. It could change the entire relation of the charges against him and possibly even the charges itself.
To be honest, the current US' actions are much more damaging than anything that has yet been revealed by Wikileaks, both diplomatically and economically. This could have serious ramifications for any US-based company trying to offer its services to EU companies (Amazon EC2, Microsoft Azure, Google Docs) because it implies that customers of US companies are subject to US law only: their data can apparently be subpoena'd via a US court instead of a warrant in the country of the customer.
Lol.. Did I miss something here? Please tell me what these actions are? So far the only ones I know of are arresting Manning, and investigating what he did and who he did it with. Seriously, the subpoena is in connection with prosecuting Manning, it might reveal information detrimental to others, but when you hang around people who break the law and intentionally attempt to piss someone off, you better be prepared to be examined.
And no, this would have no ramifications to any US based company you mentioned for the specific reasons we talked about in the beginning of this article. If EU companies have to ensure certain criteria is met before storing data or doing business in the other country, then those companies would simply set up shop and meet that criteria in those countries. In fact, all of the ones you mentioned already do that in order to comply with existi
But that's where your wrong mate. If it is illegal in country A and someone in country B tries to export it to country A then they are breaking the law in country A.M
Where is country A exporting anything to country B? I mean seriously, the mere fact that you can access it doesn't mean it's being exported to you. You can pick up over the air TV broadcasts in other countries and it doesn't all the sudden make those station obligated to those foreign countries laws.
When doing commerce on a website or visiting another website, you are essentially using technology to travel to the country of origin. This only changes when the website sets up a subsidiary within that other country. Then the actions within that real are applicable to those laws respectively.
We've had UK citizens extradited for exactly this, mailing substances that are perfectly legal in this country, to the US, where they are not legal. Despite the fact that their only physical presence is in the UK.
Again, that is different then this. That's because by mailing the substances, they are going to that country. In the twitter instance, they reside entirely within the US AFAIK so to sign up, any EU citizen would essentially be traveling to the US. The communications traveling back at their request would be akin to a note stuffed in your pocket and carried back home from a trip to the US.
It's a similar deal to the problem hulu has. They don't have any licences to allow them to show their content outside of the US. Therefore the onus is on them to prevent those of us outside the US from accessing their site. If twitter can't follow EU laws, they shouldn't allow access from the EU - or else they are opening themselves to legal action.
You can't seriously compare Hulu's copyright issues with twitters. For one, there are specific treaties that have been made concerning that situation which devise those rules completely. And for two, those copyright issues is a matter of licensing of the copyright within the country it's located in, not the laws of another.
Put even simpler - if you want international business then pay fucking attention to international laws. If you only want to follow US laws then it's up to you to make sure you don't accept anyone not from the US
Lol.. International laws.. Please show me where Twitter was trying to engage in business in the EU. No, an EU citizen showing up on Twitter's front door and asking to get in isn't twitter going over seas. It's them not turning the EU citizen away and stating that they are in the US now.
McKinnon technically went to the US when he breached US servers. The mere fact that technology enabled him to do this without leaving his living room or basement doesn't change that.
In the same sense, if the servers and all are located in the US, then when someone from the EU signs up, they are essentially signing up in the US, sending and receiving information from the US, even though technology allowed them to make that trip without leaving their country.
This is akin to mail order situations. If I create a presence in your country, then my actions regarding that presence is definitely subject to the laws of your country. But if you are on vacation in the US, and patronize my establishment, then the laws of the US pertain. So if you grabbed an order form while in the US, then later decided to order from your own country by either calling my US company or mailing me in the US, then US laws apply unless something is forbidden to be shipped to your country in which case customs would intercept it. But even then, your country's law apply only to the extent my business is conducted in your country. So intercepting the package is in your country.
So you see, it's actually different from Gary McKinnon in the sense you are attempting to make it but the same in the sense of the initiation of commerce or the act happens to be the same.
Look into a concept known as diplomatic protection. And please, do not confuse that with diplomatic immunity or any of the crap presented in movies were someone gets away with murder because they are a diplomat.
The concept is that a person doesn't surrender any rights of person they might have when residing in another country. They are expected to rely on the other country for their expectations and protection to the point that the country of citizenship can supersede when those protections and rights do not rise to international standards.
If that country, in this case Germany, fails to measure up to international standards, then the country of citizenship can invoke jurisdiction over the citizen and any acts that happen to them. This is set in treaty and has been so since before the US was a century old. Furthermore, it's not limited to the US, most other countries that have been around this long do the same. I picked England and the US because they are the most prominent ones to use it that I know of.
Most all modern countries reserve jurisdiction over their citizens regardless of location in matters of physical security. This is why the US can prosecute people who bomb airplanes over Scotland that originated from some other country but had US citizens on board.
England does this, France, Germany, most all of Europe Australian and so on. This is nothing new and one of the reasons why some foreigners state what country they are from when in dangerous situations. It's because those countries prosecute serious crimes against their own people anywhere in the world that it happens.
They tolerate it because your parents were more scared of the Russians and another world war then you are about "trigger happy yanks on our lands".
And judging about the pacifism and lack of response to recent events (within the last couple decades), I would say that if the US wasn't there in all those military bases, world war 3 or the equivalent in the area would have already broke out.
It doesn't matter if it happened to citizens of the EU unless it was done in connection with the operations within the EU.
And no, you analogy or scenario fails on several levels. The first and most obvious is that the computer trespass would have actually been a US company going to an EU citizen and they would therefor be subject to EU law by default. The second failing is that if the british citizen is located in the US at the time of the attack, then EU law doesn't play in at all unless physical harm happened to the person. But that is more of a long reach assertion most countries take in which they guarantee the protection of their citizens anywhere in the world. If you murder a US citizen in Germany, the US will prosecute you for that murder. If I do the same to a British citizen, England will prosecute me. And of course, Germany can prosecute either of us as well as out own countries too. It all depends on who can get their hand on who first and if they can be persuaded to extradite or not.
Think of this more like a mail order situation then the brick and mortar deli around the corner. Suppose EU law says that all ham has to be made with pork butts (should hock). You order a ham from a US producer that makes theirs from all parts of the hog, shredded then reconstituted, spiced and put in a tin with a label saying Spam on it. Now here is the interesting part. If the US company put this on the shelf in England's grocery stores, they would have to comply with the EU's packaging and labeling laws and ensure the product was made correctly accordingly. Now if you order it from the US company, either by internet or some catalog you picked up somewhere, all the US company has to ensure is that you get the product described in the US literature.
So in this case, you essentially went to the US and mailed some spam back to yourself. But with the mail, telephone, internet and other means of instant communications, you do that without leaving your living room. Nothing else has changed. Everything is subject to US law. But if I have a processing plant in London and use that to send everything in Europe from, then all those transactions have to follow EU law.
You seem to not realize why the US has it's forces spread out all over the world.
It's to be able to strategically strike anywhere need be in a relative short period of time.
We have enough reserve capacity at home to handle an all out assault for several weeks on the home land. The problem invaders will find is that they will need to send troops back home to protect their own homelands. We can abandon Afghanistan and Iraq if ever need be. And even if the other armaments are superior, I'm not sure they will be able to defeat our weapons systems mounted on those platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we rejected public health care. This means that rich people can still pay people to find ways to extend their life further then what some government death panel says your worth spending insurance money on.
It's quite possible that within 50 years or so, anyone alive today might have the ability to be alive in 100 years from today.
And yes, rhetoric aside, this is still true regardless of public health care or not. I see no reasons why government wouldn't openly accept anything that extends a person's life if it makes their productive portions of life last longer. (ie 65 year old with the mental capaity of a 35 year old and all the knowledge of 65+ years of experience).
And the real point is that if you wanted to learn something about armadillos, you will learn more wrong things at one place then the other.
Or to put it another way, if you were attempting to research an armadillo for a pet, while you might have more information at one place then the other, you will have more incorrect information at the same time. So you go out and buy an armadillo, you bring it home, your family falls in love with it. Then guess what, they tent to swim pretty well and like the water so your moat surrounding his natural enclosure you created because of some incorrect fact on the site with more information and you thinking it's inhumane to keep it in a cage doesn't work to contain them and he ends up in the road as possum on the half shell for hillbillies.
If more information means more wrong information, then it's worse if you ask me. People go to these sites for more then enriching their collective noodles. They look for answers to real life questions for real life situations. Now granted, the other source could have just as easily been wrong on the same piece of information, but with more wrong information hidden in more information period, you have a greater chance of getting the wrong information period.
Perhaps their position on the grants give them the ability to take the IP from the research.
Anyways, I'm curious to how this isn't obvious from general insects carrying virus' and other things or old school biological warfare. I mean if we were hurdling dead cows over the castle walls in medieval times in order to infect the populations during a siege, then isn't prior art somewhat already established? What's new and novel here besides using it to cure instead of infect? And outside of that, the entire concept of using parasites to treat illness or administer medicine is nothing new. They were talking about genetically manipulating cells and bacteria to deliver payloads for cancer treatments back in the 80's.
These systems were created in the 80's and 90's. They likely wouldn't be spec'ed for anything newer then cat5 and repair crews on the ground know better then to just put something that looks similar in place on something that can cost lives if it fails.
It's most likely cat5 shielded with some sort of covering to protect against EMP or radio frequency jamming. SO by using fiber, they are likely going past the simple weight advantage of replacing cat5 (even cat 6 or 7) and forgoing some of the weight from the shielding too.
We didn't really lose Vietnam. We gave up on it. This was due to political pressure back home and it was clearly obvious that politics played a large role in why Vietnam was such a clusterfuck throughout the campaign. Even the french made the same mistakes before we took over.
Your right. I think maybe I was concentrating on the significance of changing things around to make it look better.
I guess the bottom line is, no matter how you manipulate the statistics, you it showed that when viewing article per article, there are more mistakes in one verses the other. I don't think it really matters that one has a graphic novel for the article while the other has a few facts blurted on bullet points, you still get more wrong stuff from one over the other.
Lol.. That doesn't make the error rate lower.
You can't claim that because you said more wrong things along with just more words, that you were wrong less times then someone who said less wrong things with less words covering the same subject.
Yea it's a hoax..
Took me 5 minutes to find the funny part though. It's not really funny in the sense of ha ha that act was funny, but it's funny in the sense of Are you serious?
Shhh. you are going to hurt their feelings. I mean putting a man who has achieved so much more then them down can only be looked at as an attempt to feel better about themselves.
If you spoil that for them, they will have nothing. So quiet down now.
Well, there is another reason and the GP actually stated it without realizing it.
If it took a law called the Patriot Act that "enabled Intelligence agencies to reorder themselves to combat new threats, identified post-9/11, and out of that what is in place now is standard practice and procedure", then without that law all that will disappear and old standard practice and procedures will return.
As it turns out, the patriot act has a sunset clause in it. That clause requires it to be reexamined and renewed, altered if need be, to assess the changes in the threats and possible remove encroaches on out freedoms that might be within it while making it as effective as possible without hampering any, or as little as possible, our civil liberties. Because of this sunset clause, if it isn't renewed, those protections and/or changes the GP mentioned and seemed to agree with will be removed as the laws previous to it do not allow it to happen.
Lol.. This is a stupid argument I see made all over the place. Just because the left wing isn't left of some world allusions of center is doesn't mean it's not left of the right in America.
In referencing politics in America, there is a left and a right in connection to American politics. There is even a center in reference to it. The fact that they fall somewhere else on a scale used outside of the US means little when delving into the details of politics in the US. It's like saying your Chevy pickup truck is one of the fastest cars sold in America because Chevy makes the 2011 Corvette ZR1 which can go 205 mph (329.9 kph). You are concentrating too much on the adjectives and not enough on the details.
Besides, the terms left and right were historically resulting from the French revolution in which it was referring to the seating arrangement in parliament. Those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization. So instead of resorting it to some political scale, it can accurately be used to describe a state of politics completely separate from that scale.
I'm saying Reagan implemented it and it's the one true tactic that will stop a nuclear war.
Yes, and my understanding is that we had roughly 15 minutes from the time the launch was detected to determine where the missile was going and start out launches. Most of that was automated to a certain extent too, just to launch everything else if we couldn't hit the button ourselves.
This is also why nuclear subs because so important. Very few people actually know where they are at any given point in time.
Lol..
You basically admit to the jurisdiction by saying they could go to the US, confess, and get capitol punishment.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear in this. I'm not saying that the US can storm into Germany and override their government. I'm saying that the US can levy charges against the person and when that person comes into US jurisdiction, whether it's by being extradited from somewhere else, or visiting a territory or stumbling onto a US military base, that person can be prosecuted in US courts under US laws. The same goes for the UK and other countries. In fact, Germany can charge a US citizen for murdering one of their citizens on US soil and if the US sees fit, they can extradite that person to Germany to be prosecuted by Germans as long as the basic tenets of the US constitution are followed in the prosecution.
There has even been situations where foreign countries have prosecuted foreign people under foreign laws in their own courts in order to keep jurisdiction over someone who killed one of their citizens.
The US held charges over the bombers in US courts under US jurisdiction and didn't remove those charges until they were prosecuted in Europe.
This is mentioned in the wikipedia articles for the masterminds of the bombings.
Lybya wouldn't extradite them so a deal was worked out to try them in The Netherlands under Scottish law. They were listed as fugitives from justice on the FBI's 10 most wanted lists until the trial. Then the US had to drop charges and accept the outcome because of the Double Jeopardy clause in the US constitution. Libya wouldn't hand them over unless they were charged and trialed for all the people who died in the incident to prevent the US from reserving one person's death to retain jurisdiction. That was a tactic used in the OK city bombing trial against Timothy McVeigh. The state who held original jurisdiction tried McVeigh for all but two counts in case he won then the Fed could charge with the remaining two counts and have a second stab at it.
I don't think that's how it's working.
You see, AFAIK, there really isn't any Twitter infrastructure located in the EU. It's all located in the US so even if an EU subject signs up, they are essentially doing so on US soil even though technology allows them to remain in their respective physical location.
The only thing concerning the EU at this moment is the people who were signed up for the accounts. And to that end, those people essentially travel to the US in order to conduct their business with those accounts. They even leave their information and dealings in the US when they return home- electronically.
The entire cold war was devised around the premise of being able to neutralize the very large and powerful at the time USSR before it's massive forces could cripple us. Well it was until Reagan came up with the only sane alternative that did not involve an illusions of us all just getting along and devised the Mutually Assured Destruction plan for Nukes. And even with this concept in mind, the idea was to have enough nuclear power to disable the enemy's ability to strike us in the moments we knew about the attack but before the attack hit us.
So the entire Annihilate back thing is pretty much off the table. And don't kid yourself, it's not like the US hasn't already devised plans to take out known ally installations should they ever risk falling into enemy hands. This is a tactic taken directly from Churchill which probably saved England from being completely isolated from America in WWII if the Germans got a hold of the french navy.
Well, yes and no. Yes in principle and I don't disagree with you. But if the information is held in one of the subsidiaries that might reside in some EU territory, then that subsidiary would be subject to EU law and could block transferring any of the information to the US counterpart as EU laws demand. The judge would have to realize the limitations of it's jurisdiction and not punish the US company for acts it can't legally produce.
Now I bring that up only because people have seen this stuff happening elsewhere and conflate the situations to more then universal application. They don't seem to understand the fine line differences between X and Y and want to argue X for Y and Y for X depending on how they percieve it's aid to their argument.
Well, no. You see, they are asking a US company to produce records kept on a US server under US jurisdiction according to US law in connection to a violation of US law by a US citizen who was residing in the US at the time. It's really little more then that. The search was issued in connection with Manning's release of information and what is being determined is the extent that he was coaxed into the release of information and what intent they were. If Manning intentionally released the information knowing it would end up in enemy hands, he could get the death penalty. If he was acting recklessly, then the sentence could be less. It could change the entire relation of the charges against him and possibly even the charges itself.
Lol.. Did I miss something here? Please tell me what these actions are? So far the only ones I know of are arresting Manning, and investigating what he did and who he did it with. Seriously, the subpoena is in connection with prosecuting Manning, it might reveal information detrimental to others, but when you hang around people who break the law and intentionally attempt to piss someone off, you better be prepared to be examined.
And no, this would have no ramifications to any US based company you mentioned for the specific reasons we talked about in the beginning of this article. If EU companies have to ensure certain criteria is met before storing data or doing business in the other country, then those companies would simply set up shop and meet that criteria in those countries. In fact, all of the ones you mentioned already do that in order to comply with existi
Where is country A exporting anything to country B? I mean seriously, the mere fact that you can access it doesn't mean it's being exported to you. You can pick up over the air TV broadcasts in other countries and it doesn't all the sudden make those station obligated to those foreign countries laws.
When doing commerce on a website or visiting another website, you are essentially using technology to travel to the country of origin. This only changes when the website sets up a subsidiary within that other country. Then the actions within that real are applicable to those laws respectively.
Again, that is different then this. That's because by mailing the substances, they are going to that country. In the twitter instance, they reside entirely within the US AFAIK so to sign up, any EU citizen would essentially be traveling to the US. The communications traveling back at their request would be akin to a note stuffed in your pocket and carried back home from a trip to the US.
You can't seriously compare Hulu's copyright issues with twitters. For one, there are specific treaties that have been made concerning that situation which devise those rules completely. And for two, those copyright issues is a matter of licensing of the copyright within the country it's located in, not the laws of another.
Lol.. International laws.. Please show me where Twitter was trying to engage in business in the EU. No, an EU citizen showing up on Twitter's front door and asking to get in isn't twitter going over seas. It's them not turning the EU citizen away and stating that they are in the US now.
Well, no.
McKinnon technically went to the US when he breached US servers. The mere fact that technology enabled him to do this without leaving his living room or basement doesn't change that.
In the same sense, if the servers and all are located in the US, then when someone from the EU signs up, they are essentially signing up in the US, sending and receiving information from the US, even though technology allowed them to make that trip without leaving their country.
This is akin to mail order situations. If I create a presence in your country, then my actions regarding that presence is definitely subject to the laws of your country. But if you are on vacation in the US, and patronize my establishment, then the laws of the US pertain. So if you grabbed an order form while in the US, then later decided to order from your own country by either calling my US company or mailing me in the US, then US laws apply unless something is forbidden to be shipped to your country in which case customs would intercept it. But even then, your country's law apply only to the extent my business is conducted in your country. So intercepting the package is in your country.
So you see, it's actually different from Gary McKinnon in the sense you are attempting to make it but the same in the sense of the initiation of commerce or the act happens to be the same.
Look into a concept known as diplomatic protection. And please, do not confuse that with diplomatic immunity or any of the crap presented in movies were someone gets away with murder because they are a diplomat.
The concept is that a person doesn't surrender any rights of person they might have when residing in another country. They are expected to rely on the other country for their expectations and protection to the point that the country of citizenship can supersede when those protections and rights do not rise to international standards.
If that country, in this case Germany, fails to measure up to international standards, then the country of citizenship can invoke jurisdiction over the citizen and any acts that happen to them. This is set in treaty and has been so since before the US was a century old. Furthermore, it's not limited to the US, most other countries that have been around this long do the same. I picked England and the US because they are the most prominent ones to use it that I know of.
Wrong.
Most all modern countries reserve jurisdiction over their citizens regardless of location in matters of physical security. This is why the US can prosecute people who bomb airplanes over Scotland that originated from some other country but had US citizens on board.
England does this, France, Germany, most all of Europe Australian and so on. This is nothing new and one of the reasons why some foreigners state what country they are from when in dangerous situations. It's because those countries prosecute serious crimes against their own people anywhere in the world that it happens.
They tolerate it because your parents were more scared of the Russians and another world war then you are about "trigger happy yanks on our lands".
And judging about the pacifism and lack of response to recent events (within the last couple decades), I would say that if the US wasn't there in all those military bases, world war 3 or the equivalent in the area would have already broke out.
It doesn't matter if it happened to citizens of the EU unless it was done in connection with the operations within the EU.
And no, you analogy or scenario fails on several levels. The first and most obvious is that the computer trespass would have actually been a US company going to an EU citizen and they would therefor be subject to EU law by default. The second failing is that if the british citizen is located in the US at the time of the attack, then EU law doesn't play in at all unless physical harm happened to the person. But that is more of a long reach assertion most countries take in which they guarantee the protection of their citizens anywhere in the world. If you murder a US citizen in Germany, the US will prosecute you for that murder. If I do the same to a British citizen, England will prosecute me. And of course, Germany can prosecute either of us as well as out own countries too. It all depends on who can get their hand on who first and if they can be persuaded to extradite or not.
Think of this more like a mail order situation then the brick and mortar deli around the corner. Suppose EU law says that all ham has to be made with pork butts (should hock). You order a ham from a US producer that makes theirs from all parts of the hog, shredded then reconstituted, spiced and put in a tin with a label saying Spam on it. Now here is the interesting part. If the US company put this on the shelf in England's grocery stores, they would have to comply with the EU's packaging and labeling laws and ensure the product was made correctly accordingly. Now if you order it from the US company, either by internet or some catalog you picked up somewhere, all the US company has to ensure is that you get the product described in the US literature.
So in this case, you essentially went to the US and mailed some spam back to yourself. But with the mail, telephone, internet and other means of instant communications, you do that without leaving your living room. Nothing else has changed. Everything is subject to US law. But if I have a processing plant in London and use that to send everything in Europe from, then all those transactions have to follow EU law.
Sure.. However, I'm not so sure that the accounts and identities would fit that same description.
You seem to not realize why the US has it's forces spread out all over the world.
It's to be able to strategically strike anywhere need be in a relative short period of time.
We have enough reserve capacity at home to handle an all out assault for several weeks on the home land. The problem invaders will find is that they will need to send troops back home to protect their own homelands. We can abandon Afghanistan and Iraq if ever need be. And even if the other armaments are superior, I'm not sure they will be able to defeat our weapons systems mounted on those platforms.