If it helps or not is an entirely different issue than "what is the legal justification." And the justification matters regardless of which side of "is it good" you fall on.
There is plenty of stupid to go around, I can assure you.
And yes, French courts could issue any sort of ruling they want against French companies. If you're a French company and there is some French law about online language, you'd be well advised to obey it.
If the subsidiary is wholly-owned then the parent company does indeed control the information and has to produce it. The tax-game stuff is not a loophole created by lack of jurisdiction, it is loopholes created by the specific ways the tax laws are written to favor certain strategies.
MS resides in Washington State, if Ireland manages to hold them in prison to prevent them complying with the order, that is fine. They might rethink their Irish strategy when they get back, though.;)
If you're debating about what you have "objections" to, that is a discussion better had on a thread about legislation. A thread about legal rulings hopefully centers around understanding what the law actually is right now, and potential differences of understanding on what that is.
A search warrant and a subpoena are radically different legal instruments.
This seems to be in the form, "they are different, therefore they are very different. They're so radically different they're not even exactly the same!"
If you have to stretch that far, it shows you're not confident in the level of difference. If it turns out that they're actually very similar, especially if the hypothetical subpoena is from a LEO, then the judge might reasonably weigh that difference against MS refusing to produce relevant information, and find that in the balance justice is better served by ordering the production of the evidence without a bunch of extra procedure. Especially if MS's defense is that they have a right to the information, but with a different legal device. Their defense, at face value, is claiming they won't be harmed in any way because they can just subpoena them for it anyways. The obvious implication between the lines is that they will try not to comply with the subpoena.
As an American it seems pretty obvious that if I deal with an Irish company, that company could be forced to release information about me or held for me in response to orders from Irish courts.
I'm surprised people are surprised by this, and it raises the question; with a user id that low, have you made it your whole life without turning to page 2 for the rest of stories about legal disputes? Do you really not read the whole newspaper? How could you not know, and yet somehow be a "nerd" in this age of globalization?
Yes, there is no difference and there never was. The legal issue is if it is under your control. Even forming a foreign company doesn't help, if it is a wholly owned a subsidiary. You'd need a foreign partnership with other companies that you can't directly control, but that you still trust. And that is hard to come by at any price. So that game involves being able to control the company in reality, but not on paper. MS is probably too big to make that game work. And that works for random documents, but not for taxes.
There is no precedent here, this is an obvious outcome of a basic issue. MS did a "hail Mary" trying to get a new type of protection, and (predictably) failed.
MS was always a US company, and US courts always had jurisdiction over any evidence in their possession or under their control.
Under US law a renter is legal possession of the property they are renting, so no. As to the vault that you're not renting but that the company is storing your document in, yes.
I'm not within 200 miles of Google, and we've got more than 3 in my mid-sized city. I'm guessing you wouldn't know that even if you lived here.
Luckily nobody is asking you if you are convinced. You can understand the reasons for doing what they did, or not. It makes no difference, because they won't ask you. Understanding is optional.
Nonsense. In the US, we send in para-military police to burn their stronghold down, and shoot them if they come near windows. We're not going to use drones. Why? I'll give you 2 reasons:
Stop! You there, with the rifle, in the foxhole. You are under arrest! You need to report to the Courthouse so I can find out if I'm allowed to shoot you!
You're exactly right, this is a non-issue made up entirely of ignorant prognostications about history and Law. During war it is legal to kill whoever you believe to be the enemy. And bystanders are considered unfortunate.
Citizenship has nothing to do with the air strikes. And the location of the pilot is even less of an issue. The only normal legal question is, was the target at least partially military, and was war declared.
Congress declared war on non-state entities. Some of them turn out to be American citizens. Of course, we make up 5% of the world's population. There are probably a couple Americans on each side in every war in the world, especially if we count these paper Americans that were born here to foreign parents and then raised overseas.
My own prognostication is that it will turn out the opinion is secret because legally they could go much further than they have chosen to go, and it would be unpopular to imagine us doing as much as is legal in war.
That is complete nonsense. During WWII lots of American citizens were killed in Europe for fighting for Germany. This has always been the case.
The protections in the Constitution are the laws of the Land. They apply here, in this place, the United States of America. They do not automatically apply anywhere in the world where an American walks, most certainly not if he walks into a war zone.
Not to mention the Civil War! Imagine it with this nonsense idea about not killing your own citizens... the secessionists would always be allowed to kill the Union soldiers... "not ours!" But the Union soldiers wouldn't be allowed to kill the secessionists. "I demand by force of arms that you're still an American... so I surrender." It is pretty obviously a new claim when you imagine what real historical situations would have been like if that had been the rules.
No, actually, it is always been acceptable to kill people during war without checking their passport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... You don't have to like that Congress declared war on various non-state entities, it suffices here just to understand that it happened.
If you can't tell the difference between a "secret law" and a secret legal opinion given to the President, then you're going to be appalled at all sorts of imaginary things, sorry to say.
My counter prediction is that since this ruling is somewhat of an outlier, the SCOTUS will indeed touch this, and overturn it. It seems on dubious ground anyways, even if people like the outcome in this particular case; how easy should a wavier be? By the logic of this decision, since the government has discussed public safety related to nuclear weapons, they've waved any rights to secrecy.
This is an awful ruling, regardless of the potential for a popular outcome in this case.
So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?
I'm surprised in 2014 people still don't understand this stuff, but the nationality of the target makes no difference. What matters is if they are outside of the US, in which case US laws don't apply, and if they're covered under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.
You don't have to like that the US declared war against an loosely defined group of non-state entities. But you should be aware that it happened. Many people are so ignorant of these things, they think it is just lawlessness; they surely will be ineffective at changing that law.
In the case of actual Americans targeted, they were listed as targets and family members made relevant requests for review that the Courts threw out. So they had due process, a lot more than is actually required in war.
Let me get this straight, it does not matter if the pilot is remote, or in the aircraft. Killing with drones is no different than with any other aircraft, which is itself no different than a soldier with a rifle. It is the exact same legal issues. There was a declaration of war, there was a declared target, and he was killed.
We haven't done [principled thing that we have done by-and-large and at tremendous expense] with [notable exceptions that generate tremendous outrage]. I just don't know.
I don't like the failures, but everyone going "We don't actually obey the constitution anymore" don't put forth any meaningful metrics to show that it changed, and a subjective examination of American history shows lots of abuses from day 1.
Suppose you have my, and a couple hundreds of other dedicated peoples' promised assistance to fix the problem. Propose a first step.
There is no way to know who or what to believe on some of this stuff. The attitude of acceptance of a perceived lack of lawfulness is almost enough to make me wonder... what if the NSA wasn't spying, but wanted to get us to accept it so they could start? Just launch a Snowden Attack and make us think it already happened, and watch everybody roll over. And then if people actually resist it, it can turn out to be not true. I don't think that is what is happening. I just think people's response is so pathetic, the knowledge hasn't done any positive good, and people might be more accepting of it now than they would have predicted they would be. Propose a first step?!? Invent an IQ-ray that makes people smarter.
Slashdot Mirror
Hiring some dipshit as a figurehead for investors...that addresses absolutely **none** of the **original problems**
It does if the only "original problem" was that the investors wanted a dipshit figurehead, and you wanted their money.
If it helps or not is an entirely different issue than "what is the legal justification." And the justification matters regardless of which side of "is it good" you fall on.
or just, an amazon account...
There is plenty of stupid to go around, I can assure you.
And yes, French courts could issue any sort of ruling they want against French companies. If you're a French company and there is some French law about online language, you'd be well advised to obey it.
If the subsidiary is wholly-owned then the parent company does indeed control the information and has to produce it. The tax-game stuff is not a loophole created by lack of jurisdiction, it is loopholes created by the specific ways the tax laws are written to favor certain strategies.
MS resides in Washington State, if Ireland manages to hold them in prison to prevent them complying with the order, that is fine. They might rethink their Irish strategy when they get back, though. ;)
Tell me again, which US Prosecutor is it with a $3T budget?
If you're debating about what you have "objections" to, that is a discussion better had on a thread about legislation. A thread about legal rulings hopefully centers around understanding what the law actually is right now, and potential differences of understanding on what that is.
A search warrant and a subpoena are radically different legal instruments.
This seems to be in the form, "they are different, therefore they are very different. They're so radically different they're not even exactly the same!"
If you have to stretch that far, it shows you're not confident in the level of difference. If it turns out that they're actually very similar, especially if the hypothetical subpoena is from a LEO, then the judge might reasonably weigh that difference against MS refusing to produce relevant information, and find that in the balance justice is better served by ordering the production of the evidence without a bunch of extra procedure. Especially if MS's defense is that they have a right to the information, but with a different legal device. Their defense, at face value, is claiming they won't be harmed in any way because they can just subpoena them for it anyways. The obvious implication between the lines is that they will try not to comply with the subpoena.
As an American it seems pretty obvious that if I deal with an Irish company, that company could be forced to release information about me or held for me in response to orders from Irish courts.
I'm surprised people are surprised by this, and it raises the question; with a user id that low, have you made it your whole life without turning to page 2 for the rest of stories about legal disputes? Do you really not read the whole newspaper? How could you not know, and yet somehow be a "nerd" in this age of globalization?
Yes, there is no difference and there never was. The legal issue is if it is under your control. Even forming a foreign company doesn't help, if it is a wholly owned a subsidiary. You'd need a foreign partnership with other companies that you can't directly control, but that you still trust. And that is hard to come by at any price. So that game involves being able to control the company in reality, but not on paper. MS is probably too big to make that game work. And that works for random documents, but not for taxes.
There is no precedent here, this is an obvious outcome of a basic issue. MS did a "hail Mary" trying to get a new type of protection, and (predictably) failed.
MS was always a US company, and US courts always had jurisdiction over any evidence in their possession or under their control.
Under US law a renter is legal possession of the property they are renting, so no. As to the vault that you're not renting but that the company is storing your document in, yes.
I'm not within 200 miles of Google, and we've got more than 3 in my mid-sized city. I'm guessing you wouldn't know that even if you lived here.
Luckily nobody is asking you if you are convinced. You can understand the reasons for doing what they did, or not. It makes no difference, because they won't ask you. Understanding is optional.
Nonsense. In the US, we send in para-military police to burn their stronghold down, and shoot them if they come near windows. We're not going to use drones. Why? I'll give you 2 reasons:
1) police unions
2) jobs
Stop! You there, with the rifle, in the foxhole. You are under arrest! You need to report to the Courthouse so I can find out if I'm allowed to shoot you!
You're exactly right, this is a non-issue made up entirely of ignorant prognostications about history and Law. During war it is legal to kill whoever you believe to be the enemy. And bystanders are considered unfortunate.
Citizenship has nothing to do with the air strikes. And the location of the pilot is even less of an issue. The only normal legal question is, was the target at least partially military, and was war declared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Congress declared war on non-state entities. Some of them turn out to be American citizens. Of course, we make up 5% of the world's population. There are probably a couple Americans on each side in every war in the world, especially if we count these paper Americans that were born here to foreign parents and then raised overseas.
My own prognostication is that it will turn out the opinion is secret because legally they could go much further than they have chosen to go, and it would be unpopular to imagine us doing as much as is legal in war.
You do know that China and North Korea are nothing alike... right?
If we're less repressive than China, we're already miles apart from North Korea.
If nobody is perfect, then being less bad is always the goal.
That is complete nonsense. During WWII lots of American citizens were killed in Europe for fighting for Germany. This has always been the case.
The protections in the Constitution are the laws of the Land. They apply here, in this place, the United States of America. They do not automatically apply anywhere in the world where an American walks, most certainly not if he walks into a war zone.
You don't have to like it, but the Congress declared war on non-State entities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Not to mention the Civil War! Imagine it with this nonsense idea about not killing your own citizens... the secessionists would always be allowed to kill the Union soldiers... "not ours!" But the Union soldiers wouldn't be allowed to kill the secessionists. "I demand by force of arms that you're still an American... so I surrender." It is pretty obviously a new claim when you imagine what real historical situations would have been like if that had been the rules.
You do your beliefs ill service
Perhaps his views are simply that rabid, and he does them perfect service.
No, actually, it is always been acceptable to kill people during war without checking their passport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
You don't have to like that Congress declared war on various non-state entities, it suffices here just to understand that it happened.
If you can't tell the difference between a "secret law" and a secret legal opinion given to the President, then you're going to be appalled at all sorts of imaginary things, sorry to say.
My counter prediction is that since this ruling is somewhat of an outlier, the SCOTUS will indeed touch this, and overturn it. It seems on dubious ground anyways, even if people like the outcome in this particular case; how easy should a wavier be? By the logic of this decision, since the government has discussed public safety related to nuclear weapons, they've waved any rights to secrecy.
This is an awful ruling, regardless of the potential for a popular outcome in this case.
So let me get this straight, it's perfectly OK to kill people with drones as long as they're not American citizens?
I'm surprised in 2014 people still don't understand this stuff, but the nationality of the target makes no difference. What matters is if they are outside of the US, in which case US laws don't apply, and if they're covered under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.
You don't have to like that the US declared war against an loosely defined group of non-state entities. But you should be aware that it happened. Many people are so ignorant of these things, they think it is just lawlessness; they surely will be ineffective at changing that law.
In the case of actual Americans targeted, they were listed as targets and family members made relevant requests for review that the Courts threw out. So they had due process, a lot more than is actually required in war.
Let me get this straight, it does not matter if the pilot is remote, or in the aircraft. Killing with drones is no different than with any other aircraft, which is itself no different than a soldier with a rifle. It is the exact same legal issues. There was a declaration of war, there was a declared target, and he was killed.
We haven't done [principled thing that we have done by-and-large and at tremendous expense] with [notable exceptions that generate tremendous outrage]. I just don't know.
I don't like the failures, but everyone going "We don't actually obey the constitution anymore" don't put forth any meaningful metrics to show that it changed, and a subjective examination of American history shows lots of abuses from day 1.
Suppose you have my, and a couple hundreds of other dedicated peoples' promised assistance to fix the problem. Propose a first step.
There is no way to know who or what to believe on some of this stuff. The attitude of acceptance of a perceived lack of lawfulness is almost enough to make me wonder... what if the NSA wasn't spying, but wanted to get us to accept it so they could start? Just launch a Snowden Attack and make us think it already happened, and watch everybody roll over. And then if people actually resist it, it can turn out to be not true. I don't think that is what is happening. I just think people's response is so pathetic, the knowledge hasn't done any positive good, and people might be more accepting of it now than they would have predicted they would be. Propose a first step?!? Invent an IQ-ray that makes people smarter.