It's amusing yet annoying to read the comments of people "defending" Google by claiming that it has to consider its shareholders. First of all, there's no such law requiring Google to put shareholdersabove all else (as several of you have rebutted). But more to the point, why would Google ever have to consider them at all? Keep in mind that Google never has and never will pay a dividend; ownership is permanently consolidated in the hands of the founders (thanks to the stock structure); and the chance that Google will ever be purchased is extremely small. Google is revenue-positive and has oodles of cash reserves on hand. They can comfortably tell their foolish shareholders to go screw themselves, and they can do it with impunity.
People get worked up over a remote chance of a theoretical event when a new collider is built... yet McDonald's opens 500 "restaurants" a year and nobody worries about the end of life as we know it.
... as long as it's okay for me to see their current balance sheets. Fair is fair. It's the same principle as asking me what I made at previous jobs: I'll tell them only if they'll release their current payroll numbers to me. If they don't like it, to heck with 'em.
Kind of ironic that if someone commits a crime, we as a society take it upon ourselves to then commit what would normally be considered a great crime unto them.
That's not ironic. We as a society regularly accord the government rights and duties that are denied to an individual - if we didn't, there would be little point of having a government. I think we can all agree that kidnapping someone and keeping them in your basement is bad, but nobody should be surprised when we punish the perpetrator by essentially doing the same thing to him.
You're engaging in misdirection here. What's in question isn't the mere operation of a website, but a business transaction with a US citizen on US soil that is specifically prohibited by US law. The operator of a website cannot reasonably be expected to screen visitors by nationality, but someone collecting credit card payments certainly can.
Incidentally, in case you'd like to read the measured legal opinion of someone who, you know, actually knows what he's talking about, take a look at this analysis of Yahoo's case in France regarding auction listings of Nazi memorabilia.
The Canadian thoughtcrime laws - er, hate crime laws, sorry - say absolutely nothing about preserving life. They're merely a politically correct restraint of free speech. For example, questioning or denying the Holocaust is illegal in Canada - how does that jeapordize life or limb? So spare us your rationalizations for living in a country where expressing certain ideas and opinions is forbidden by the government.
Who the fuck do the american government think they are?
Er... it's the organization that makes and enforces laws which govern commerce conducted on US soil? If you are doing business with people in another country, you are subject to that country's laws.
Of course not. Both the American users and Mr. Dicks are guilty of a crime under US law, and in both cases, breaking US law was a conscious choice. Agreed?
I'm sorry, but your post doesn't conform to the prevailing anti-American meme that has taken hold of Slashdot. Never mind that you are correct. Please surrender your username and password.
Nobody forced Mr. Dicks to sell services to American citizens. But by conducting business with American citizens on American soil, he was subject to American laws. If that doesn't suit him, then he can simply opt out of the US market. I sell software in several countries, and I believe the governments of those countries would not be amused if I claimed my dealings with their citizens were immune from their laws.
Actually, the United States provides an enormous amount of public goods to the rest of the world. Much of it goes unrecognized these days for obvious and not-so-obvious reasons.
But let's clarify the points being made in response to this story, points which the grandparent poster was inaccurately deriding as "America bashing": online flashcrowd style bullying is a major threat to America because we are just as vulnerable as the South Koreans are, to this problem.
Erm... had I wanted to address those other responses, I would have responded to them.
Slashdot Mirror
... for an idea notorious scumbag Zuckerberg stole from his friends.
Damn. You waited until the second to last sentence, and then blew my hopes for a Fantastic Four joke.
Flame on!
Wow, they're speaking German - they must be really pissed.
It's amusing yet annoying to read the comments of people "defending" Google by claiming that it has to consider its shareholders. First of all, there's no such law requiring Google to put shareholdersabove all else (as several of you have rebutted). But more to the point, why would Google ever have to consider them at all? Keep in mind that Google never has and never will pay a dividend; ownership is permanently consolidated in the hands of the founders (thanks to the stock structure); and the chance that Google will ever be purchased is extremely small. Google is revenue-positive and has oodles of cash reserves on hand. They can comfortably tell their foolish shareholders to go screw themselves, and they can do it with impunity.
... vaporware.
"People's willingness to take risks in online worlds is radically different. Death is not permanent online."
All right, chums, I'm back, let's do this. LEEEEEROY mnmJENNNNNKINNNNS!
People get worked up over a remote chance of a theoretical event when a new collider is built... yet McDonald's opens 500 "restaurants" a year and nobody worries about the end of life as we know it.
... as long as it's okay for me to see their current balance sheets. Fair is fair. It's the same principle as asking me what I made at previous jobs: I'll tell them only if they'll release their current payroll numbers to me. If they don't like it, to heck with 'em.
Kind of ironic that if someone commits a crime, we as a society take it upon ourselves to then commit what would normally be considered a great crime unto them.
That's not ironic. We as a society regularly accord the government rights and duties that are denied to an individual - if we didn't, there would be little point of having a government. I think we can all agree that kidnapping someone and keeping them in your basement is bad, but nobody should be surprised when we punish the perpetrator by essentially doing the same thing to him.
You're engaging in misdirection here. What's in question isn't the mere operation of a website, but a business transaction with a US citizen on US soil that is specifically prohibited by US law. The operator of a website cannot reasonably be expected to screen visitors by nationality, but someone collecting credit card payments certainly can.
Incidentally, in case you'd like to read the measured legal opinion of someone who, you know, actually knows what he's talking about, take a look at this analysis of Yahoo's case in France regarding auction listings of Nazi memorabilia.
Wow, so companies exporting goods to the US don't have to pay tariffs? They'll be thrilled to hear the good news of your unique legal interpretation!
The Canadian thoughtcrime laws - er, hate crime laws, sorry - say absolutely nothing about preserving life. They're merely a politically correct restraint of free speech. For example, questioning or denying the Holocaust is illegal in Canada - how does that jeapordize life or limb? So spare us your rationalizations for living in a country where expressing certain ideas and opinions is forbidden by the government.
Who the fuck do the american government think they are?
Er... it's the organization that makes and enforces laws which govern commerce conducted on US soil? If you are doing business with people in another country, you are subject to that country's laws.
Of course not. Both the American users and Mr. Dicks are guilty of a crime under US law, and in both cases, breaking US law was a conscious choice. Agreed?
I'm sorry, but your post doesn't conform to the prevailing anti-American meme that has taken hold of Slashdot. Never mind that you are correct. Please surrender your username and password.
Nobody forced Mr. Dicks to sell services to American citizens. But by conducting business with American citizens on American soil, he was subject to American laws. If that doesn't suit him, then he can simply opt out of the US market. I sell software in several countries, and I believe the governments of those countries would not be amused if I claimed my dealings with their citizens were immune from their laws.
Excellent, feel free to stay in Canada where your freedoms are protected. Well, except your freedom of speech, eh?
Pretty sums up how I feel about the gambling industry.
This is just a ploy by archaeologists to get a slice of the sweet, sweet VC money out there.
In other words, the ends justify the means, and she doesn't regret a damned thing. The arrogance of that woman is breathtaking.
Actually, the United States provides an enormous amount of public goods to the rest of the world. Much of it goes unrecognized these days for obvious and not-so-obvious reasons.
Begun, this clone BBQ has.
Would Dreamworks have fired office staff if they had been talking about downloading a hot new Dreamworks movie via BitTorrent like "Over the Hedge"?
I'd fire anyone at any company for watching "Over the Hedge."
But let's clarify the points being made in response to this story, points which the grandparent poster was inaccurately deriding as "America bashing": online flashcrowd style bullying is a major threat to America because we are just as vulnerable as the South Koreans are, to this problem.
Erm... had I wanted to address those other responses, I would have responded to them.