The law is too far reaching in this case. They should not be forced to bear an onerous and ridiculous burden.
I'm sure their lawyers will make the same argument, and I agree. As I already stated,
I believe the fact that TorrentSpy is being compelled to keep server logs by the MPAA is fucked up on a few levels.
Of course, I'm not the judge in this case, and I assume you are not either, so our opinion means sweet F-A in this instance. The court certainly has the power to require a defendant to keep records, regardless of how onerous or ridiculous the process may be.
I don't think that changing the storage medium of the accounting info - in your example, taking the Postits and putting them in a spreadsheet - and then destroying the original stuff constitutes "destroying evidence".
It does if you've been court-ordered to archive your accounting documents, which companies are required to do under current regulations. This is why real companies don't do their accounting on Post-Its.
In contrast computer ram is closer to writing your financial records in sand, then scrambling to get it written on a laptop.
You're right: as this person pointed out, an Etch-a-Sketch is a better analogy than Post-It Notes.
In contrast computer ram is closer to writing your financial records in sand, then scrambling to get it written on a laptop. As soon as the next wave washes in the evidence will be destroyed. Are you willingly destroying evidence?
Yes: if
the court thinks that information must be stored in full as well instead of as a transient copy
then they can require you to archive it.
I personally think that electronic archiving laws are ridiculous
All of them?
and in the long run the massive volume of data will be mostly static and hard to actually use.
Probably. Now, do you have a better alternative for effective regulation?
Also considering the large amount of data that's sent through ram as a computer processes information the costs to do this by any means will be gigantic. And the ruling rather silly.
Well, as I said about this case:
I believe the fact that TorrentSpy is being compelled to keep server logs by the MPAA is fucked up on a few levels.
Except it is nothing like post its. It is more like you are using an etch a sketch to do your accounting and every new calculation, you shake it. Now you are required to write everything down.
Worse yet, what about a digital calculator.....you can't use one. You need to have one that prints out, etc.
Yes, that's how it works when you are legally compelled to keep records of a certain aspect of your business, as Torrentspy has been compelled in this case.
You're right about the Etch-a-Sketch - that is a better analogy.
I'm sure that would really punish the Chinese government. Removing a major source of employment in poor areas would really spite the regime!
You're kidding, right? Massive unemployment, combined with an oppressive but overstretched regime, is a major instigator of political revolutions: violent or otherwise. That's not exactly what I'm advocating, though.
In case you'd not noticed, there's a difference between "no American company should be allowed to invest in China" and "American companies that invest in China should understand that this may leave them vulnerable to financial loss due to litigation."
'Under this interpretation, any data stored in RAM could be subject to a subpoena, as at a basic level it is a "medium from which information can be obtained" just like a hard drive. '"
Which makes sense. Imagine that I do all my shady accounting on some Post-Its, then turn their contents into a bunch of spreadsheets and a ledger that look legit. If my accounting documentation is subpoenaed and I don't produce those Post-Its, and the court finds out about their existence, I am in deep shit for destruction of evidence and/or failure to keep required records. I certainly wouldn't get far with a claim that the Post-Its were a "temporary storage medium" or something.
I believe the fact that TorrentSpy is being compelled to keep server logs by the MPAA is fucked up on a few levels. I just wanted to point out that the last part of the summary is not as profound or earth-shaking as it might seem.
It's not doublethink on the part of most buyers, since they don't have access to the information necessary to make it through the initial round.
It is in the case I mentioned. As I said in my post, the consumers I'm discussing are informed enough about these issues to fulminate about them (on their blogs, in their coffeeshops, and among their friends) but are not translating this information into action (by not bitching at the farmers, who are providing what these same shoppers would tell you is necessary for a sustainable society.)
I agree with the sentiment of your post however:
Rather than criticizing the people you believe should be sacrificing more of their wages to support the likes of organic farmers, living wages and local distribution, why don't you help illuminate their ignorance with your informed and well reasoned discussion.
which is why I returned to college to study agriculture and community development. I do believe that positive change is possible once the wall of misinformation surrounding agricultural practice is replaced by widespread practical knowledge, and it seems that a growing number of communities are coming around to this perspective, although it is still far too uncommon to have a major regional effect. Some journalists are getting the message across, thankfully.
I wasn't criticizing ignorance. I was criticizing hypocrisy on the part of the educated.
There is a fundamental difference, the first situation (child molestation) says that the laws of Country B can still apply to it's citizens when in foreign lands, the second situation (Yahoo! suit) says that the laws of Country B actually trump the laws of Country A when it's citizens are in country A.
It would be "trumping" them if there were criminal charges to be filed for breaking Country B's laws in Country A. Yahoo is being held civilly, not criminally, liable. If a company chartered in Country B violates Country B's law in Country A, then while they may not be liable to criminal prosecution (since the DoJ has no jurisdiction), they may be found liable for damages by Country B's courts. This is a risk of doing business with totalitarian regimes.
Well, hold it one second, agribusiness is huge. Top executives in that industry, like others, are making several thousand more in salary than their workers. Tomatoes don't have to cost $4/lb even with paying fair wages and being environmentally conscious.
They do indeed, if you buy locally in an area with a high cost of living. The agribusiness model is predicated on quite a few things (monocropping, for example) that don't make sense on a local level (where people have a vested interest in the quality of their water and the ecological effects of the pest controls that monocropping requires.)
The key word here is "local" (which is definitely related to the pollution issue.) Given the high cost of living in this part of the country, even greenhoused organic tomatoes grown locally would cost $4/lb, considering how difficult they are to grow. Farmers have a hard time making ends meet even when they're getting paid those kind of prices for their produce. If farmers wanted to live like, say, programmers up here, they'd be charging $8.
The solution to the Chinese problem is not to ignore our own faults and problems. So your point is moot.
Sorry, but you're reading too far into my point. I'm not claiming that inaction on the part of our government is correct, or the solution. I'm claiming that it's the likely outcome of this whole debacle, due to the motivations of our "leaders." We're not actually disagreeing, judging by your post.
Cisco ought not to be permitted to export equipment to do that. It grew up in a democratic climate, and it *owes* us that. Microsoft, Yahoo and Google should not be permitted to open their logs to Chinese officials hunting for dissidents. These companies grew up in a democratic and free part of the world, and they *owe* us that.
I hope you didn't get the impression that I disagree.
A few dozen innocent people getting killed every day for years by terrorist attacks has a completely different effect than a hundred thousand killed by a few well aimed nukes, despite the similar death toll.
Ah yes...I forgot that those who advocate a "smack the fuck out of everybody" policy consider nuclear options to be on the table as well. Although what good those options would be against international terrorism is beyond everybody outside PNAC.
It is sad that Chinese law is so horrible, but part of doing business in China is to follow the law there[...]Imagine if the American subsidiary of a Swiss bank ignored a subpoena from the FBI for information about one of its clients, who was thought to have links with Al Qaeda. I would imagine the bank would get shut down by law enforcement.
Gee, that would make so much more sense if there was some unalienable right of corporations to do business with repressive regimes. Of course, there isn't, so I don't see your point. If an American company has to have their Chinese operation shut down to avoid violating human rights, then tough titty to them. Doing business with dictators has always been risky for American companies.
No, you are claiming that American law should take precedence to Chinese law in China.
No, I am claiming that American businesses shouldn't do business in countries where the law of said countries will lead them to violate American human rights laws, and that they can be held civilly liable in this country for such actions. If they don't like that situation, they can always stop doing business in that country.
Would you feel the same if a Chinese company's wholly-owned subsidiary was ordered under U.S. law (say they were issued a subpoena) to produce information and the Chinese company said "No, we don't have to because we are a Chinese company."
Yes: I would say to the company "Well, you have no business doing business here, now GTFO of this country," which is what the Chinese government should have done to Yahoo if they hadn't cravenly caved.
U.S. law can not trump Chinese law in China
Again, not relevant here,
and Yahoo! should not be held accountable for following the law of the land in which the servers were located after being served legal documents by the local government for said information.
Sorry, but American companies doing business overseas should be liable in American courts for human rights violations committed overseas.
Since I know that terror suspects will probably get sent to Gitmo, I can safely simply ignore any of these pesky National Security Letters I get since I know they violate human rights, because they don't get approved by a judge, and may well result in illegal incarceration right?
You can't ignore them, but you can sue the government for attempting to illegally force you to break your Terms of Service.
Of course, given the current political climate, you'll probably lose.
That was the classic defense used by the Soviets and Chinese for decades. "The decadent capitalistic West has no right to talk because they have street crime, drug addicts and corrupt politicians." It wasn't very compelling in 1980, and it isn't any better a defense of cowardly tyrants today.
Not defending anybody, just pointing out that it's unrealistic to expect the rulers over here to do anything meaningful about the problems in China. I certainly don't endorse the immorality of either side.
Awww...it's so cute when citizens of fading empires try and swing the big ol' dick one last time.
Getting along means that you know I can smack the holywhatthefuck out of you at any second and for any reason.
Ignoring your perverse definition of "getting along," I would suggest that recent events have shown that our military isn't exactly capable of "smacking the holywhatthefuck" out of very much these days, despite the ridiculous amount of money we throw at defense contractors.
Ah, you see, but that's where the handy notions of the subsidiary and of brand licensing come into play[...]All perfectly legal, and completely corrupt and immoral.
My bad. I keep forgetting who writes the law in this country.
The United States is about profits, about getting influence through lobbyists and financial manipulation, about local officials skimming off the top just like thesethieves, and about a pack of fearful, demented businessmen who want to divert the American populace from their incompetence and hypocrisy by giving them iPhones, MySpace, and a War on Pretty Much Everything.
The names and ideologies change, but it's the same game pretty much everywhere.
It is the West that is addicted to the crack here, and is willing to sell out on every principal that it once fought so hard to preserve for cheap toothpaste, cheap toys and cheap dog food.
Exactly. I see this variety of doublethink at farmers' markets up here. Many people in this moneyed college town, who will fulminate endlessly about the need for agriculture companies to stop polluting and start paying their workers a living wage, are somehow offended that a local organic farmer is charging $4/lb for tomatoes. "But I can get tomatoes at the store for less than half that!"
Lots of folks preach a good sermon, but aren't willing to make the sacrifices to put their words into action.
Really? Last I checked, it was still illegal for Americans to violate human rights, even while overseas. Also, hasn't the "compelled to by the government" defense been pretty thoroughly rejected already?
Of course, this may have changed during the last seven years, just like the government's understanding of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment, so perhaps you're right.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure their lawyers will make the same argument, and I agree. As I already stated,
Of course, I'm not the judge in this case, and I assume you are not either, so our opinion means sweet F-A in this instance. The court certainly has the power to require a defendant to keep records, regardless of how onerous or ridiculous the process may be.
I agree, but it's not beyond the power of a court to require a party in a case to do something cumbersome.
It does if you've been court-ordered to archive your accounting documents, which companies are required to do under current regulations. This is why real companies don't do their accounting on Post-Its.
You're right: as this person pointed out, an Etch-a-Sketch is a better analogy than Post-It Notes.
Yes: if
then they can require you to archive it.All of them?
Probably. Now, do you have a better alternative for effective regulation?
Well, as I said about this case:
No, which is a definite problem for you if they contained information that you're required to archive (as companies are with accounting work.)
Yes, that's how it works when you are legally compelled to keep records of a certain aspect of your business, as Torrentspy has been compelled in this case.
You're right about the Etch-a-Sketch - that is a better analogy.
You're kidding, right? Massive unemployment, combined with an oppressive but overstretched regime, is a major instigator of political revolutions: violent or otherwise. That's not exactly what I'm advocating, though.
In case you'd not noticed, there's a difference between "no American company should be allowed to invest in China" and "American companies that invest in China should understand that this may leave them vulnerable to financial loss due to litigation."
Which makes sense. Imagine that I do all my shady accounting on some Post-Its, then turn their contents into a bunch of spreadsheets and a ledger that look legit. If my accounting documentation is subpoenaed and I don't produce those Post-Its, and the court finds out about their existence, I am in deep shit for destruction of evidence and/or failure to keep required records. I certainly wouldn't get far with a claim that the Post-Its were a "temporary storage medium" or something.
I believe the fact that TorrentSpy is being compelled to keep server logs by the MPAA is fucked up on a few levels. I just wanted to point out that the last part of the summary is not as profound or earth-shaking as it might seem.
It is in the case I mentioned. As I said in my post, the consumers I'm discussing are informed enough about these issues to fulminate about them (on their blogs, in their coffeeshops, and among their friends) but are not translating this information into action (by not bitching at the farmers, who are providing what these same shoppers would tell you is necessary for a sustainable society.)
I agree with the sentiment of your post however:
which is why I returned to college to study agriculture and community development. I do believe that positive change is possible once the wall of misinformation surrounding agricultural practice is replaced by widespread practical knowledge, and it seems that a growing number of communities are coming around to this perspective, although it is still far too uncommon to have a major regional effect. Some journalists are getting the message across, thankfully.
I wasn't criticizing ignorance. I was criticizing hypocrisy on the part of the educated.
Well, that's what you get when you have lows in the -60's and some of the rockiest unfriendly soil in the nation.
The key word here is "local" (which is definitely related to the pollution issue.) Given the high cost of living in this part of the country, even greenhoused organic tomatoes grown locally would cost $4/lb, considering how difficult they are to grow. Farmers have a hard time making ends meet even when they're getting paid those kind of prices for their produce. If farmers wanted to live like, say, programmers up here, they'd be charging $8.
I hope you didn't get the impression that I disagree.
Ah yes...I forgot that those who advocate a "smack the fuck out of everybody" policy consider nuclear options to be on the table as well. Although what good those options would be against international terrorism is beyond everybody outside PNAC.
No, I am claiming that American businesses shouldn't do business in countries where the law of said countries will lead them to violate American human rights laws, and that they can be held civilly liable in this country for such actions. If they don't like that situation, they can always stop doing business in that country.
Yes: I would say to the company "Well, you have no business doing business here, now GTFO of this country," which is what the Chinese government should have done to Yahoo if they hadn't cravenly caved.Again, not relevant here,
Sorry, but American companies doing business overseas should be liable in American courts for human rights violations committed overseas.You can't ignore them, but you can sue the government for attempting to illegally force you to break your Terms of Service.
Of course, given the current political climate, you'll probably lose.
Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
Not defending anybody, just pointing out that it's unrealistic to expect the rulers over here to do anything meaningful about the problems in China. I certainly don't endorse the immorality of either side.
Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
My bad. I keep forgetting who writes the law in this country.
Exactly. I see this variety of doublethink at farmers' markets up here. Many people in this moneyed college town, who will fulminate endlessly about the need for agriculture companies to stop polluting and start paying their workers a living wage, are somehow offended that a local organic farmer is charging $4/lb for tomatoes. "But I can get tomatoes at the store for less than half that!"
Lots of folks preach a good sermon, but aren't willing to make the sacrifices to put their words into action.
Really? Last I checked, it was still illegal for Americans to violate human rights, even while overseas. Also, hasn't the "compelled to by the government" defense been pretty thoroughly rejected already?
Of course, this may have changed during the last seven years, just like the government's understanding of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment, so perhaps you're right.